A Critical Analysis Of Citizen Life In Plato's The Republic

In Plato’s republic, a philosophical account on the kallipolis (the beautiful city) is built on the perspective of Socrates and his discussion between his companions. In the republic, the city in which ones live in depends on the soul and the character of the city one lives in. In this paper the character of human nature and politics will be discussed in how a city is ought to be by the influence of human nature and politics. Firstly, the influence of human nature on politics will be looked at, for example according to Plato on behalf of Socrates; he claims that a just soul creates a just society, where it is human nature to be just, that influences in creating a just political system. Secondly, politics influences human nature, where in

Socrates’ contradicting views are presented when he claims, “Not from money does virtue come, but from virtue comes money and all of the other good things for human beings both privately and publicly” (Apology, 30b). Socrates disputes that fortuna comes from virtue and presents a cause and effect relationship, contrary to the interconnected relationship as presented by Machiavelli. A prince should use philosophical thinking to question and explore many ideas in order to amass success. Just having money and luck, on the other hand, will not lead to more success because the prince is unable to think about how he can execute his rulings. Through his views, he connotes how the ruler cannot start his reign with both fortuna and virtue. This contradicts with Machiavelli’s prince because Socrates disputes the lack of emphasis on fortune.

In response to Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus, Socrates seeks to show that it is always in an individual’s interest to be just, rather than unjust. Thus, one of the most critical problems regarding the Republic is whether Socrates defends justice successfully or not. Socrates offers three arguments in favor of the just life over the unjust life: first, the just man is wise and good, and the unjust man is ignorant and bad; second, injustice produces internal disharmony which prevents effective actions; and lastly, virtue is excellence at a thing’s function and the just person lives a happier life than the unjust person, since he performs the various functions of the human soul well. Socrates is displeased with the argument because a sufficient explanation of justice is essential before reaching a conclusion as to whether or not the just life is better than the unjust life. He is asked to support justice for itself, not for the status that follows. He propositions to look for justice in the city first and then to continue by analogy to discover justice in the individual. This approach will allow for a distinct judgment on the question of whether the just person is happier than the unjust person. Socrates commences by exploring the roots of political life and constructs a hypothetical just city that gratifies only fundamental human necessities. Socrates argues

The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those

Plato’s Republic book IV continues with the conversation between Socrates and Adeimantus on creating what Socrates believes would be the ideal city. A key idea that he and Adeimantus debate over is the wealth and poverty among each class. These classes are; Auxiliary (The warriors who enforce the rules of the Guardians, they also protect the city), The Guardians (They are responsible for ruling the city. They are chosen from among the ranks of the auxiliaries) and the Producers (The largest class of society but no share in ruling, they focus exclusively on producing whatever it is that they are best suited to produce). One concept in the republic is the ‘Noble Lie’ which describes each class being born with gold, silver or bronze and iron;

As one of the most significant works in philosophy, The Republic has been one of the most historically and intellectually influential basis of many political theories and philosophical approaches since its first appearance. It is also crucial to mention that the book contains both Plato’s and Socrates’ arguments of life and the view of the Athenian Democracy in the ancient Greek world. Therefore, it can be confusing and complicated to decide to which philosopher the arguments belong. The main focus of the book is to find the definition and the whereabouts of order, justice and to establish a just state, as well as to prove that a just man is happier than the unjust man by providing examples. The true importance of The Republic lies in the fact that everything has meaning in it, not only the arguments, but also the people who act as metaphors for the different kind of roles, which they fulfill in the Athenian society, furthermore the way they speak symbolizes those roles and every one of them embodies a part of the soul and the city-state. Even though it is not obvious, Plato / Socrates criticizes the Athenian society and tries to establish a new, ideal one with the different people he meets and talks to in the book.

