Plato's Republic centers on a simple question: is it always better to be just than unjust? The Republic sustains reflections on political questions, as well. Not that ethics and politics exhaust the concerns of the Republic.
In the Republic Plato compares the nature of the human individual to the members of a state. He thinks we are complex individuals, with more than one part in our souls. These parts can either cooperate or just be harmful to each other. Just so in the state there are different classes of people with strengths and interests in different areas. Those classes may be in conflict, and the state in an unhealthy condition of disagreement or they may cooperate for the good of the whole. If they do cooperate with each other it benefits the overall society.
Plato is serious in his suggestions about the human personality. No one doubts that we are likely to be happy if we didn’t second guess ourselves or go against our better judgement at times and make bad decisions. Plato also holds that our life is finest and best when we realize how far we can take our minds and take advantage of this. Unfortunately, this only happens in a person that has their life well together and is very secure with themselves.
Like other ancient philosophers, Plato maintains a virtue-based conception of ethics. Someones self worth is related to their morals and their morals come from what they take value in. If Plato's conception of happiness is elusive and his support for a morality of happiness seem depressing there are reasons for this. His conception of happiness differs vastly from most people. In Plato’s early works, his approach is largely negative: “Socratic questioning seems designed to undermine the traditional values rather than...
... middle of paper ...
...ough Plato believes he is creating a just society, he is not creating a free one. Without freedom of any kind, it is definite that at least several people will develop a defiant nature and revolt. A great flaw in Plato's republic is the absence of back up plans for a revolution from the people.
I do not believe that Plato has created a just state with his method of three distinct social classes. The lengths the guardians of the society must go through to reach the ideal end are drastic immoral. Plato's plan to strictly manipulate children's education and development as well as his plan to hold festivals as a means of reproduction are unethical an improbably successful. By eliminating the free will of people in a society, the citizens become no more than puppets pulled by the ruler's desires. I believe Plato's republic is deeply flawed and would most certainly fail.
In Plato’s The Republic, he unravels the definition of justice. Plato believed that a ruler could not be wholly just unless one was in a society that was also just. Plato did not believe in democracy, because it was democracy that killed Socrates, his beloved teacher who was a just man and a philosopher. He believed in Guardians, or philosophers/rulers that ruled the state. One must examine what it means for a state to be just and what it means for a person to be just to truly understand the meaning of justice. According to Socrates, “…if we first tried to observe justice in some larger thing that possessed it, this would make it easier to observe in a single individual. We agreed that this larger thing is a city…(Plato 96).” It is evident, therefore, that the state and the ruler described in The Republic by Plato are clearly parallel to one another.
Plato is clearly not a supporter of democracy in society. He believes that censorship in education is necessary in order to have a successful society. He says that training the mind should hold precedence over training the body. Stories that are not true and represent gods in an unflattering light should be banned for the young. Although these stories may be allegorical, children cannot distinguish what is allegorical and what is not. He believes that if children never hear stories of quarrels, that they will go on to believe that being quarrelsome is a sin. Fictional stories of atrocities done to gods and others, he believes, should not be allowed for the young. His last statement is about God being the cause, not of everything, but only of what is
Although these questions remain somewhat rhetorical, their answers can be conceived by referring to the principles in Plato's Republic. The concepts brought about in the Republic seem to relate directly to events and people that lived before the completion of this book. Moreover, those events and people exemplify the various aspects of education, justice, and democracy that Plato articulates through his character Socrates. A question that plagues many historians today is that if Plato had written the Republic before these events occurred, would they have taken the same course?
Plato’s Republic is a dialogue set in Athens, which at the time of documentation was the center of the democratic world. Despite the city’s knowledge and construction of political structures ahead of its time, the main question addressed in the Republic is that of justice. What is justice, and why should we want to be just? Many competing thoughts are outlined within the Republic, notably that of a Sophist named Thrasymachus, who stated that justice is “nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (Plato, p. 15, 5c). Socrates, the main philosopher in this dialogue who claims that he “knows nothing” (Plato, p. 35, 354c) disagrees with Thrasymachus and spends the entire book trying to disprove the argument that the unjust person
The second book of the Republic shows the repressive quality of Plato’s society. Plato, talking through Socrates, wants
In The Republic, Plato discusses how the formation of societies comes from the natural weakness of humans. Plato firmly believes in a hierarchal system within a state. There are distinct classes, which need a government to keep them in check. There are class distinctions, and privileges justified by lies. These privileges and lies are to avoid alienation within the state. If there was no form of sovereignty the guardians, who are the upper class citizens, would go after all their wants and desires freely. This would cause pandemonium and violence within the state. Plato states that, “a city whose future rulers are least eager to rule will necessarily be the best governed and freest from strife, and the one with opposite rulers the worst” (520d). By this Plato means that the people who should keep the social classes in check and rule over the state should be people who are not interested in power, ruling over others, self-gain, or self-promotion. Plato says, "to become a good guardian, a man must be by nature fast, strong, and a spirited philosopher" (Plato 376e). He believes the people he describes as best suited to rule would be philosophers; this is due to their ability to stop and rationally access a citation with a nonpartisan view. The philosopher guardians would be capable of counter balancing the greed of the citizens of the state. Plato s...
