It is a well-known fact that Plato’s Republic is one of the most influential works in philosophy and political theory. Despite its importance and the fact that Plato offers a state in which there are justice, good and wisdom, his state was criticized as “anti-democratic, anti-humanitarian, anti-individualistic, and totalitarian” (1). In this essay I will try to answer questions whether Republic could be characterized as an authoritarian society without freedom and which Plato’s arguments evokes criticism by exploring Plato’s concepts of state, justice, philosophy and politics.
To begin with, the state, according to Plato, arises from the natural need of people to unite in order to facilitate the conditions of their existence. In developing the concept of an ideal state, Plato proceeds from the correspondence between the cosmos, the state and a separate human soul listing the four qualities necessary in the State: wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. In my opinion, Plato 's tripartite theory of soul connected with three similar origins of the state: deliberative, defensive and business or, in other words, with philosophers-rulers, defending guardians and producers (artisans and farmers). The state, according to Plato, can be considered fair only if each of his three estates do only their prescribed work and does not interfere in the affairs of others. Also, Plato contrasts his model of the ideal state (which is aristocracy) with four forms of state organization -
the Republic, Socrates argues that justice ought to be valued both for its own sake and for the sake of its consequences (358a1–3). His interlocutors Glaucon and Adeimantus have reported a number of arguments to the effect that the value of justice lies purely in the rewards and reputation that are the usual consequence of being seen to be just, and have asked Socrates to say what justice is and to show that justice is always intrinsically better than is acting contrary to justice when doing so would win you more non-moral goods. Glaucon presents these arguments as renewing Thrasymachus’ Book 1 position that justice is “another’s good” (358b–c, cf. 343c), which Thrasymachus had associated with the claim that the rulers in any constitution frame
Plato's Republic is centered on one simple question: is it always better to be just than unjust? This is something that Socrates addresses both in terms of political communities and the individual person. Plato argues that being just is advantageous to the individual independent of any societal benefits that the individual may incur in virtue of being just. I feel as if Plato’s argument is problematic. There are not enough compelling reasons to make this argument.
Plato 's kallipolis is not a totalitarian nightmare, but it does call into light the striking differences between the common conception that democracy is the best system. Plato created his city to be based around the idea of a just city. Some people may view a system that is perfectly just as a negative thing as it would affect their ability to be unjust and take advantage of other people. Plato proselytized the fact that people have always wanted to be able to have more and that there is a pit of greed in some men. Plato had a system to remove these temptations from the civilians of the society.
While some, like Plato in his The Republic, thought it weak to give government into the hands of the common people, Pericles countered this argument with a compelling argument of greatness. By putting government into the hands of the people, the people are united and more devoted to their country. Democracy bonds the people together in a way that no other government can understand. Pericles confidently states, “Athenians advance unsupported into the territory of a neighbor, and fighting upon a foreign soil usually vanquish with ease men who are defending their homes.”
Plato and Machiavelli were nevertheless, as similar as they were different on their beliefs in an idealistic government. Both of their ideas have been taught for years, and are certainly essential to understand how they interpret a perfect polis. Plato emphasis the question on what is justice for the people as well as for the Kallipolis and whether a just person is better off than an unjust person. Ethical beliefs are Plato’s main focus in a government.
According to Socrates perspective, the democracy of Athens was corrupt and even though they courts were made in such a way that everyone was judged fairly, it wasn’t such because there were no rules or principles set forth. When a person was brought to court in the Athenian court and the person spoke against the jurors or offended them, he or she could be prosecuted based on that. In summary, judgment was passed based on emotion rather than on justice. In the Apology, Socrates stated, “my present request seems a just one, for you to pay no attention to my manner of speech-
What is justice? This is the crucial question that Plato attempts to answer in his dialogue, The Republic. He conjures up an allegory that justice can be found in a person, and a person can represent a city. Thus, his entire dialogue focuses on this ‘just’ city and the mechanics of how the city would operate. His dialogue covers a myriad of topics about justice in addition to the human soul, politics, goodness and truth.
In the conclusion of this paper, I will have illustrated that Plato’s government view is more valid than of Locke’s. In Book II of Plato’s Republic, Plato describes a just city to look at the concepts of political justice. He refers to this city as Kallipolis. A just city is that of which everyone develops a skill based off of their innate abilities.
1 INTRODUCTION Power and authority are the most important aspects of politics as such way of thinking comes a long way from the earliest thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle to mention few. They are the fundamental features of state in politics, focusing on who should have the power and authority over the people and who should rule them. During the time prior and after the birth of states, political authority has always been a major concern with regards to who should rule and how and who shouldn’t. Therefore this issues need to be addressed in a way that will at the end benefit the society. Plato is the thinker or theorist who came with addressing who should rule in a political environment in what Plato outlined that only Philosophers should rule.
The concept of the Noble Lie is presented by Plato in the Republic. In Republic, Plato is engaged in creating an ideal political community, through the noble lie. The Noble Lie, ironically, despite being a lie, is still recognized as ‘noble’ by Plato since it aims to promote social welfare and harmony amongst the citizens. Plato’s idea of the noble lie led to the division of citizens into three distinct categories, namely, the rulers, the auxiliaries and the workmen . This paper will argue that Socrates principle of the Noble Lie must be considered justifiable under circumstances in which it intends to achieve moral ends.
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates comes to the conclusion that we need to have a strong just society that is in the right order. In Books IV, V, and VI, Socrates explains that every society needs to be built on justice, everyone needs to have an occupation, and what a male and female household should look like. These are my prerequisites to what I consider essential to create a just society. Because without these qualities in an established society, you can hurt an entire civilization. And to Socrates argument, with an ideal king will come forms of co-operated citizens of a city.
Pericles ' viewpoint is nevertheless argued in The Republic, juxtaposing the qualifications of the ruling power and their competence versus the incapability of the general public to foster such a magnitude of power. Using "Socrates" as a fictional protagonist, Plato critiques democracy in The Republic. Through this protagonist, he reflects on the value of merits such as ‘justice, ' that are prevalent in the configuration of society as a whole and in the character of an individual being. He condemns societal democracy due to its foremost features such as freedom and equality. Although freedom is of utmost value to Plato, he is of the faith that freedom concocted with such a form of governance may run the risk of chaotic mobocracy.
Heraclitus Heraclitus is a Greek philosopher of which not much is known beyond his works. What we do know is that he lived in Ephesus, a city on the Ionian coast of Asia Minor, and that his character has largely been inferred from his writings on philosophical issues. Two philosophical theories come to mind when the name Heraclitus is mentioned: The Doctrine of Flux and the Unity of Opposites. In his espousal of these theories he managed to draw the ire of many -- even Aristotle and Plato, who believed that his hypothesis of the world was one of logical incoherence.
Joseph Daunis Three Classes and the Soul In Book IV of Plato’s The Republic, Socrates draws a comparison between the classes evident in their fictional city to the human soul. Socrates clearly defines the three forms he finds in the city as being the appetites of mankind, or in other words, all human desires, such as pleasure, comforts, and physical satisfaction. The second form discussed by Socrates is the spirit or the component of the soul which deals with anger and perceptions of injustice. The third and final form is the mind or reason, which analyzes and rationally weighs options and solutions to problems. Socrates compares these three forms of the soul to the three classes in the city: producers, auxiliaries, and guardians.
This logically leads to debates of human countryside, the success of knowledge, the distinction between presence and realism, the components of an real education, and the basics of principles. The republic is a Socratic discussion, inscribed by Plato around 380 BC. It is a 4 volume book. Plato 's advanced philosophical opinions appears in The Republic.