Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Greek influence on modern society
Plato education theory
Greek influence on modern society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Greek influence on modern society
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; …show more content…
For example, in the dialogue Socrates stresses, “Then the man who 's going to be a fine and good guardian of the city for us will in his nature be philosophic, spirited, swift, and strong" (Republic 376). Plato starts with the head of the city-state, its leader. He recognizes citizens can only strive to be as good as the example they are given so their ruler has the great responsibility of emphasizing how important it is for every human to embody spiritual characteristics such as courage or arête, having greatness in all things. When a leader is well versed in all aspects and has the strength to not succumb to his or her own desires it promotes the criticalness of all beings constantly achieving universal truth and purity of the soul. Plato also made his beliefs heard when Socrates makes the claim, “Then our job as founders... is to compel the best natures to go to the study which we were saying before is the greatest, to see the good and to go up that ascent" (Republic 519). Plato signifies the importance of a city embodying moral excellence. This constant strive for justice walks hand in hand with happiness; when the focus is reverted from material and bodily temptations such as wealth and power to the idea of justice and morality. The definitions …show more content…
Democracy in America is still very flawed; it was built on the importance of wealth, which enables beings that don’t value justice and happiness more susceptible to falling into bodily temptations and becoming corrupt. Plato fixes these issues by addressing platonic education and explains how it would implement the importance of morality over greed and desire which thus creates a soul full of justice and happiness which then emanates within that person’s community. Socrates addresses attention to this in the Republic by saying, "Too much freedom seems to change into nothing but too much slavery" (Republic 564). Plato recognizes that when there is too much freedom it causes uninformed decisions of citizens and that freedom actually causes citizens to become slaves, slaves to their temptations and sins and that emanates a society defined by materialism and personal gain. Based on these assumptions that were heavily derived from Plato’s observation of Athens, it justifies that when platonic education is implemented in a society it hinders more chance of uninformed votes and placements of politicians in our government. Elections today in the United States are heavily based on favoritism and glorification in the media but instead need to be replaced of searching for a candidate who symbolizes good moral deeds and godly truth as well as possessing arête to then induce arête in
Plato’s ideal ruler must have a good mind, always be truthful, have knowledge and discipline, and not be afraid of death. In short, the ruler is a philosopher that satisfies the four virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation/self-control, and justice. Plato, nonetheless neglects the fact that everyone sins and fails to mention it in the ideal state or ruler. However, the state and ruler was made up mainly to better understand the meaning of justice and was not made up so that it might be practiced.
In Plato's Republic democracy made a controversial issue in a critique by Socrates. The theory of the soul accounts for the controversy as it states that the soul is divided into three parts: the rational, the spirited, and the appetite which are ranked respectively. The idea of the soul's three parts and the soul being ruled by a dominant part is used as the basis for identifying justice and virtue. However, the theory of the soul is not only used to identify justice and virtue, but also used to show that the virtue within a city reflects that of its inhabitants.
...ough Plato believes he is creating a just society, he is not creating a free one. Without freedom of any kind, it is definite that at least several people will develop a defiant nature and revolt. A great flaw in Plato's republic is the absence of back up plans for a revolution from the people.
The Republic is the most important dialogue within Plato's teaching of politics. It deals with the soul, which, as we know from the beginning, at the level where one must make choices and decide what one wants to become in this life, and it describes justice as the ultimate form of human, and the ideal one should strive for both in life and in state. Justice as understood by Plato is not merely a social virtue, having only to do with relationship between people, but virtue that makes it possible for one to build their own regime and reach happiness.
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.
The Republic by Plato examines many aspects of the human condition. In this piece of writing Plato reveals the sentiments of Socrates as they define how humans function and interact with one another. He even more closely Socrates looks at morality and the values individuals hold most important. One value looked at by Socrates and his colleagues is the principle of justice. Multiple definitions of justice are given and Socrates analyzes the merit of each. As the group defines justice they show how self-interest shapes the progression of their arguments and contributes to the definition of justice.
In his several dialogues, Plato contends the importance of the four virtues: wisdom, courage, self-control, and justice. In The Republic, he describes a top-down hierarchy that correlates to the aspects of one’s soul. Wisdom, courage, and temperance preside control over the rational, spirited, and appetitive aspects of the soul. It is when one maintains a balance between these aspects of his soul that he attains peace within himself: “...And when he has bound together the three principles within him...he proceeds to act...always thinking and calling that which preserves and cooperates with this harmonious condition (Plato 443c).” Wisdom and knowledge consistently remain at the top of his view of happiness. During the apology, Plato is asked what punishment is best suited for him. He sarcastically answers, “to be fed...(It is) much more suitable than for any one who has won a v...
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
Plato’s Republic introduces a multitude of important and interesting concepts, of topics ranging from music, to gender equality, to political regime. For this reason, many philosophers and scholars still look back to The Republic in spite of its age. Yet one part that stands out in particular is Plato’s discussion of the soul in the fourth book of the Republic. Not only is this section interesting, but it was also extremely important for all proceeding moral philosophy, as Plato’s definition has been used ever since as a standard since then. Plato’s confabulation on the soul contains three main portions: defining each of the three parts and explanation of their functions, description of the interaction of the parts, and then how the the parts and their interaction motivate action. This essay will investigate each segment, and seek to explain their importance.
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.
...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 believed that the body and the soul were two separate entities, the body being mortal and the soul being immortal. In Plato’s phaedo, this is further explained by Socrates. He claims that by living a philosophical life, we are able to eventually free the soul from the body and its needs. If we have not yield to our bodily needs, we should not fear death, since it can than permanently detach the soul from the body. The most convincing argument for the immortality of the body is the theory of recollection, which shows that we are already born with knowledge of forms and that learning is thus recalling these ideas. If we are already born with knowledge this implies that are soul is immortal, since it would otherwise be a blank page.
... 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.
Plato’s idea on the self is very simple yet complex. He has a different way of talking, which means that he either tells you what he means or he contradicts himself. He starts off saying that the soul, psyche, is the “thing” that causes things to be alive, but then says that “I” equals my soul. Does that mean that I cause myself to be alive? That thought can be very contradicting and complicated to understand. He then goes and says that the soul is different from the body. This thought is very complicated and makes Plato’s words very contradicting. On the other hand, Plato’s idea of self can be simple to understand if we take another view on it. We know that two things are constant in Plato’s search to find the answers for the soul and these
body, the mind and the soul. The body is the physical part of the body