Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of statesman plato
The need for censorship
Justice and the individual in Plato's republic
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Analysis of statesman plato
All ideas should be heard as censorship should be entirely abolished. In Plato’s Republic, Plato asks his teacher, brother, and friends what their opinion on justice is and what it means to be just and unjust. Glaucon, one of Socrate’s young companions states that every man rather be unjust rather than just according to the legend of the ring of Gyges.(1) This ring makes a man invisible, allowing him to act in whichever way he wishes, and makes it clear that unjust life is much more pleasant than a just life. This is very controversial, yet it portrays many truths, rather than hiding these wrong acts, eliminating the censorship and exposing them could be beneficial. Someone could be struggling with an issue that another person is and if they hear about someone else battling the same issue they may be able to help …show more content…
Society today provides us with the same false information. There is a great amount of bias and skewed perceptions of events that occur in the world today, nonetheless we put our trust in what we are told. The media is driven by materialistic things such as money and popularity, so the truth is pushed to the side and sugar-coated. Even on the internet, there are a great deal of negative aspects to it as the world can be an ugly place, but we see more ideology than reality throughout the media. Yes, lacking censorship has its detrimental effects as we cannot control others thoughts and feelings, yet this releases the suppression of our rights of speech and freedom. We all have equal rights and freedoms, and freedom of speech is most definitely overlooked. If we truly have freedom of speech then why are we only allowed to say what society wants to
In review of both Plato and Mill’s arguments for and against censorship, I come to my conclusion that holds true to Mill. I could not have said it any better than Mill’s two main arguments against censorship. Humans make mistakes and making mistakes is entirely unavoidable because we are not perfect. Therefore, without being perfect, how can a human, like Plato, decide the perfect way to form a society? Plato makes sense in that he does not care about happiness he only cares about an ideal state with little or no issues. I understand that was his goal in forming the Republic but as I see it Plato leaves no room for growth. In his society, everything will be the same for generations and generations. His society is very well structured and extremely thought out but it essentially must be in order to thrive for many years because the workers only work, the guardians only guard, and the rulers only rule. Only what the rulers do, say, or think is important and they too are just as human as those they lead. My question to Plato is simply why? Why are the rulers, the philosophers, the ones ...
Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World, showcases a world alternate from ours, a dystopian setting. Where human morals are drastically altered, families, love, history, and art are removed by the government. They used multiple methods to control the people, but no method in the world state is more highly used and more effective than propaganda. The world state heavily implemented the use of propaganda to control, to set morals, and to condition the minds of every citizen in their world. However such uses of propaganda have already been used in our world and even at this very moment. The way the media sways us how to think or how we should feel about a given situation. Often covering the truth and hiding the facts. One of the goals in propaganda is to set the mindset of the people to align with the goal of a current power, such as a
Human Nature and Moral Theory in Plato’s Republic. In Chapter 2 of Republic, Glaucon uses the Myth of the Lydian Shepherd to portray a pessimistic view of human nature. Plato, the author of Republic, uses his brother Glaucon to tell the Myth of the Lydian Shepherd. We are led to believe that Plato takes the myth and its implications on human nature very seriously by using a personal character.
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.
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, Glaucon is introduced to the reader as a man who loves honor, sex, and luxury. As The Republic progresses through books and Socrates’ arguments of how and why these flaws make the soul unhappy began to piece together, Glaucon relates some of these cases to his own life, and begins to see how Socrates’ line of reasoning makes more sense than his own. Once Glaucon comes to this realization, he embarks on a path of change on his outlook of what happiness is, and this change is evidenced by the way he responds during he and Socrates’ discourse.
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).
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.
In Fahrenheit 451 the people chose to censor the information that was available to them. They refused to look into anything that would compromise the structure of society. Censorship created a society filled with emptiness (Montag refers to them as ghosts). The people did not live fulfilling lives because they did not question the information being given to them. This is not a foreign concept in today’s world. People cover up controversial opinions that go against the majority. Books do get banned as in Fahrenheit 451. Vonnegut Jr.’s letter brings attention to this topic and reveals the truth; people need exposure to different ideas to broaden their
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.
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
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.
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.
Plato argues that certain poets should be censored primarily through education. He states that legends and fables, while useful for their historical presence, should not be told to younger children. Socrates argues “Shall we carelessly allow our children to hear any old stories made up by just anyone, then, and to take beliefs into their souls that are, for the most part, the opposite of the ones we think they should hold when they are grown up" (377b). He believes these stories initiate the behaviors that are unjust and oppose how society expects them to conform. "Just as a painter might paint a picture that is not at all like the things he is trying to paint," (337e) children should only be taught the truth otherwise they get a false sense of reality. Plato is particularly