Analysis of the Republic of Plato In “The Republic of Plato”, Plato attempts to answer the questions “What is the meaning of justice?”, and “How can it be realized in modern society?”. He examines all the things that a society must have in place in order to function as perfectly as possible. He explains his beliefs of division of labor, and how it is critical in a well functioning society. He also examines the nature of humans and the “selfish” motives behind peoples’ “just” actions. Plato lays out the foundation for a “perfect” society as he sees that it should be.
Actually, when Socrates talks about “human wisdom”, what he really means is recognizing and admitting one’s ignorance about not knowing, rather than one claiming to know. In the beginning of the text, right after Socrates mentions the sophists, he says “Men of Athens, this reputation of mine has come of a certain sort of wisdom .What kind of wisdom? It is perhaps such wisdom as could be called human wisdom, for to that extent I am inclined to believe that I may be wise; whereas the persons of whom I was just speaking seem to have a sort of superhuman wisdom, for I don’t know how else to describe it, because I do not have it myself, and whoever says that I so speaks falsely and is attacking my character” (¶ 8). In this particular quote Socrates is speaking, he lacks in fully explaining the meaning of the “wisdom” the people of Athens speak on when referring to his reputation, this illustrates further that he knows nothing, which he states continuously throughout the text. Socrates then gives this word a new meaning when stating that instead of having just wisdom, it may be more politically correct to say “human wisdom”.
His was a more straight-forward view. Although both seem to possess logical arguments, there can be no gainsaying of the fact that they have two fundamentally different concepts about politics. The purpose of this paper is to explore the different perspectives of Socrates and Machiavelli. Socrates and Machiavelli introduce unique theories in the area of justice and politics in an attempt to influence the importance of social relationships in politics. Socrates believed in morality and ethics pertaining to politics and politics pertaining to the maintenance and purity of a person’s soul.
After the examination Socrates concludes that the act of escape would be just and he would be morally unjustified and committing the act. The first argument that Crito presents to Socrates brings up the issue of what the majority think. Crito says, “Many people who do not know you or me very well will believe I might have saved you had I been willing to give money, but that I did not care to do so.” (Grude, Pg 47) Crito’s argument is clearly concerned with his own reputation, especially with what the majority
Socrates questioned life and its values. He developed the Socratic Method, which was learning by asking questions. He encouraged people to analyze their answers to develop understanding. This analysis allowed people to strip away what they were taught by others, and get a new idea or truth. The Athenian government disapproved of Socrates' philosophies because they thought he corrupted the minds of the youth and that he didn't respect the Greek gods.
He is only worried about the attainable future and ideals, while Plato is more focused about the enlightenment of man, and the understanding of knowledge. Machiavelli would indeed react poorly to Plato’s ideas in “The Allegory of the Cave” and would reject his “utopian” vision in favor of his own more “realist” vision. Plato, on the other hand would reject Machiavelli's viewpoints just as
Thucydides does not directly support the argument of the “classical model of politics” but his views of Political Realism sort of allude to it. If a government’s main motivation is just for power and it does not care at all about how ethical it is, there is a good chance it will end up becoming corrupt, as the “classical model of politics” suggests. Plato, in The Republic, argues that all of the political systems (democracy, monarchy, oligarchy, and timarchy) are inherently corrupt, and that the state should be governed by an elite class of educated philosophical-rulers, who would be trained from birth and selected on the basis of skill, as Plato describes: “those who have the greatest skill in watching over the community.” Plato also advocates, in The Republic, the abolishment of private property and the family among the ruling classes. This has caused many people to say that he was a communist, but many political scholars disregard this view, saying that the text implies that this will only extend to the ruling classes, and that ordinary citizens “will have enough private property to make the regulation of wealth and poverty a concern.” Essentially, Plato’s view goes along with the “classical model of politics” I mentioned above. He believes there are a number of different forms of government and he says that they are all inherently corrupt, which implies that, as mentioned above, each form
For Aristotle, Plato was a realist and Protagoras was a relativist. Essentially, he regards both theories as equally defective. J.D.G Evans attempts to analyze why Aristotle deems these theories inadequate and what position is left for Aristotle to take if both of the alternatives are defective. Repeatedly, Aristotle begins his accounts by criticizing the “answers of his predecessors” and, while there appears to be legitimate reasons to discredit them, he fails to provide an adequate alternate. The following passage from Eudemian Ethics (1235b 13-18) allows us to better comprehend Aristotle’s impression of philosophy, which in turn leads to a better understanding of how he reviews and resolves the aforementioned problem: We must adopt a line of argument which will both best explain to us the views held about these matters and will resolve the difficulties and contradictions; and we shall achieve this if we show that the conflicting views are held with good reason.
Today we know that the start of ancient Rome occurred sometime as early as the eighth to tenth century B.C.E. What we do not know for sure is the circumstances on which it was started. There are three different explanations about how Rome started. The most popular but least likely, is that it was founded by twin brothers named Romulus and Remus, who were thrown out of Troy and started their own civilization. The second is that prince Aneas from Troy founded the city, and remained there to settle after his ships were burned.
Plato’s theory of forms is unconvincing discuss Plato was a duellist and thus believed that there are two worlds; the material world and the world of ideas/Forms. The world of ideas or Forms is the true reality and the world of appearances is just reflections of world of Forms. Plato believed that our knowledge of the Forms was a priori which means that our souls knew the Forms before it was inside us, therefore we have knowledge prior to experiencing the objects with our senses. Plato believes everyone is born with an intuitive but imperfect understanding of the Forms. He also believes the philosopher is able, through using his intellect, to achieve true knowledge of the abstract Forms without using his senses.