During the time period of The Republic, the problems and challenges that each community was faced with were all dealt with in a different way. In the world today, a lot of people care about themselves. For many people, the word justice can mean many different things, but because some only look out for themselves, many of these people do not think about everyone else’s role in the world of society. The struggle for justice is still demonstrated in contemporary culture today. One particular concept from Plato’s The Republic, which relates to contemporary culture is this concept of justice. In the beginning of The Republic, Socrates listeners, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, ask Socrates whether justice is stronger than injustice, and
Plato's Republic is widely regarded as a masterpiece of social and political philosophies. He believed that all men were not created equal, but not in the physical sense that history has shown. He meant intellectually. When referring to democracy, he looks upon it as something that would result in tyranny and chaos. "Tyranny by the poor," is why he believed that an aristocracy would be a better ruling tool than a democracy (Plato, B.C.). He criticized democracy as a way for which anarchy to breed and that political equality, as it partially exists now, inevitably leads to democracy. Although I object to the idea that I am not equal to some others, Plato is right in saying that the average citizen should not be trusted with the decision of electing officials in the case that they are not knowledgeable.
... conclusion Plato's idea of the emergence of tyranny from democracy is true. Tyranny evolves from democracy because of the unequal ability to realize desires lawfully present in society. The idle envy the prosperous and invest their support in popular leaders to ensure their well being in other way. The popular leaders do so, and some commit acts of violence and injustice to do so better. This encourages them to commit further acts of violence for both their supporters interests and their own, until they reach a point where they must commit acts of violence purely out of the interest of self preservation. The live in constant fear of the world around then, ironically chained away from the pleasures they pursued by committing acts of tyranny. Democracies possess protection against tyranny chiefly bureaucracy and the ability to keep citizens informed and interested.
Plato views the democratic state as a city “full of freedom and freedom of speech[,]” where its citizens “have the license to do [whatever they] want” and the right to self-determine. Plato however, sees this insatiable desire for freedom at the expense of neglecting everything else as the downfall of democracy. To clarify, a society that is staunchly protective of its equality and freedom will be particularly sensitive towards any oppositions that seem to limit them, to the point where it actively attempts to “avoid [obeying the law and] having any master at all.” Thus, “unless the rulers are very pliable and provide plenty of that freedom, they are punished by the city and accused of being oligarchs.” Since those in power fear the accusations of those being ruled, they become docile and submissive. On the other hand, those who are ruled are encouraged by their rulers’ meekness and, convinced of their inherent right to freedom, begin to behave as their own rulers. Thus, this blind chase for unconditional freedom will propagate disorder across the society, and eventually cause the people to see “anarchy [as] freedom, extravagance [as] magnificence, and shamelessness [as]
Plato goes into detail about what is known as the five regimes. The five regimes can apply to both individuals and societies. The regimes go from orderliness to chaos in this order: aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. On an individual level, a tyrant is someone who essentially grants themselves complete freedom to chase pleasure in abundance, no matter what measures they take to achieve it. This could be a pursuit of money, sex, power, or any other earthly possession that may fill the hole in a man’s heart. And though tyranny can function on a state level, “the nature of pleasure and the principle of tyranny are further analyzed in the individual man” (Plato, location 80). On the other hand, an aristocratic individual is a philosopher, someone with extensive knowledge and selflessness. They are in full control of their desires and they question everything. Aristocrats realize that money, power, and fame are just shadows of the Good, and in order to find true happiness, one must look internally, rather than externally. They know that those ungodly wants just cover up for what they are truly searching for. These individuals with these traits can translate into societies with the same traits, an aristocracy being a society run by a philosopher. An
...n life. However, Plato’s criticisms should be kept in mind when determining the merit of a democratic government. Oh, would it not be great to have a democracy of philosophers, who would pursue truth and wisdom! Alas, we are only human, and susceptible to many evils and lies. The trick is to prevent such ignorant people from becoming the majority. At times, it seems nigh impossible to do so; curse our stupidity!
He writes, for example, that within the framework of a democratic society, young people begin to imitate adults and compete with them in reasoning and in affairs that results in contention between generations. “The forgiving spirit of democracy” is the spirit of slavery since ordinary people become slaves of the part of the population that begins to govern the country by becoming a major political force. Supporters of democracy think that they have a true idea of the correct version of the political regime, but according to Plato, they are far from the truth, since they have no idea of the correct structure of the state. I can say that I agree with Plato 's ideas on democracy and its supporters since in fact, we can observe the phenomenon of injustice and tyranny in many democratic countries. Under the guise of democratic ideals, modern society shows the commitment of the various anti-moral and anti-social phenomena that cannot be regarded as positive. People have become slaves of money and power, and in a society that calls itself ‘democratic’ the power belongs to separate individuals while other people are their slaves although they do not understand this
Plato was a well-known Greek philosopher who created foundational principles on subjects such as government, education, and citizenship. The Republic, arguably one of Plato’s most influential works, is depicted through many dialogues between his fellow philosopher Socrates and other characters who discuss a political theory for a model state. The Republic’s goal strives to demonstrate an ideal city-state must possess and hints at Plato’s ulterior motive to expose Athens as a city in chaos rather than one in order. Plato views on government offers no fondness for democracy due to the fact that he believed not all members of society are capable of making just decisions and succumb to corrupt desires. Instead
... 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.