In the chapter “Plato at the 92nd Street Y” by Rebecca Goldstein, Plato is brought to life in the 21st century to show why Philosophy is in fact not obsolete and still present in today’s society. Plato joins in a panel discussion with two other best selling authors discussing the topic on how to raise a perfect child, and a great debate arises between the author Mitzi Munitz and Plato on whether Plato’s perfect city Socrates has summoned up is actually elitist and paternalist city. An elitist is seen as someone who believes that a society or a system should ruled by an elite (a select part of a group that is superior in terms of abilities and qualities). Paternalism is seen as the rulers are treating the citizens as children by thinking and …show more content…
acting for them The question is if the Munitiz correctly interpreted the city can it be deemed unjust, or can these two forms actually help in a way and actually be just?. In this paper will argue that Munitiz interpretation of the city is correct, but it cannot not be deemed unjust by those allegations. In the chapter “Plato on 92nd Street” there is a very intense discussion going on between two best selling authors, Mitzi Munitz and Sophie Zee on how to raise the perfect child. Munitz point of view is that a child should be independent and in that process a child will develop all the characteristics to be hard working and being successful in life. Whereas, Sophie Zee has exactly the opposite view, and believes a child should be a child and the parent should help strive the child to want to be great in everything. Now, with Munitz views of how a child should be raised, when Plato is placed into the conversation on how he thinks the perfect child should be raised a debate between the two arises. Plato starts to bring his subclass of children from his conjured up city, and Munitz hears his views she brings up the facts that Plato city is basically an elitist and paternalistic city, and a frantic discussion occurs begins between the two. Firstly, Munitz brings up the awarenesses that the city the Plato describes is in fact an elitist city.
Elitism is basically the belief that the rulers (elites) are see as more superior than the producers. When asked about how the kids should be raised, Plato describes his subclass of children, Which actually stems the argument between her and Plato. Plato’s subclass of children are the ones Munitz presumes as the elite. If one was to refer back to the book “Republic,” Socrates ideal city is where the rulers are allowed to tell lies as long as they see it fit as what is best for the people. When Plato mentions the zero-sum conflicts, which is a mathematical representation in a situation where someone’s loss is balanced by the losses or gains of some other. Munitz states that Plato’’s social setup is about zero sum, because all privileges are directed towards one group alone. In the book Munitiz states, “You lay out a program of enrichment for only your ruling class-your master race. as it were-as if the others. the merely average, do not concern you. since they are incapable of of achieving the life of the mind you hold up as the highest ideal” (Goldstein …show more content…
187). Secondly, she brings up the paternalism that is presented in the city towards the producers. Munitz suggest that, would it not be better for all the citizens who are capable to think and act for themselves to assume power over themselves, and live their lives as a fully functioning grown adult. She disagrees immensely that guardians should think and act for all other citizens. In the book Munitz states, “But if you deprive your citizens of the right to call their rulers, then not only do you set the stage for tyranny, but you diminish your citizens to the status of dependent children”(189). She is basically stating that the citizens are basically seen as children without the social status of actually having a parent. Since Plato city is ruled upon by rulers who expectantly think and act for the people of the lower class she deems that as being paternalistic. when Paternalism comes into play. Plato explains, that yes, everyone can think for themselves, but only to the best of their abilities. So, Plato believes that they can think for themselves, but only to their abilities within their class systems, and when they can no longer think upon that, that is where the guardians step in and take responsibility. With their credentials and all the training they’ve been subjected to, their mind is equipped to go into thinking more in depth. Next, Plato comes into defend the his perfect city, and why these rules are in displayed in the first place.
Plato defends himself by explaining that he is thinking what is best for society, and not just for one specific group. If there is an exceptional good person, it is further exceptional for them to identify and further trained because it is what is best for the collective good, and of that exceptionally good must take justice into their own hands. (186). He argues that the guardians are always on the scent for truth, like dogs who are the most philosophical of all animals, so therefore they should rule because in a way they are like philosophers, and Plato believes the philosophers are titled to become rulers. (explain the corruption part on 188.) When Munitiz brings up the how Plato lays out only a program for the ruling class. He counteracts acts that statement and explains that he only wants a city where are the citizens are able to achieve their virtues leading them to their happiness, but for that to happen it requires rulers to be one with city and will never exploit it. He claims this would lead to not only a just city, but justice for
all. (187). There is a brief moment where there’s a counter argument Plato uses against Munitz. He uses the example of how he believes that rulers should not be succumbed to luxuries, but the citizens will have access to those such things, because in reality the rulers should be the most unprivileged of the city. Munitz does for the most part correctly interpret the city Socrates had created in the “Republic.” The city can actually be seen as elitist and paternalistic. All
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 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
The truly collaborative relationship model between doctor and patient has so far been elusive. In Susan Levin’s paper, The Doctor-Patient Tie in Plato’s Laws: A Backdrop for Reflection, the author critiques two models proposed by Ezekiel and Linda Emanuel, and Edmund D. Pellegrino and David C. Thomasma. On review, both come close to striking the perfect balance, but ultimately fail. Their failures lie in the possibility for their models to become paternalistic which is thought of as a flawed model. In the paper, Levin proposes an approach of her own which adopt concepts from Plato’s Laws. In this essay I will argue that with the help of Plato’s ideas, Levin is able to create a model which distances itself from paternalism in ways that the other models could not and, in doing so, achieves a more collaborative relationship.
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...
