Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What is the Plato criticism on politics
What is the Plato criticism on politics
Plato political theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: What is the Plato criticism on politics
Ancient Political Thought Throughout the Republic it becomes obvious that Plato believes that the best city-state has the highest level of sharing and unity while in the Politics, Aristotle believes that too much unity can deunify a city-state. The "unity" argument is a prime example of Plato’s way of thinking about the nature of a community, and Aristotle’s criticism of this unity gives insight into Aristotle’s way of thinking about his views on the nature of the community. In order to understand Aristotle’s attack on Plato’s "unity," it must be understood that for Aristotle, unity is synonymous with the level of sharing in a community. In Politics II 1, Aristotle begins his assessment by stating that, "We must begin, at the natural starting point of this investigation. For all citizens much share everything, or nothing, or some things but not others" (Pol. 1260b36-39). There are three possibilities in Aristotle’s argument regarding how much citizens should share in common: Nothing, everything, and some things but not others. Similar to Plato’s style of forming an argument, Aristotle states the problem and all the possible outcomes. He then proceeds to disprove two of them, thereby making the last remaining possibility the correct one by means of deduction. Aristotle argues that it would be "evidently impossible" for a community to have nothing in common (1260b39-40). A community’s citizens all share the same location, and they are all organized by a common constitution. Therefore, the first possibility can be ruled out. Aristotle attacks the two remaining possibilities simultaneously. He asks, "is it better for a city-state that is to be well managed to share everything possible? Or is it better to share some things but not others" (1261a2-4)? Plato would argue that it is best for a city-state to share everything, including women and children, with all members of a society. In addressing the remaining possibilities, Aristotle questions if Plato was right in the Republic to assert that "children, women, and property should be communal" in society (1261a6-7), or is having too much unity (sharing) a bad thing. In the Republic, Socrates explains to Adeimantus the importance of having a communist-like society where everything is shared by the community. He states that "If a sound education has made [our children] into reasonable men, they will easily see their way through all these mattes, as well as others which we will pass over for the moment, such as the possession of wives, marriage, and child-bearing, and the principle that here we should follow, as far as possible, the proverb which says that friends have all things in common" (423e-424a).
... against him. With regard to the second objection, Aristotle can begin by accepting that whereas it is indeed true that the parts prior to the whole or the polis - the single associations, respectively - do not contain the virtue for the achievement of eudaimonia in themselves alone, it is through the conjunction of them all that the capacity for this virtue emerges. Indeed, the parts of the city-state are not to be taken distinctively. For instance, whereas five separate individuals alone may not have the capacity to each lift a 900 lbs piano, the five together, nonetheless, can be said to be able to accomplish this. Similarly, it is the city-state with all of its parts that can achieve the good life. In any case, it remains that humankind is essentially political since it fulfills the function of reason, and this function is best performed under the city-state.
The human life on earth on present time is yet to be “vast and harmonious.” Curiosity and sociability are not ceased to exist; but they are with sense of contradictions and social conflicts. It would not be fair to diminish the idea Aristotelian epoch when some parts of it are viable. The ability of understanding on how things work is one of the things that humans are trying to achieve, and is getting better at it every day, but without conflicts, there would not be anything to solve. Before every single problem in this earth is solved, the harmony that Aristotle desire for human kind would not be as near as it could be.
Aristotle purposed his theory through a way of stating how political community is best of all for
One of Plato's goals in The Republic, as he defines the Just City, is to illustrate what kind of leader and government could bring about the downfall of his ideal society. To prevent pride and greed in leaders would ensure that they would not compromise the well being of the city to obtain monetary gains or to obtain more power. If this state of affairs becomes firmly rooted in the society, the fall to Tyranny begins. This is the most dangerous state that the City become on i...
The. The "Aristotle". Home Page English 112 VCCS Litonline. Web. The Web.
Jowett, B. (2009) ‘Politics by Aristotle, 350 B.C.E’, Classics, 2009 [On-line], http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.2.two.html (Accessed 9 December 2013).
