Government Strategies Philosophers obtain an abundance amount of ideas how the government or society works best. Great conflict is expressed for what works best for each community. Socrates and Plato accepted each other’s views, they both believed in laws; these laws would enhance the community’s safety and education. Plato’s ideal view is interesting because his view is abstract because it will never exist, even so, if it does exist, he predicts that nobody would be able to determine if it does or not. Aristotle and Polybius held the same perspective which challenged Plato. Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes agreed with the fact that laws should be confiscated because society could not live up to their fullest if they were restrained by the laws. …show more content…
His ideal government of an Oligarchy implied that there would be an ideal ruler that majority rule agreed upon. Another option would be a philosopher king who would hold all the power because they are the best at making and enforcing laws. Plato understood that having a monarchy obtain absolute power could potentially lead to a power of evil and become corrupt. He also expresses the thought that the perfect person doesn’t exist, and even if they were to exist, he is positive that the society wouldn’t recognize them because society does not contain experts. By appointing the wrong person, society will dramatically diminish. Plato’s second claim, the most successful form of government; understands that one person should not be given absolute power, even the ruler is subjected to follow the rules. Given this statement, he develops the divide and conquer idea called a democracy which concerns majority because it takes longer to corrupt. However, this approach can potentially cause chaos and eventually lead to an armed revolution. “If we consider the violence or consent, the poverty or riches, the law-abidingness or disregard of law which they exhibit we shall find that two of the three forms of government are really twofold and can therefore be divided” (The Collected Dialogues of Plato). The problem with Plato’s views concludes that he …show more content…
Aristotle, Hobbes and the Sophists hold the same view that opposes Plato. They believe that society would be better off without rules because laws prohibit us from doing what we desire and classify laws as unjust. This is what is known as Hobbes’ state of nature. Human motivation could be an electromagnetic force, it requires that any act must be physical and there must be a way to see or prove it. Their argument states the fact that the behavior of individuals would be much different without rules so why prohibit these actions? Plato argues that civilians would spend the entire day trying to survive and he doesn’t understand why anyone would want to live in a society like that. Hobbes thought this method would be beneficial to Socrates when he was locked up in jail. Hobbes made the argument that Socrates had free reign to escape from jail and kill any potential threats that stood in his way because being put into jail was
In Plato’s reasoning he explains that everyone is born with innate qualifications that make them more fit than others for a certain occupation. He suggests that in this way each person’s function will be completed thoroughly. The same theory applies when deciding how the city with be ruled. Only people who possess superior traits will have the power to rule. These people will pertain to the highest ranking class of the state called the guardian class. Plato through Socrates, states: “philosophy, and spirit, speed, and strength as well, must all be combined in the nature of anyone who is going to be a really fine and good guardian of our city” (Plato, 376c, p56). The members of this class will hold the power to legislate and enforce laws, thus making them superior to all other members of the state. Hobbes’ idea of who should be the ruling figure of the state is radically different. He states: “nature hath made man so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable” (Hobbes, I-1, p74). This reveals Hobbes’ belief that all men are no different from each other, but rather it is each man’s appetites and aversions that differ. On the grounds that he considers all men to be equal, he does not find it
Plato firmly believed that only a select few should rule. This idea stems from his view that people are unequal in essence, as some truly enlightened individuals are able to understand justice and good whereas others could only see the suggestion of the phenomenas. He asserted that many people were
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.
Aristotle and Hobbes have different views on what is good, which results in contrasting moral theories. These philosophers both have different views on what is good, how to act, and how to be. The way in which Aristotle defines happiness, is opposed to the views and beliefs of Hobbes. Aristotle believed that there was a final good, and opposing him was the belief that Hobbes had, which was that there was no final good. They both believed that being moral wasn’t only good for you, but also good for others.
'And each makes laws to its own advantage. Democracy makes democratic laws, tyranny makes tyrannical laws, and so on with the others. And they declare what they have made - what is to their own advantage - to be just for their subjects, and they punish anyone who goes against this as lawless and unjust. This, then, is what I say justice is, the same in all cities, the advantage of the established rule. Since the established rule is surely stronger, anyone who reasons correctly will conclude that the just is the same everywhere, namely, the advantage of the stronger.'" Plato, Republic, Book 1, 338
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
Socrates and Thomas Hobbes, two independent philosophers of two independent eras, both had divergent beliefs of government and citizen. Socrates’ whole life was persuading and disagreeing with common beliefs and questioning everything and everyone - except his own death since he had no comprehension of “self-preservation.” Hobbes, however, believed people had to give up the right to question in order for the sovereign to protect the commonwealth. The life and death of Socrates contradicts Thomas Hobbes’s view of self-preservation because ultimately, Socrates defied protecting himself and died in the hands of his own government. Although Socrates might argue that his death was justified because he failed to persuade the Athenian government for
... 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.
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.
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 had divided different variations of ruling into four corrupt souls. Timarchic men want to have honor and victory but end up getting caught up striving for wealth. An oligarchic man just uses wealth and power to over see the city using all means necessary to continue his happiness. The democratic man see's everything as equal and is ok with living with equal desires. Democracy, a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." Finally the tyrannical man who uses his in just lifestyle to crash and burn the city he's ruling into the ground. These are all the men discussed through out the Republic written by Plato (Plato, ppt7).
However, Plato now describes the Democracy that has been implemented by the lower classes with the aim of leading onto the democratic character. With new freedom and liberty, the average individual will arran...
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.
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
... 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.