Plato vs. Aristotle
Plato and Aristotle, two philosophers in the 4th century, hold polar views on politics and philosophy in general. This fact is very cleverly illustrated by Raphael's "School of Athens" (1510-11; Stanza della Segnatura,
Vatican), where Plato is portrayed looking up to the higher forms; and Aristotle is pointing down because he supports the natural sciences. In a discussion of politics, the stand point of each philosopher becomes an essential factor. It is not coincidental that Plato states in The Republic that Philosopher Rulers who possess knowledge of the good should be the governors in a city state. His strong interest in metaphysics is demonstrated in The Republic various times: for example, the similes of the cave, the sun, and the line, and his theory of the forms. Because he is so involved in metaphysics, his views on politics are more theoretical as opposed to actual. Aristotle, contrarily, holds the view that politics is the art of ruling and being ruled in turn. In The Politics, he attempts to outline a way of governing that would be ideal for an actual state. Balance is a main word in discussing Aristotle because he believes it is the necessary element to creating a stable government. His less metaphysical approach to politics makes Aristotle more in tune with the modern world, yet he is far from modern.
Plato's concept of what politics and government should be is a direct result of his belief in the theory of forms. The theory of forms basically states that there is a higher "form" for everything that exists in the world.
Each material thing is simply a representation of the real thing which is the form. According to Plato, most people cannot see the forms, they only see their representation or their shadows, as in the simile of the cave. Only those who love knowledge and contemplate on the reality of things will achieve understanding of the forms. Philosophers, who by definition are knowledge lovers, are the only beings who can reach true knowledge. This concept has to be taken a step further because in The Republic, Plato states that philosophers should be the rulers since they are the only ones who hold the form of the good.
Plato seems to be saying that it is not enough to know the forms of tables or trees, one must know the greatest form--form of the good--in order to rule. The reasoning is: if you know the good, then you will do the good. Therefore, philosopher rulers are by far the most apt to rule.
In The Republic, Plato builds around the idea of Philosopher Rulers.
...hold absolute power but is equally controlled by the actions of the people as they are considered to be a servant for the people.
In Edgar Allan Poe’s “Hop Frog” and “Cask of Amontillado” there are comparable elements of Gothic literature. The two main ones are sounds and an isolated protagonist. In “Cask of Amontillado” the main character is speaking to his victim and says “You are a man to be missed, as I once was” (Poe). This is saying that no one cares about him. In “Hop Frog” the main character is a dwarf who didn’t walk normal. A manifestation of this from the text says, “In fact, Hop-Frog could only get along by a sort of interjectional gait -- something between a leap and a wriggle -- a movement that afforded illimitable amusement..” (Poe). Because of his disability, he was laughed at and considered anomalous. The other element is sound. In both
In The Republic by Plato, Plato constructed an ideal city where Philosophers would rule. Governed by an aristocratic form of government, it took away some of the most basic rights a normal citizen should deserve, freedom of choice, worship, and assembly were distressed. Though the idea of philosopher kings is good on paper, fundamental flaws of the human kind even described by Plato himself prevent it from being truly successful. The idea of an ideal democratic government like what our founding fathers had envisioned is the most successful and best political form which will ensure individual freedom and keep power struggle to a minimum.
Well, like Plato, again, I favor the concept of having a philosopher-king has a ruler. Like Plato describes, a philosopher-king will be best able to make decisions for the people, without outside influence get in the way of making them. When leaders become too caught up in trying to make everyone happy, I believe they lose their power to truly be effect at doing what is best for the whole. It is not the job of the ruler to impose his own beliefs upon his people, but rather do his best to maintain the best quality of life the states can give to its people. Multiple people with potential should be chosen, as prescribed in my system of aiding children to find their best suited job, and then from that pool only the best can be chosen to be the philosopher-king. The rest, shall be placed on a position on the court, for you would also want a person who is unbiased to give the best verdict over a case. Another court power, is that they will serve as a check over the philosopher-king to make sure the philosopher-kings stays true to his impartiality when making decisions, and retain the ability to make the best decision for all. Also, in this system that court will be the ones, being an uninfluenced body, to place children in their best career. In continuation, the only area of government which shall remain in the selection of the people, and the legislature,
The first degree of belief are physical objects, as the second degree of belief are shadows and images of the physical objects. In the last book, Plato criticizes poetry and the fine arts. Plato feels that art is merely the imitation of the imitation of reality, and that poetry corrupts the soul. Socrates says that artists merely create things. As an example, if a painter draws a couch on his canvas, he is creating a couch. But the couch he creates is not the real couch, it is nothing but a copy of an ordinary, physical couch which was created by a craftsman. But the ordinary, physical couch is nothing more than an imperfect copy, or image of the Form of Couch. So, the couch on the canvas is nothing but a copy of a copy of the real couch and is therefore three times removed from reality. Socrates then goes on to explain that an artist's knowledge is also third-rate. If an artist is painting a picture of a table, for example, he is copying a table that has been manufactured by a furniture-maker, and this furniture-maker has more knowledge of the table than the painter does. But there is someone who has ever more knowledge about the table, the person who wants to have the table made. He is the one who gives the furniture-maker instructions to follow when making the table, according to its purpose for the buyer. So, the buyer of the table knows more about the table than the furniture-maker, and the furniture-maker knows more about the table than the painter.