...ct city consists of everyone feeling equal to one another from birth to present. Plato thinks a just city is formed on the beliefs that everyone is forced into specific factions and told who to unify with, despite the persons personal beliefs. Plato's views on a "just city" were to far fetched and had a very similar ideology to communism. Aristotle even agreed that taking away private property was a bad idea because it "takes away the incentive to work hard" (Aristotle, ppt9).
The reason that unreasonable restrictions on the individual's interests cannot be entirely ignored is that human nature doesn't allow for such selflessness. Since that is so, citizens will not allow for common good to exist in a society if it as the expense of their interests. However, small restrictions can be readily accepted it they believe that such impositions actually affords them the safety and opportunity to nurture their interests. For example, the property owner will gladly pay taxes to the government for the common good if they believe that the government will protect them those who would steal their land. In Aristotle's critic of Plato, Aristotle points out that humans cannot learn what the common good and what their proper role in society is without having individual interests. For example, Aristotle pokes holes in Plato's position that philosophers should not possess personal property as irrational as it does not take into consideration that property ownership "contributes to the overall rational structure of society and thus to people's happiness," which is a requirement before the common good can be realized. Aristotle's criticism of Plato hinges on the presupposition that personal happiness must exist before civic virtue can. Accordingly, family, friendship, and personal property are "needed in order to enable individuals to feel that their lives have value, and both are necessary dimensions of a well-organized polis that secures a sense of communal solidarity among diverse people" (DeLue 54).
Throughout The Republic, Plato constructs an ideal community in the hopes of ultimately finding a just man. However, because Plato’s tenets focus almost exclusively on the community as a whole rather than the individual, he neglects to find a just man. For example, through Socrates, Plato comments, “our aim in founding the
In The Republic, Plato strives to display through the character and conversations of Socrates that justice is better than just the proper good for which men must strive for, regardless of whether they could receive equal benefit from choosing otherwise. His method is to use the dialogue from Socrates, questions which led the reader from one point to another, supposedly with convincing logic by obtaining agreement to each point before proceeding to the next, and so constructing an intriguing argument.
In conclusion, Plato draws all the elements of his perfect city-state and started it by the kings. Those kings have to understand the good, because all the achievements of society will rely on them. Therefore all the evidence and Plato’s information of philosopher king will be useful for uniting people.
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
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.
Aristotle believes the amount of friends should be limited because a real friendship requires time. In battle, Plato agrees that if the enemy is also Greek, then precautions should be taken with regards to land, and killing, however if the enemy is not Greek, then there are no boundaries. Plato believes that knowing what is right will automatically lead to the right thing being done, while Aristotle believes that it isn 't enough to just know what is good, the person still must make the right choice. Plato believes that virtue wasn’t mandatory for a somewhat primitive kind of happiness, however Aristotle believed that virtue was needed. Plato basically believed that all of the virtues boil down to wisdom, and Aristotle believed that virtue must be practiced, and one can still be virtuous and unhappy. Socrates emphasizes that everyone is considered family, and there will be no divided loyalties in the perfect state. Also there would be no private ownership, which is responsible for feuds. Plato 's teacher Socrates believes that a philosopher should become a ruler, or the current ruler should learn philosophy, as philosophers are more aware of how to run the state. However, Aristotle believes that all sophists should stay out of
In order to understand how unity and harmony tie the ideal state together, one must first understand the coloration of unity with justice. Simply defined justice, according to Plato, is specialization. Each person doing their own craft is what justice entails. However, this definition of justice leads to something larger within the individual and the state. According to Plato, "... we must compel these Guardians and Auxiliaries of ours to second our efforts; and they, and all the rest with them, must be induced to make themselves perfect masters each of his own craft. In that way, as a community grows into a well ordered whole, the several classes may be allowed such measure of happiness as their nature will compass" (P, p. 111). The theory of justice as specialization leads to the happiness of the whole.