Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays about plato's republic and justice
Democracy criticism by Plato
Democracy criticism by Plato
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays about plato's republic and justice
In the Republic by Plato, Socrates creates an elaborate depiction of the individual as a utopian city. The city is strategically fabricated with character and content and populated by a group of artisans, philosophers and warriors. However, the primary residents of the city are children, who are provided simply with the opportunity to grow and learn in the best possible environment. This city is supposed to be an example by which Socrates can prove what justice is, and it does so soundly.
To begin, Socrates asks Glaucon, to imagine a cave in which prisoners are detained. These prisoners have been in the cave since their birth, and they are completely immobile. A chain around their neck forces them to stare at only wall in front of them (514a).
…show more content…
Plato articulates that each and every individual is given the learning power in his soul by the divine, however a man only can learn up to a certain limit and after the limitation is crossed, he cannot learn more. This is why the prisoners originally attack the philosopher upon his return. Even still, Plato holds that enlightened individuals have an obligation to the rest of society, because a good society must be one in which the truly wise (the Philosopher-King) are the rulers. The philosopher has a responsibility to modify the shadows and accept what change he can …show more content…
All freedom requires compromise between the rights of the individual and the goals and obligations of the state. Plato proposed that his city should be one where the philosopher kings decided who can mate, to produce only the strongest and most intelligent babies, and discard any defective children (460c). In addition, he said that all children should be taken from their parents immediately to remove any loyalty to family, and to ensure loyalty to only the city. The purpose of these requirements was to ensure the propensity for the public good, and to guarantee sacrifice of personal interests. Individual liberty can keep human beings ‘chained’ to instantaneous empirical wants, rather than the greater range of human potentialities, especially philosophical
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...
Truth be told there is no real justice in Socrates? ?just city?. Servitude of those within his city is crucial to its function. His citizens are, in every aspect, slaves to the functionality of a city that is not truly their own. True justice can not be achieved through slavery and servitude, that which appears to be justice (and all for the sake of appearances) is all that is achieved. Within Socrates? city there is no room for identity, individuality, equality, or freedom, which are the foundations justice was built upon. These foundations are upheld within a proper democracy. In fact, the closest one can experience justice, on a political level, is through democracy.
According to the court and his punishment, Socrates has already broken the law; however, he believes that he did the right thing because it was the opinion of the general public that was wrong. Plato says, “At the same time I should like you to consider whether were still satisfied on this point: that the really important thing is not to live, but to live well…and that to live well means the same thing as to live honorably or rightly…Then in the light of this agreement we must consider whether or not it is right for me to get away without an official discharge” (267 65-69)). Here, Socrates says that living well is the same thing as living honorably, so he is questioning whether or not it is right for him to escape jail without being released. If he were to escape jail, he would be breaking the rules of his punishment. In order to live well, one must live honorably and not break the laws that are put into place to protect the people and the order of the city. I agree with Socrates principles and I claim that in order to live honorably and a good life, one must follow the laws, unless they disagree with them. Also, I say that living a good life involves making choices, and Socrates chose to teach the children because he did what he thought was right. Today, people have freedom of speech, so they can talk about whatever they please. This also allows debates to happen. Debates occur when two groups of people have different
During the time period of The Republic, the problems and challenges that each community was faced with were all dealt with in a different way. In the world today, a lot of people care about themselves. For many people, the word justice can mean many different things, but because some only look out for themselves, many of these people do not think about everyone else’s role in the world of society. The struggle for justice is still demonstrated in contemporary culture today. One particular concept from Plato’s The Republic, which relates to contemporary culture is this concept of justice. In the beginning of The Republic, Socrates listeners, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, ask Socrates whether justice is stronger than injustice, and
Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote “One man’s justice is another’s injustice.” This statement quite adequately describes the relation between definitions of justice presented by Polemarchus and Thrasymachus in Book I of the Republic. Polemarchus initially asserts that justice is “to give to each what is owed” (Republic 331d), a definition he picked up from Simonides. Then, through the unrelenting questioning of Socrates, Polemarchus’ definition evolves into “doing good to friends and harm to enemies” (Republic 332d), but this definition proves insufficient to Socrates also. Eventually, the two agree “that it is never just to harm anyone” (Republic 335d). This definition is fundamental to the idea of a common good, for harming people according to Socrates, only makes them “worse with respect to human virtue” (Republic 335 C). Polemarchus also allows for the possibility of common good through his insistence on helping friends. To Polemarchus nothing is more important than his circle of friends, and through their benefit he benefits, what makes them happy pleases him.