Plato’s ideal ruler must have a good mind, always be truthful, have knowledge and discipline, and not be afraid of death. In short, the ruler is a philosopher that satisfies the four virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation/self-control, and justice. Plato, nonetheless neglects the fact that everyone sins and fails to mention it in the ideal state or ruler. However, the state and ruler was made up mainly to better understand the meaning of justice and was not made up so that it might be practiced.
The story Hop Frog by Edgar Allen Poe is about power and the act of revenge. Poe takes his time in the beginning of the story to establish Hope-Frog’s” character. The readers are informed that Hop-Frog was born a dwarf, and exploited by the king because of his abnormality. By opening with Hop-Frog’s appearance Poe is evoking sympathy from the readers for the main character. Poe compares Hop- Frog appearance to “resembling a squirrel or a small monkey rather than a frog” (2). The act of de-familiarizing the character justifies the King’s action of ridiculing and humiliating Hope- Frog because he was seen as less of a man. The tyrannical ways of the King ultimately drives Hop-Frog to seek revenge for Trippetta, his friend and himself. Despite
In each story Poe introduces the characters weaknesses and strengths establishing the protagonist's fear of being overshadowed by the father figure's power. In "Metzengerstein", Poe points out that Metzengerstein is of an older family, younger, and wealthier than Berlifitzing, but isn't the superior character. Berlifitzing is the superior character because he's older, of a higher rank, (count), and able to look down "into the very windows of the palace Metzengerstein." In "The Tell Tale Heart" Poe makes the wealthy, old man the superior character by symbolizing his eye as authority constantly watching over the servant or tenet, (the inferior character). In "Hop Frog", the writer makes Hop Frog the inferior character by pointing out his defects and constraints. Hop Frog is a crippled dwarf who is held captive by the King and forced to be his fool. Unlike the other stories Hop Frog has an accomplice Trippetta, which is also a dwarf, held captive by the king. The King is of course the father figure because of his power, riches, and "large corpulent" body.
Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes’ Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler’s powers.
Plato vs. Aristotle How do we explain the world around us? How can we get to the truth? Plato and Aristotle began the quest to find the answers thousands of years ago. Amazingly, all of philosophy since that time can be described as only a rehashing of the original argument between Plato and Aristotle. Plato and Aristotle's doctrines contrast in the concepts of reality, knowledge at birth, and the mechanism to find the truth.
The word Philosophy comes from the Greek words of ‘philo’ meaning love and ‘sophos’ meaning wisdom (Philosophy). It is the pursuit for wisdom, to comprehend human behavior, nature and ultimately the meaning of life. Plato was the student of Socrates, influenced by his work, Plato aged to become a great philosopher himself; establishing his philosophy from that of his teacher. Aristotle was the student of Plato, and like his teacher, grew up to ground his philosophy from that of Plato. Although, both Plato and Aristotle criticized their teacher’s works, they were also influenced by them. Both Plato and Aristotle developed their own modes of knowledge acquisition; Plato’s Platonic Idealism and Aristotle’s Analytic Empiricism. In this paper, my objective is to identify the differences in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, which lead to the development of two contradictory modes of knowledge acquisition and their influence on succeeding thinkers.
The Republic is the most important dialogue within Plato's teaching of politics. It deals with the soul, which, as we know from the beginning, at the level where one must make choices and decide what one wants to become in this life, and it describes justice as the ultimate form of human, and the ideal one should strive for both in life and in state. Justice as understood by Plato is not merely a social virtue, having only to do with relationship between people, but virtue that makes it possible for one to build their own regime and reach happiness.
Plato’s thoughts about power and reason are much different than Aristotle. Plato looked at the meaning of justice and different types of governments. Plato looked into four different types of governments
A single example of the importance of a strong and competent ruler or government – as well
... state. In Plato's argument for the ideal state, the fundamental bonds which hold together his republic are unity and harmony. He explains how the just state is held together by the unity of each individual in each social class, and harmony between all three social classes. Plato explains how the ideal state must have citizens who are united in their goals. It is not the happiness of the individual but rather the happiness of the whole which keeps the just state ideal. At the same time, Plato argues that there must be harmony within the individual souls which make up the state. The lack of unity and harmony leads to despotism through anarchy which eventually arises within a democracy. Plato makes a clear argument, through The Republic, that without the unity and harmony of the individual and the state there can be no order and therefore there can be no ideal state.