Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Compare And Contrast Plato And Socrates
Plato's cave allegory summarized
Compare And Contrast Plato And Socrates
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Compare And Contrast Plato And Socrates
Plato’s view was biased due to the death of his mentor, Socrates. Plato intended to demonstrate the view of the majority during this time or what the people thought ought to be correct or more as of how agreeable they were. Karl Popper argues that Plato wished to have a comeback to tribalism and professes it to be propaganda though, Plato spoke about a desire for good and a neglect for anything else. Plato speaks of good citizens who do no wrong being insulted due to their love for being unknowingly chained and how the party may fall into the wrong hands if rulers act as the average citizens do. Of how they are chained by their own reality that they don't see the bigger picture and only see what they’re limited to in his view of the perfect …show more content…
Plato though rarely mentions what he wants it’s more of a mere play in which Glaucon representing the population of the Athenians at the time rather than thinking for themselves Glaucon blindly agrees to anything that Plato has to say though he does say that he has two realms for the world that people can enter. The world of ideas or the world of forms is what he called them and only people who were educated enough in his perfect idea of a community or world in which they were the only people who could enter the world of forms since they are aware of it existing unlike those who weren’t taught to think or taught in any way to be able to know anything other than what they could imagine. He also makes references to the allegory of the cave in which the only reality they have ever known will be the only thing that they can make reference to and will deny any thing else besides what they have known in their entire lives and wont believe anything else. Popper attempts to reinforce that Plato wishes to have a patriarchy-hierarchy. He mentions that customs are very much overused and how social life is very rigid due to …show more content…
Plato though, views it more as an opportunity to signify something deeper than just what’s skin deep. He views it as a chance to display the way the Athenians thought process indicated. His hatred of democracy deriving from the late Socrates’s death he also believed that the poor overruling the rich is what created a democracy therefore the rich lot were given whatever they wished to be theirs. Though, most people like those in the allegory of the cave if given the option only choose to pick what they’re most comfortable with and what they know rather than exploring all the options that the world holds killing the one that speaks blasphemy to them since they only know what they’ve seen from the shadows to be true rather than the real truth. Plato also references an abstract society like nowadays how people don’t necessarily need to meet face to face to and in isolation to other people. Communication by texts or video call rather than just letters to get the job done. Though, this leads to unhappiness since as humans have social needs to satisfy therefore an abstract society wouldn't work but in theory is a very effective and efficient
In conclusion, Plato's story of the cave brings up many philosophical points and most importantly, addresses the issue of society's role in our lives. To some degree, we are all influenced by the thoughts and actions of others; however, at the same time, we have the ability to question, draw our own conclusions, and ultimately make our own choices.
Another one of Plato’s ideas that I disagree with is having assigned positions in society. This eliminates the free choice of the citizens, and they will not be as productive doing something that they are forced to do rather than something they choose.
Plato’s perception of the human world was described by Rubenstein as “discomfort and longing.” According to Rubenstein, the Platonic epoch is filled with humans that are not one with themselves; potentials of the intellectual integrity are disrupted by this distrust humans have against themselves that are driven by humanly desires and instincts. Unlike Aristotelian epoch where it would be seen that peace would be amongst human and nature, Plato’s universe seems like it is far from what it should be. Rubenstein described it as there is an idea
Plato taught his contemporaries of the idea of the soul and how it has a desire and goal to become a pure. To do this Plato stressed that every human being must compare him or herself to the most high, Godly truth. To accomplish this, humans were expected to live by the universal example by struggling with bodily temptations and sins to be able to keep the soul pure. Plato’s thoughts became the forerunner and basis for many religions in his time and overall applied to all humans as a code of how to live. These platonic principles influenced his opinion on how an ideal city-state should function based on its inhabitants. Dialogues such as The Republic, demonstrate how beings from his time and now in the modern world should conduct themselves;
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
Plato and Aristotle were both very influential men of there time bringing vast knowledge to the world. I honestly believe that Democracy does a lot of good but it definitely has some common side effects. Out of all of Plato's significant ideas, his best was the idea of democracy opening political decisions to the majority who cannot think on behalf of the community. Aristotle on the other hand is very optimistic when it comes to democracy so it becomes a rather interesting compare and contrast between these to men.