Plato’s Socrates is a character plagued and prized with contradictions. He professed to care for nothing so much as virtue and human excellence but was incriminated by the greatest and most open democracy in ancient history. He was wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. He is at once the most Athenian, citizenly, patriotic, and other-regarding of philosophers—and yet the most critical and self-regarding of Athenians. In exploring that contradiction, between “Socrates the loyal Athenian citizen” and “Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society,” Aristotle’s Politics comes to mind: “the

“If beggars, men hungering for want of private goods, go into public affairs supposing that in them they must seize the goods…ruling becomes a thing fought over…destroys these men…and the rest of the city as well.” (521a) Throughout history, and in present political environments of the world, the leaders - or guardians - have not always been raised up to rule with an attitude of gratitude or obligation to ensure the harmony of the commonwealth. Many times kings, dictators, presidents and emperors have been, and are, the opposite kind of rulers that Socrates refers to in the earlier statement. Things that are good and just may be lost when states (countries, nations) come into conflict with other states that have contradictory leadership and cultures, like the just man being less well off than the unjust man in earlier

In the Republic, Plato divides social classes into three categories. These categories were Rulers, Guardians, and Craftsmen. These classes work together to ideally create Utopia. Plato believes social order must be maintained in order to have a fully functional society. These social classes are similar to the Feudal System, and modern day social classes. Each class has its own role, which if not carried out can disrupt the flow of society. Within each social class all men, women, and children had their own roles that they also had to fulfill.

By uncovering and comparing the differences between the city and the household in Politics, Ethics and The Republic, we will first explain Aristotle’s criticism and Plato’s potential response to his student. This will lead us to understand the relationship between the city state and the household and explain whether the family is a natural

This paper will argue that money is problematic to Plato largely because his ideal city Kallipolis is filled with virtuous leaders and citizens living in harmony and unity. When money is involved, Plato believes that it is human nature for even the most virtuous leader to lack the will to resist the temptation. Plato discusses the five different types of regimes and constitutions people can live under, Aristocracy, Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy and Tyranny. As regimes shift into the next, virtue decreases and corruption in the state arises. When obtaining wealth and acquiring private property is a motivating factor for humans, people start making self-interested decisions; choosing to take part in politics and fighting in wars for personal gains, and not for the benefit of the whole. When education and training is not the priority from an early age, citizens become lazy and there is a divide in the city between the rich and the poor. Plato goes to great lengths to ensure that the city is just by abolishing private property and creating the noble lie.

Plato’s view of division of labour is divided into three types of peoples’ task in life which are workers as farmers, military type and guardians. Actually, the ruling task of Plato’s Republic is the guardian’s responsible who had achieved the greatest wisdom or knowledge of good. Due to that, Plato claims that “philosopher must become kings or those now who called kings must genuinely and adequately philosophise’’ (Nussbaum1998, p.18). However, people argue about the reasons that the philosopher should rule the city, while the philosophers prefer to gain knowledge instead of power, thus they don’t seek this authority. Therefore, the argument should alter to why the philosophers are the best ruler to govern people. Indeed, Plato states

According to Socrates, the city is similar to a human being in a sense that it also consists of three classes: the money-making (appetitive), auxiliary (spirit), and deliberative (reason). He claims that the city is just if, and only if, all these three classes do their own job and do not interfere in one another’s actions. Consequently, a person is just because all 3 parts of his soul are doing their own job, according to provided analogy.

In short, philosophers kings or rulers are knowledgeable, internally balanced, morally righteous, i.e., wise, just, ruled by justification and, etc.. According to Plato, the ideal character type is epitomized by the philosopher king or ruler. In contrast, the timarchic character is driven by spirit. Individuals with timarchic characters are distinguished mainly by their energy, competiveness, and the desire to prevail. Timarchic characters are self-assertive individuals, liking to be “out there” and attempting to make an impression on other individuals. Furthermore, in the oligarch, we find a character alteration from the ambitious, competitive kind of person to money-loving business individual. The oligarchs’ main goal in life is to be wealthy. In the oligarchic character, appetite rules and governs the rest of the soul by a need for riches. As opposed to the oligarchic character, the democratic character treats all wishes and appetites equally. Democrats are charming but purposeless individuals, spending as much on money, time, and effort on essential desires as on unessential

In this essay, I analyze Books 5 and 7 of the “The Republic of Plato” to see why through discourse between Socrates and Glacon, Plato believes that the philosopher king is the best ruler. Next, I look at Plato’s organization of regimes and his choice for the best regime as Aristocracy came about because of his love for the philosopher king in Book 8. Furthermore, I analyze Aristotle’s principles in his book, “The Politics” and how he takes a different approach when trying to answer the question of the best regime. He did this by not just trying to identify what is best but also what is going to be “attainable” which is what differentiates his answer from Plato’s and leads him to his argument. As Aristotle