Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Plato happiness and justice
How do plato perceived self
Plato's republic justice and happiness
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Plato happiness and justice
In Plato 's Republic, Plato argues that those with balanced souls, ruled by reason, are able to keep their unnecessary desires from becoming lawless and extreme. He also believes that human beings have three main parts to their psyche. These include desire (such as appetite), will, and reason. Plato believes that each of these can dominant at different levels in different people. In Book IX, 581c-e, he outlines his second and last arguments. Plato’s second argument distinguishes three types of persons, focusing on the one which is happiest; and his final argument is an analysis of pleasure.
Plato’s argument distinguishes three types of persons, and which of these persons would be the happiest. In the excerpt he begins by asking if the reader
…show more content…
We see Plato solidifying his position on which of the souls three sections needs to be in control for a man to be just, and happy.. In the text it states “And what, said I, are we to suppose the philosopher thinks of the other pleasures compared with the delight of knowing the truth and the reality, and being always occupied with that while he learn?” Meaning, that Plato believes the man of reason and knowledge (such as a philosopher) is the happiest, and will remain as such as he continues to learn, as he understands the difference between the necessary and unnecessary pleasures in life, and will always be occupied with the “delight of knowing the truth and the reality" as Plato states within the text.
In conclusion, the excerpt from the text sees Plato explaining his belief that Reason must be the dominant part of the soul, to ensure a person is at their happiest. As the man of reason pertains not only the ability to understand, and find happiness from the other parts of his soul, but also the ability to keep the unnecessary desires from becoming lawless within his
Plato's philosophy of government sees the State as a larger version of the individual, and the soul of an individual is comprised of three parts. Plato states that these three parts include the appetite, the spirit, and reason (167), and these parts have goals and desires that pertain only to them. For example, reason finds fulfillment in the study ...
Plato’s Republic focuses on one particular question: is it better to be just or unjust? Thrasymachus introduces this question in book I by suggesting that justice is established as an advantage to the stronger, who may act unjustly, so that the weak will “act justly” by serving in their interests. Therefore, he claims that justice is “stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice” (Plato, Republic 344c). Plato begins to argue that injustice is never more profitable to a person than justice and Thrasymachus withdraws from the argument, granting Plato’s response. Glaucon, however, is not satisfied and proposes a challenge to Plato to prove that justice is intrinsically valuable and that living a just life is always superior. This paper will explain Glaucon’s challenge to Plato regarding the value of justice, followed by Plato’s response in which he argues that his theory of justice, explained by three parts of the soul, proves the intrinsic value of justice and that a just life is preeminent. Finally, it will be shown that Plato’s response succeeds in answering Glaucon’s challenge.
For this reason, Plato believes that we must separate the soul based on how it
In Plato’s Republic Book IV, Socrates sets out to convince Glaucon that a person acts with three different parts of the soul, rather than with the soul as a whole. He does this by presenting Glaucon with a variety of situations in which parts of the soul may conflict with one another, and therefore not acting together. Socrates describes the three parts of the soul as the rational part, or that which makes decisions, the appetitive part, or that which desires, and the spirited part, or that which gets angry (436a).
From pursuing pleasure to avoiding pain, life seems to ultimately be about achieving happiness. However, how to define and obtain happiness has and continues to be a widely debated issue. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle gives his view on happiness. Aristotle focuses particularly on how reason, our rational capacity, should help us recognize and pursue what will lead to happiness and the good life.';(Cooley and Powell, 459) He refers to the soul as a part of the human body and what its role is in pursuing true happiness and reaching a desirable end. Aristotle defines good'; as that which everything aims.(Aristotle, 459) Humans have an insatiable need to achieve goodness and eventual happiness. Sometimes the end that people aim for is the activity they perform, and other times the end is something we attempt to achieve by means of that activity. Aristotle claims that there must be some end since everything cannot be means to something else.(Aristotle, 460) In this case, there would be nothing we would try to ultimately achieve and everything would be pointless. An ultimate end exists so that what we aim to achieve is attainable. Some people believe that the highest end is material and obvious (when a person is sick they seek health, and a poor person searches for wealth).