Plato’s idea for a perfect government is to have three different classes to have different roles to help the society. The first group of people is the Producing class and they are responsible for providing materials and food for the city. This is where the farmers, blacksmiths, the fishermen, and other jobs like them. The second group is the Auxiliaries and they are the ones who job is to protect the city from threats, so the soldiers. The final group is the guardians, these are the philosophers and it is there job to not only be knowledgeable but to be just. Plato believes that there are several things that can derail the advancement of society. “Then nothing insane and nothing akin to dissoluteness can be involved in the right of love…Then sexual pleasure must not be involved” (121). Plato believed that sex should only be reserved for special festivals and for creating life, other than that people should keep in line with how a father and son touch each other. Plato did not just regulate what two people did in the privacy in the own home, but he also regulated what people should be learning in school. “At any rate, it ought to end where it has ended; for surely training in the musical crafts ought to end in a passion for beauty” ...
Plato believes that ruling is a skill similar to sailing a ship since it’s irrational to have a janitor captain it, while an expert navigator is present to sail. Plato envisions a Philosopher King, who would study how to rule correctly through using the dialect on doxa to discover the logos of matters, therefore being able to rule with justice. The Philosopher King would take the mantle of power not because of ambition, but rather he would not want to be ruled by the doxa of others. In the Laws Plato depicts his ideal city, which includes very strict regulations to follow what’s correct, even marriage that it should be for the benefit of the state, not to please. Plato puts out an outline of the first election in a colony, but focusing on
In a democracy, the old conforms in a democratic society and the young sees themselves as equals to the old, because of this, the citizens in a democracy sees one another as equals. Plato believed that, the citizens in a democracy could see disapproval amongst one another as signs of tyranny and would essentially do anything to obliterate it, even if it meant breaking their very own laws. As well as despotism, Plato believed that a democracy allowed untrained people to govern. Having untrained people govern meant that a democracy governs with emotions rather than knowledge, like in today’s society, many vote based on their emotion or feelings towards a candidate. Plato believed that government should be run by people trained in the art of governing. As well as governing with emotion, the citizens of Athens are also easily swayed by demagogues. Lastly as a whole, the masses of Athens were essentially tyrants as a whole. As well as Plato, the Old Oligarch was against democracy. He saw democracy as stripping the elite of their power and influence. The Old Oligarch believed that democracy was a broken
That they needed to make all the decisions in order to have a perfect city. Plato obviously felt so strongly about this because back in 400 BC, philosophers were not very appreciated at all. Plato saw his society as wrongfully managed and honestly believed that philosophers ruling everything would some how make a difference.
His studies involving philosophies of life and various other theories are so remarkable that we base most of our ideals of western thought on today, making him a game changer. Plato’s endeavor to bring together excellent minds at the academy, “Let no one ignorant of geometry enter my doors,” was very effective at bringing together brilliant minds for his time and for centuries after. It is obvious to me (as a student) and many other scholars that Plato did not rule his academy with the philosophical ideals that were written in his dialogues. Aristotle was a student of Plato’s and he believed in a “ruler” of the “constituation.” Vs Plato’s theory of “The Guardians” a group of people who helped govern. This in and of itself says to me that Plato did not insist his theories be followed, rather was an astounding teacher in the way that he encouraged open minded free thinking Ideals. Plato was permanently sidetracked on his new course after the academy. He did very little direct interaction with political leaders, while some of his students later became law makers; he was never involved in politics himself while he always had an opinion. This makes him perhaps the best Monday morning quarterback of all time, he always had an opinion (he even managed to get people to listen to it), but he didn’t do anything himself to change the face of politics – we are still
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 my opinion, Socrates’ analysis of human nature is very true as it ultimately brings us
According to Plato’s “Protagoras”, throughout Socrates’ philosophical career, the concepts of the virtues and ignorance were two of great importance. It was Socrates’ belief that if virtue in itself is knowledge; if one is virtuous, then they have the knowledge to carry out any of the virtues. In other words, no matter what type of situation that a virtuous person might find themselves in, they will always choose the virtuous path. My thesis is that this argument/belief that Socrates had was faulty, because even if an individual has knowledge of “good” and is therefore virtuous, it is not true to say that they will always choose to carry out said virtues.
Plato’s Republic transmits the Platonic-Socratic vision of how human kind interpret reality. This model concludes with The Allegory of the Cave. Said metaphor describes a cave inhabited by chained men that can only look forward, to the wall of the cave. The wall offers visual projections of things, shadows, and they believe them to be the real things and the essence of the world. One day, one of them sets himself free and gets to see the real models behind the shadows he once thought to be real things. When he comes back and talks about the real world he experienced, he is mocked by the other men and thought to be insane. With this representation, Plato refers to human knowledge: The things that we see are not the authentic forms of the world, but merely projections of real things that are outside of our human