Introduction:
Idealists throughout the ages have proposed formulas to solve the problems of societies. These characters in their eagerness to design a harmonized society where all people have their basic needs covered. Many times they have ignored the individual right of people to decide for their future and had their aspirations. These goals of individuals should not be tied to a leader's ambition to achieve a political goal. In this book, we visualize how Socrates was seduced by the idea of formulating a city where there was harmony between social classes. Socrates envisions a healthy state city supported by a government that distributes resources in the justest way. To protect the city, Socrates says that certain citizens should be lied
…show more content…
It could be inferred that Socrates analyzed that the guards already had privileges to have the strength and that their ranks would come to the leaders of the city, then they should be excluded so that they did not become tyrants and their commanders did not manipulate their subalterns to Their political convenience and particular interests. Keeping them separate from their individual interests would grant them neutrality over the benefit of the state as well as a favor of other …show more content…
Although in its essence Socrates Greatly limits the individual rights of some citizens especially to the guardians does it with a definite purpose of not giving them advantages over other citizens since it considers that the guardians are exceptional people who must be sacrificed for the common interest.
Many southern European countries were inspired by these ideas of suspending members of the Armed Forces individual and civil rights. For example, France in its Third Republic did not allow the military to exercise suffrage; this example was imitated by many governments in Latin America, Asia, Africa and Europe. Where it was argued that military leaders could influence ballot to their subordinates, the Weak argument is baseless since the members of the electoral councils exercise the suffrage and do not have the capacity to influence since the vote is free and secret. We understand that the security forces, as well as the defense forces, are more than ever trained and properly educated in their citizens' rights. We consider that restricting the rights contained in the declaration of human rights is a dangerous exclusion of rights; we would like to conclude by arguing that one of the Three countries of the American continent
In his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe in, and practice it. I shall further argue that Plato establishes that the metaphorical bridge between the city and soul analogy and reality is the leader, and that in the city governed by justice the philosopher is king.
I disagree with his views on censorship, having assigned positions in society, his views on democracy, and that art cannot be a respectable occupation. In books II and III Socrates argues that much of epic poetry that contains false statements about the gods and other immoral subjects should be removed from their city. If the education of the citizens were to be censored in this way, they would not properly be able to learn the divisions between the moral and immoral (just and unjust). In this sense the people may wish to explore what is being censored more than if it were not, and subsequently lead to injustice.
For these two articles that we read in Crito and Apology by Plato, we could know Socrates is an enduring person with imagination, because he presents us with a mass of contradictions: Most eloquent men, yet he never wrote a word; ugliest yet most profoundly attractive; ignorant yet wise; wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. Behind these conundrums is a contradiction less often explored: Socrates is at once the most Athenian, most local, citizenly, and patriotic of philosophers; and yet the most self-regarding of Athenians. Exploring that contradiction, between Socrates the loyal Athenian citizen and Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society, will help to position Plato's Socrates in an Athenian legal and historical context; it allows us to reunite Socrates the literary character and Athens the democratic city that tried and executed him. Moreover, those help us to understand Plato¡¦s presentation of the strange legal and ethical drama.
The people in Athens are still respect him, that is why they will treat him seriously and put him in jail. Drifting away the idea of justice, Socrates’s idea challenges the society. Each society has its limit to tolerate, the behavior of Socrates provoke the authority of Athens openly. In this case, Socrates die for the insistence of his own
Plato defines Athens as a democratic society that “treats all men as equal, whether they are equal or not.” Therefore, believes that there are those that are born to rule and others that are born to be ruled. Plato presents the argument that democracy does not achieve the greatest good, giving four main objections to democracy. Firstly, he identifies that most of us are ruled by passions, pleasure, sentiment and impulse. Hence, th...
The work also disputes Socrates idea of the democracy of the juries of Athens, which he sees as corrupt and laden by tyranny (Brainerd 21). This view of tyranny can be said to be the narrow-mindedness of the jury, which condemned him to death without fully exploring his defense. Despite the applaud, Plato gets by simply not carrying the philosophy of his teacher with him, but to create his own political though makes Socrates teachings almost complete. A student cannot live in the shadow of his master all along, and Plato is dismembering himself from complete interruption by Socrates teaching seals the fate of Socrates aims, free thought and free
I totally agree that Socrates found it important to research about life’s morality and not just think the same way others do. That is a way of proving the knowledge of men. Ones sitting quiet in the corner usually have more knowledge than others that talk so much about what they know. Many men with a high position in life do not always have the most knowledge.
Socrates political, moral and social obligations are linked to a theory called the Social Contract Theory. The overall intent of the social contract is meant to enhance the society we live in and promotes a sound, balanced, law abiding society. Socrates illustrates to Crito, that he must accept his punishment administered to him by Athens law. Furthermore, he exemplifies that the laws he has obeyed his entire life, allowed him to thrive within Athens (Friend). He indicates that he made a conscious decision, when he reached the age of maturity, he would reside in Athens. He was fully aware of the laws and how the Athenian government handled justice. Although, the social contract is not signed legal binding contract, Socrates feels fully obligated
Socrates describe his role in Athens being gadfly since according to him he is given to the Athens state by God. His work is to persuade, arouse, and reproach the Athenians. Since there is no other like him, he should be spared. In the light of Socrates, who claims “the unexamined life is not worth living” usually is because the greatest good of the man is their daily converse about virtue. That is why the Socrates keeps examining himself and others.