Socrates explains that his goal was not to teach the people of Athens, but to serve them like his mother did. Using his method called “the Socratic method” which is also found in the reading Euthyphro, he defines a good act as something that is good because it has value towards our efforts making us happier and better people rather than the Gods consider it to be a good act. As you can see, the Gods and the higher people from Athens didn’t agree on Socrates views which were the reason for his early death by poison (hemlock) condemned by the upper people of Athens. He stated that happiness was found by putting less attention to the whole body but rather to the soul of one’s body. The goal of his “Socratic method” was to clear the way of knowledge by showing where ignorance was. He was a person open to all knowledge but viewed it in a different way most people would. He admitted to himself being an ignorant person but a person with passion and knowledge to where his views are and where his mindset is. He explained that happiness didn’t involve in someone’s length of life but mostly the quality of someone’s life. For example, Benito Mussolini an Italian politician and creation of fascism, he states “It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep.” I’d have to agree myself that I’d rather live one day as a strong ferocious beast with pride than 100 years being a weak prey not knowing when life can get better. In Socrates views on this he presents an argument as to what happiness is that is as powerful today as when he first discussed it over 2400 years ago. Basically, Socrates is concerned to establish two main points: 1) happiness is what all
Plato does not argue whether it is more moral to live justly, but rather whether it is more beneficial, whether the just life will make one happier.
Plato states being a just person ultimately lead to being a happy person. By giving the definition of what it is to be just, he is giving the definition of what it is to be happy. Plato shows through the definitions of being just he has given us the key to happiness. Through rationality and harmony we can achieve happiness. The definition in its self is a solution to becoming happy. And I thank Plato, for showing me the light.
The nature of the soul is presented to us in an illustration of a story of a charioteer who has two horses to control: one is white and is good and noble, the other is black and frequently goes of course while it succumbs to temptations. This is how Plato describes the soul in three parts: the charioteer represents reason (which guides), the good white horse represents spirit (which animates and drives on towards glory), and the untamed black horse correlates with desire (which motivates). These three are also in competition with each other; however, for happiness to be obtained, a soul needs all three of these compon...
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.
Happiness can be understood as the moral goal of life or can be unpredictable and is something we create from ourselves and by ourselves. The idea of happiness was known as something we nurture on our own and is a state of emotion. Completing our everyday goals will soon bring us happiness, which seems to be very important to most humans and is what makes life worth living, but this is not certain. This conception of Eudemonia was common in ancient Greece as it is currently today. Aristotle had what he thought was an ideal activity for all those who wanted to live life to the fullest, be happy, and have purpose.
However, we can wonder if the pleasures that derive from necessary natural desires are what actually brings us happiness, since having a family, friends, a good job and doing fun things seem to bring the most joy in life. Plato’s ideas on life are even more radical, since he claims that we should completely take difference from our bodily needs. Therefore it seems that we should only do what is necessary for us to stay a life and solely focus on the mind. Although both ways of dealing with (bodily)pleasure are quite radical and almost impossible to achieve, it does questions if current perceptions of ‘living the good life’ actually leads to what we are trying to achieve, which is commonly described as
Throughout Platos Republic, the subject of platonic justice and its goodness to its self arise and are discussed amongst Plato and his peers. At the beginning of The Republic, Plato asks the fundamental question of what is justice? Looking to define the ideal state of justice, Plato reasons that he must first define justice in theory before he can use justice practically. Platonic Justice is defined as being a harmony between the tripartite soul in which reasons guide the spirit and appetite. Justice is said to be good in itself and good in its practical ends. It is educating desires, implementing the human faculty of reason. Justice is not the interest of the stronger, but more the interest of the weaker. An unjust life, which is dominated by the spirit, leads one to an addiction for material goods or possessions. A platonically just life leads to harmony, balance, and virtue. A just life in this case allows attainment of satisfaction where as an unjust life does not. The truly unjust ultimately destroy themselves, whereas the truly just preserve themselves. Wether or not Platonic Justice is good for its own sake is to be determined.
People may say that the “Good Life”, is what you make to be; that in order to have a good life you have to work hard, get and education and be kind to others, others may say that you have to follow the laws given by God and you may have a good life along with a long an peaceful life. While other may just simply go with the flow; for this paper, two excerpts were read The Republic and The Human Search for Meaning which are supposed to bring an understanding on how to achieve the “wealth” of the soul that will allow the readers to experience the “Good life” as Plato and his thinkers.
He believes that the soul takes shelter within the body. The three parts are all located in three different areas: reason is in the mind, spirited is in the heart, and desire is in the stomach. Reason is what controls the whole soul (Plato p. 49). The mind tells the body what to do, how to feel, what to say. The mind controls our appetites and decides who to honor according to memories about those people or events. The spirit is in the heart, the heart is what shows us how we feel about others. The stomach is desire as we crave to have certain possessions such as food or other physical materials in life. If what Plato is saying is any truth, than the argument presented that our soul is our life and our body is nothing but what carries our soul, is therefore false and unsupported by this idea of the mind, heart and stomach. Then so, our thought that Plato’s idea that we can make ourselves alive, is fairly reasonable and true. This is because it is more understandable to say that the reason why our souls are what makes us alive is because our souls are physically made of three parts that control the way we live. Our body is now not only what carries life for us, but what allows us to keep it. Our soul is different from the body because it represents life, but it is our body that allows our lives to