Aquinas Vs Plato Research Paper

Plato’s idea of civic justice displays a criteria for specialization that holds each individual responsible for producing their own rendition of excellence that leads to a just life, which produces a just city, and ultimately civic justice. Plato describes civic justice as “…doing one’s own work provided that it comes to be in a certain way” (433b-pg.108).

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.

They are educated through their strict curriculum, and due to the virtues that they learn, they are able to rule in a just manner (Plato 515a). The purpose of life for Plato is to create a just state. Through a broad education, and a democratic government, justice can be pursued. Justice is defined as the harmony that results when everyone is actively engaged in fulfilling his role and does not meddle with that of others (Plato 434e). When each person follows their role in life, stability can be achieved in the state.

As Plato pointed out in The Republic, the government should be ruled by the most wise, intelligent, non-corrupt and individual in the city who does not want to rule, thus being the philosopher. The "philosopher king" idea on paper works well because it portraits the philosopher as a robotic figure who has no heart and does whatever that's good for the city. In real life, humans no matter how unbendable they are, they will still be changed by the original sins like lust and greed. Even Plato admitted with the allegory of the Ring of Gyges, which no matter how legitimate an individual is, as soon as he get his hands onto power he start to sin. In The Republic, the Ring of Gyges is described as a ring that gives invisibility power then the man goes out and does whatever he wants and is unnoticed. In reality, even when a philosopher is given a king's power, his sins would make him unfit for Plato' model.

unique voices. While some philosophers have similar opinions on what it takes to be an effective leader, such as intelligence and worldliness, there are many that disagree on traits they find beneficial. The reasons for these disagreements are vast but one of the crucial factors are the societies and historical eras these authors were nurtured within. Through their own experiences with government and turmoil, philosophers are able to give their critiques on government and human nature as a whole. Socrates and Machiavelli, both philosophers in what it means to be a proper leader and the role of the people within a society, share contrasting views.

In ancient Greece two great written philosophers lived. First there was Plato and then Aristotle. Aristotle was a pupil of Plato. Despite being taught by Plato they had different theories and views. Their ethics were very typical and traditional of ancient Greece but Aristotle detailed virtue ethics and the path to happiness. Plato’s political theories for a utopian society varied from Aristotle’s view of ‘best state for each society’. Their metaphysical theories are complete opposites and very contradicting. Even though Plato and Aristotle came from the same era and were closely linked they had very different philosophies.

To achieve this, he also believes that we must remove the family and remove privilege. To have justice we must raise all children the same, find what they are good at and have them do that specific job for the rest of their lives. He states that to have societal justice we must first have individual justice. Plato’s explains the three-part structure of the soul and their resemblance to the parts of society and their virtues. First is the appetite part of the soul, the yearning for things but knowing they must come with moderation, these resembles to producers of the society; the craftsmen, the farmers, the artisans.

Like other ancient philosophers, Aristotle and Plato had two different conceptions of the state, justice, and politics. They both lived in Greece but had different points of views on the natural of all citizens and how citizens were capable of being perfect in the state. Surprisingly, the same debates that guided Plato and Aristotle’s work remain with us today. What is a good citizen? What makes a good man? Justice? Society? Moreover, the question is why they had different views on the same perspective that has helped shaped many governmental rules and societies.

The ancient Greek Philosopher Plato had an interest in finding the ideal government. In Plato’s Republic, he discusses his ideas and views of how this ideal government would function. He believed that people are born into 3 different classes, with different responsibilities (Plato 415a). Only people in the “golden” class were fit to rule. The most effective of these rulers would be philosophers, as they have knowledge of the good of the whole (Plato 473d). This system seems too perfect for me. I believe that Plato’s republic is unjust and would not work with our modern society, as it relies too much on the “golden” class choosing what is right for everyone, and there is nothing to make them accountable if they choose wrong.

Plato in the Republic writes about a new form of society which would be based upon the good of everyone, whereby those who are most able should rule. Plato states that "Unless, said I,

Just as political justice consists in the structural relations among classes of society, Plato believes, individual justice consists in correct structural relations among parts of the soul. Paralleling the producers, warriors, and rulers in the city, Plato claims that each individual soul has three separate seats of desire and motivation: the appetitive part of our soul lusts after food, drink, sex, and so on (and after money most of all, since money is the means of satisfying the rest of these desires); the spirited part of the soul yearns for honor; the rational part of the soul desires truth and knowledge. In a just soul, these three parts stand in the correct power relations. The rational part must rule, the spirited part must enforce the

Plato’s view of justice ties in with his view of a perfect world. In Plato’s ideal world, the society would be a wise one, wise in

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

We have two great philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. These are great men, whose ideas have not been forgotten over years. Although their thoughts of politics were similar, we find some discrepancies in their teachings. The ideas stem from Socrates to Plato to Aristotle. Plato based moral knowledge on abstract reason, while Aristotle grounded it on experience and tried to apply it more to concrete living. Both ways of life are well respected by many people today.

Plato was a mentor of Aristotle lending ideas to his student about composition and operation of citizens, city state, and political regimes. Although Aristotle criticized Plato’s notion of ranking democracy at a fourth position out of five competing systems of government, he agreed with Plato that democracy is the corrupt form of government as it violates justice of proportionality. The concept of justice of proportionality is to answer who is the most deserving. This is explained in an analogy of whoever deserves the best flute. A rich or a handsome man have no business with the flute, but the best flute player does. Similarly, in political competition, according to Plato, the man most deserving to rule is the either a philosophers king or for Aristotle, the most educated man in the field of politics.