Plato states that as the just city (i.e. an aristocratic society) develops, it will inadvertently fall into depravity, because despite the excellent constitutions of its wise leaders, they are still fallible human beings. He outlines four distinct forms of government—of which he considers to be depraved—that the just city will transform into, with each one being worse than its predecessors. The four systems, which are ordered by their appearances in the line of succession, are: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and finally tyranny. The focus of this essay will be on Plato’s criticisms of democracy. Since democracy is recognized and practiced by most of modern western societies, it is especially relevant and important to examine whether this model
In Plato’s republic, a philosophical account on the kallipolis (the beautiful city) is built on the perspective of Socrates and his discussion between his companions. In the republic, the city in which ones live in depends on the soul and the character of the city one lives in. In this paper the character of human nature and politics will be discussed in how a city is ought to be by the influence of human nature and politics. Firstly, the influence of human nature on politics will be looked at, for example according to Plato on behalf of Socrates; he claims that a just soul creates a just society, where it is human nature to be just, that influences in creating a just political system. Secondly, politics influences human nature, where in the republic when the discussion of guardians starts out between Socrates and the companions, there is political thought discussed between them, where Socrates wants to create the perfect guardians through specific training in all types of skills instituted to creating a perfect protector. Lastly, human nature is human soul if the soul is just the city is going to be just. It is the human nature which has created communities without any political thought put in place; it political thought that forms rules and laws. Thus, human nature is part of the individual understanding of its society that creates an understanding of how one ought to be, which in turns creates rules and laws that is essentially viewed as politics.
It takes one person to begin expanding a thought, eventually dilating over a city, gaining power through perceived power. This is why Socrates would be able to eventually benefit everyone, those indifferent to philosophy, criminals, and even those who do not like him. Socrates, through his knowledge of self, was able to understand others. He was emotionally intelligent, and this enabled him to live as a “gadfly,” speaking out of curiosity and asking honest questions. For someone who possesses this emotional intelligence, a conversation with Socrates should not have been an issue-people such as Crito, Nicostratus, and Plato who he calls out during his speech. (37) The problem is that many of the citizens of Athens who wanted Socrates dead, lacked that emotional intelligence and thought highly of themselves. So of course they become defensive when Socrates sheds light on the idea that they may be wrong. As someone who cared most about the improvement of the soul, Socrates would have made a constructive role model to the criminals of Athens, as he would go on saying, “virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man…”(35) Socrates was able to benefit everyone alike as he had human wisdom- something that all the Athenians could relate
Socrates describes his role in Athens as being a gadfly, an individual who challenges the status quo through posing novel questions. The prevailing situation in Athens then was people being involved in public affairs and politics, but Socrates decides to challenge this state of affairs by remaining largely aloof from the political arena and public affair. Instead, he prefers to interact with other people at a more individual level than being public. His actions, he notes, arise from a supernatural sign or an inner voice dissuading him from being involved on public issues (Plato). He claims at two occasions he almost died for being brave when he challenged public authorities over justice. He makes sense that an unexamined life is not worth living since one may not survive for long with such a life.
The Republic is an examination of the "Good Life"; the harmony reached by applying pure reason and justice. The ideas and arguments of Plato center on the social settings of an ideal republic - those that lead each person to the most perfect possible life for him. Socrates was Plato's early mentor in real life. As a tribute to his teacher, Plato uses Socrates in several of his works and dialogues. Socrates moderates the discussion throughout, as Plato's mouthpiece. Through Socrates' powerful and brilliant questions and explanations on a series of topics, the reader comes to understand what Plato's model society would look like. The basic plan of the Republic is to draw an analogy between the operation of society as a whole and the life of any individual human being. In this paper I will present Plato’s argument that the soul is divides into three parts. I will examine what these parts are, and I will also explain his arguments behind this conclusion. Finally, I will describe how Plato relates the three parts of the soul to a city the different social classes within that city.
In Plato’s Republic, the main argument is dedicated to answering Glaucon and Adeimantus, who question the reason for just behavior. They argue it is against one’s self-interest to be just, but Plato believes the behavior is in fact in one’s self-interest because justice is inherently good. Plato tries to prove this through his depiction of an ideal city, which he builds from the ground up, and ultimately concludes that justice requires the philosopher to perform the task of ruling. Since the overall argument is that justice pays, it follows that it would be in the philosopher’s self-interest to rule – however, Plato also states that whenever people with political power believe they benefit from ruling, a good government is impossible. Thus, those who rule regard the task of ruling as not in their self-interest, but something intrinsically evil. This is where Plato’s argument that justice is in one’s self-interest is disturbed. This paper will discuss the idea that justice is not in one’s self-interest, and thus does not pay.