Plato's Flaws

Throughout The Republic, Plato takes three approaches in his explanation of why the just person is happiest. The last two are mostly coherent; however, there are some flaws in his first argument. Plato makes a case for his ideal just state, but this state is impractical and unjust. Within the same argument, he also attempts to draw parallels between justice in the state and justice within individuals, which I find to be unconvincing. The first argument from Plato starts by laying out what he believes to be a just state. He names the state an aristocracy, with philosopher-rulers governing two lower classes. These two other classes are the working class – placed here for their virtue of temperance (moderation with their desires and focused on their societal function) – and the auxiliaries, a warrior class with the virtue of spirit. Plato goes on to explain

Grouping everyone based on the best interest of society appears logical, and there is theoretical potential for such a society to exist, but only in a perfect world, since there is bound to be unhappiness within the two lower classes. As he breaks down the alternatives to his state that are timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny, his aristocracy becomes more appealing, but truly none of the presented options are just. Plato is certainly coherent when explaining the decline of state and just men, when he says how the appetitive sectors increasingly overrule the rational reasoning parts. However, the problem lies with the fact that his state was unjust to begin with and therefore the two cannot be paralleled. As a whole, Plato’s claims for why justice is preferable over injustice are not greatly harmed by these flaws. In fact, his other two “proofs” – the lovers of knowledge, honor, and money, as well as the human shell containing three beings – are less convoluted and more convincing than the first one which I