In Plato’s Republic Book IV, Socrates sets out to convince Glaucon that a person acts with three different parts of the soul, rather than with the soul as a whole. He does this by presenting Glaucon with a variety of situations in which parts of the soul may conflict with one another, and therefore not acting together. Socrates describes the three parts of the soul as the rational part, or that which makes decisions, the appetitive part, or that which desires, and the spirited part, or that which gets angry (436a).
Throughout the course of history, mankind has unceasingly strived to comprehend the purpose of our existence. Who are we? Why are we here? While many different conclusions to these questions have emerged, Plato shared Socrates’ believe that ignorance is the mind’s natural state and that our human existence is meant to be lived seeking true knowledge through debate and questioning. In “The Allegory of the Cave” from The Republic, Plato depicts a cave where prisoners are chained from their childhood to grow up only looking at the back of the cave wall. Above and behind them is a fire with a wall standing in front of it where puppeteers hold various figured objects in front of the fire to create dancing shadows on the wall. The prisoners, seeing
The Philosopher King stands far above others in ancient Athens. At his own peril, amidst constant political chaos and corruption, Plato takes a brave stand for justice, for freedom, and for equality. The Republic, written around 375 B.C., isn't just Plato's treatise on the ideal state, nor is it just a state-of-mind journey from ignorance to enlightenment. Plato also taught at his Academy, the first university in Europe, that political science is the science of the soul.
In Plato’s Republic, justice and the soul are examined in the views of the multiple characters as well as the Republic’s chief character, Socrates. As the arguments progress through the Republic, the effect of justice on the soul is analyzed, as the question of whether or not the unjust soul is happier than the just soul. Also, Plato’s theories of justice in the man, the state, and the philosopher king are clearly linked to the cardinal virtues, as Plato describes the structure of the ideal society and developing harmony between the social classes. Therefore, the statement “justice is the art which gives to each man what is good for his soul” has to be examined through the definitions of justice given in the Republic and the idea of the good
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 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.
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.
Plato asserts that while the guardians might be the happiest people within the society, it is not their intention to create a situation whereby only a few people are happy but rather a state where the happiness of the entire community is important. The ultimate goals of the republic is to have the entire community or all its inhabitants being happy and not part of the community. While the guardians might have the power in controlling certain elements within the city, this cannot guarantee them absolute happiness. Within the context of this passage holding to the ideal forms of the society can be a sure way of securing happiness for the individuals and the society as well. This means that the individuals must consider the welfare of the society
In Plato’s Republic, the main argument is dedicated to answering Glaucon and Adeimantus, who question the reason for just behavior. They argue it is against one’s self-interest to be just, but Plato believes the behavior is in fact in one’s self-interest because justice is inherently good. Plato tries to prove this through his depiction of an ideal city, which he builds from the ground up, and ultimately concludes that justice requires the philosopher to perform the task of ruling. Since the overall argument is that justice pays, it follows that it would be in the philosopher’s self-interest to rule – however, Plato also states that whenever people with political power believe they benefit from ruling, a good government is impossible. Thus, those who rule regard the task of ruling as not in their self-interest, but something intrinsically evil. This is where Plato’s argument that justice is in one’s self-interest is disturbed. This paper will discuss the idea that justice is not in one’s self-interest, and thus does not pay.
What is the ideal state? This question has sparked debate since the very formation of organized political society. In Plato’s The Republic, Plato seeks to define justice and in doing so he seeks to explain the ideal just state. In Plato’s explanation of an ideal state, there is an extreme emphasis on unity and harmony. The reason unity and harmony are so important to Plato are because they are responsible for bonding together Plato’s ideal state and protecting it from tyranny. Plato explains at great length the framework which ties together the individual soul with the ideal political society. Without unity and harmony, an aristocracy would ultimately decay into a democracy, and according to Plato, sooner rather than later a tyrant would rule the state.