Compare and contrast Plato and Aristotle as critics of democracy
The “Republic” of Plato created a country with strict hierarchy. It has a rigorous legal system and a sound education system. All public good, servicers and desires are controlled by the country. It has its own advantages such as the idealized organized national order, and discussion of country’s justice and individual’s justice;, but it also has its shortcomings, for instance, the discordance between spiritual pursuit and basic material demand. However, it is an “ideal model”, meaning that people have to doubt if it is feasible in the real world. By contrast, the “Politics” of Aristotle are both entertaining and valuable. It is entertaining because Aristotle said many interesting statements and it are not that serious like the “Republic” of Plato when I am reading it, for instance, I can feel the common prejudice which all Greek have. It is valuable because it has so many influences to the history of politics. This essay is going to compare and contrast the definition of “democracy” in both the “Republic” of Plato and the “Politics” of Aristotle, and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of it.
This essay thus has three parts. It starts with the description of democracy in the “Republic” of Plato, to provide a full picture of the country. Then discuss the virtues and shortcomings of democracy in the “Republic” of Plato. This essay continues with the description of the ideal in the “Politics” of Aristotle and compares the strengths and weaknesses point by point with the democracy in the “Republic” of Plato. Finally, base on this essay, I will provide some personal opinions.
The core of the “Republic” of Plato is to find justice in both country and individual.
In the “Republic” of Plato, the justice of a country has three stages: the ruler, the guardians and the labors. Those three kinds of people have their own virtues such as wise, brave and discipline. Since they have those three...