He notes that “it is appropriate for the rational part to rule, since it is really wise and exercises foresight on behalf of the whole soul” (Plato, 117, 441e). An effective ruler, in Plato’s view, is someone whose reason governs over his or her appetite with the aid of spirit. Plato believes that the philosopher guardian class can achieve the balance, so only they are capable of ruling. It allows them to govern with reason, and make decisions for the good of the
In Book one of the Republic of Plato, several definitions of justice versus injustice are explored. Cephalus, Polemarchus, Glaucon and Thracymicus all share their opinions and ideas on what actions they believe to be just, while Socrates questions various aspects of the definitions. In book one, Socrates is challenged by Thracymicus, who believes that injustice is advantageous, but eventually convinces him that his definition is invalid. Cephalus speaks about honesty and issues of legality, Polemarchus explores ideas regarding giving to one what is owed, Glaucon views justice as actions committed for their consequences, and Socrates argues that justice does not involve harming anybody. Through the interrogations and arguments he has with four other men, and the similarity of his ideas of justice to the word God, Socrates proves that a just man commits acts for the benefits of others, and inflicts harm on nobody.
The nuclear family, consisting of a mother, father, and children, is something very familiar to our society. We hold these relations as ideal and form our lives around their bonds. In the Republic, Plato suggests to abolish families and replace them with the Guardians. This is easily one of Plato’s most controversial ideas; it contains positive elements, but is seen as impractical to undesirable by many. The rationale behind Plato’s idea consists of many different parts, which are focused on a main goal of unity. The belief is that if a society rids itself of these families, they will favor unity and strive towards the enrichment of society as a whole. Although this may have its positive impacts on society, I personally believe that it goes against the nature of humans.
Plato, having defined his perfect society, now seeks to compare contemporary 'imperfect' societies with his ideal standard. He initially criticises the imperfect society as a whole, before leading onto a criticism of any given individual within that society; the imperfect character. He has already dealt with the Oligarchic society and character and now moves onto Democracy and the democratic character.
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.
In book III, Plato concludes the ideas of the censorship program that Socrates began in book II. Plato speaks of a concept called the “noble lie”, which can be broken down into two parts. The first part being that citizens were not born from mortal human parents, but rather that the earth is their mother. The second is that when each citizen is born, they have metal in their soul, this is known as the, “myth of the metals”.
Plato’s view of division of labour is divided into three types of peoples’ task in life which are workers as farmers, military type and guardians. Actually, the ruling task of Plato’s Republic is the guardian’s responsible who had achieved the greatest wisdom or knowledge of good. Due to that, Plato claims that “philosopher must become kings or those now who called kings must genuinely and adequately philosophise’’ (Nussbaum1998, p.18). However, people argue about the reasons that the philosopher should rule the city, while the philosophers prefer to gain knowledge instead of power, thus they don’t seek this authority. Therefore, the argument should alter to why the philosophers are the best ruler to govern people. Indeed, Plato states much evidence to prove his view. Firstly, these kinds of kings are interested in simple life and helping people for better communication. Secondly, as Plato points out that each type of workers has a deficiency and conflict in his erotic attachments such as a worker is a lover of money, but the philosopher is a devotee of wisdom and knowledge. Thirdly, their disapproving of being a king comes from their fear of being unjust (Nussbaum, 1998).Not only these evidence does Plato claim, but he also adds the characteristics of being a king and the education system of philosophy.
...is own desires rather than his subjects needs is not virtuous. Second, a person in the military, who is supposed to be courageous may desert his fellow troops in fear. Third, many common people commit crimes, and create conflict within the community. None of these people are virtuous. However, this is exactly what Plato was getting at. Plato believes that when each of these classes performs its own role and does not try to take over any other class, the entire city as a whole will operate smoothly, showing the harmony that is genuine justice. (ln 433e) What makes the Republic such an important and interesting piece of literature is that by examining what brings true justice and harmony to the world, we can therefore understand all of the virtues by considering how each is placed within the organization of an ideal city.
Plato widely a respected philosopher and is arguably one of the greatest philosophers of all time. I knew nothing about him or what he stood for before taking this course and I found his theory on human nature very exciting. “Plato’s most fundamental contribution to philosophy was the distinction he drew between the changing physical objects we perceive with our senses and the under changing ideals we can know with our minds.” What Plato means is when we see something that we think is good or bad that there is good strong reasoning behind why we think the way we do. I find this very intriguing because, this it pertains to how I feel about everyday things and big Icons. For example, when hanging out at a friend’s house that is considerably richer
In the end, justice does not pay for any level of person in an ideal city. Plato must prove early on that justice is inherently good, and just actions are inherently good. The first point is dismissed for the sake of argument, and the second is uncertain due to the questions the myth of Gyges surfaces. The prime example of doing what is just is a citizen’s performance of his work within the city, thus making it just for the philosophers to rule. Despite ruling being a just action, ruling is an intrinsic evil, and thus does not pay the philosophers. This is more clearly defined looking at the producer’s work in the city. In the essential case of performing one’s job, justice does not pay the
In Plato’s The Republic, the primary focus for a significant portion of the text is establishing the ideal state in order to determine the nature of justice and virtue. In doing so, Socrates, who is the primary speaker in the text, determines several requirements for the existence of the ideal state. The third requirement according to Socrates is that philosophers must rule as kings (or kings must adequately philosophize). Until this occurs, “cities will have no rest from evils” (473d). However, there is some objection, or anticipated objection, to Socrates’ requirement. Adeimantus, one of Socrates interlocutors in The Republic, raises the objection that those who actively philosophize into adulthood are made up of a great number of cranks and,