Essay on Aristotle

            On the contrary, Plato's idea of the ruler is almost exactly the opposite that of Machiavelli's.  Plato's reason for his ideal ruler and state was to explain the meaning of justice. One must examine what it means for a state to be just and what it means for a person to be just to truly understand the meaning of justice.  According to Socrates, ??if we first tried to observe justice in some larger thing that possessed it, this would make it easier to observe in a single individual. We agreed that this larger thing is a city?(Plato 96).?  Plato?s ideal ruler must have a good mind, always be truthful, have knowledge and discipline, and not be afraid of death.  The ruler is a philosopher that satisfies the four virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation/self-control, and justice.

This paper discussed The Allegory of The Cave in Plato's Republic, and tries to unfold the messages Plato wishes to convey with regard to his conception of reality, knowledge and education.

Plato suggests the entirety of everything a ruler does is for the advantage of the ruled. He does so in an analogy between the ruler of a society and the pilot of a ship. He writes, “the ruler will consider or command the benefit not of the pilot, but of the man who is a sailor and is ruled" (Plato 21). In putting the society before himself, he tells everyone what is known as the Noble Lie. In it, he claims that everyone in the city belongs to the city because they were born there and that there is a divine sanction to their natural hierarchy. This promotes an expectation of loyalty and keeps everyone satisfied with their standings in life within their trades. Through the Noble Lie, the ruler serves the city by ensuring order continues and that everyone is committed to the continued success of the city.

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.

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.

In Plato’s, “The Republic,” Socrates mediates conversation, as he challenges himself, and those around him to arbitrate the value of justice and conceptualize the significance that it holds for both the individual and the state. Throughout books I to VI, Socrates, Glaucon, and Adameitus constructively develop a sense of justice through argument and the formation of an ideal state. However, this embodiment reaches a deadlock in the middle of book V when Socrates pronounces that everything discussed thus far is nothing but an ideology, unless a philosopher king is manifested.

A “Machiavellian government” is one that takes violence into consideration when obtaining a leader position as well as a means in maintaining structured citizens. In contrast, Socrates does not speak of means in obtaining this form of leadership, however, he speaks of devoting his life to wisdom and spreading knowledge on pure ‘goodness’ among humans. Socrates shows little interest in a governmental system that is comprised of citizens who fear their leader, but instead, citizens and rulers who respect and strive for a common good among all.

The producers are the craftsmen, farmers etc.; the auxiliaries are the warriors/soldiers; and the guardians are the rulers. This hierarchy places the rulers at the top of the food chain followed by the auxiliaries with the producers at the bottom. In this society, each group is required to perform is appropriate function and only that function. It is the rulers’ job to rule, the auxiliaries uphold the convictions of the rulers, and the producers are to limit themselves to exercising their natural skills. Plato argues that state justice requires each individual it conform to the societal role they have been given and not to interfere with any other business.

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.

This textual analysis will be based on the book “The Republic” by Plato, specifically the passage 475d-477a. The purpose of this essay is to analyze and evaluate the main concepts explored in the passage and their relation to the platonic political philosophy presented in “The Republic”. The essay will provide a summary of the passage, emphasizing the breakthroughs reached in the Socratic dialogue. The main points will then be singled out for a more in-depth review in order to see if the arguments made by Socrates stand solid. Three main concepts will be delved into in a chronological order, those being philosophers and imitators, perceptive reality and absolute knowledge, with the analysis of the true meaning, and the implications raised

The three classes are a product of different aptitude levels for certain tasks amid various individuals. Plato assigns different political roles to different members of each class. It appears that the only classes that are allowed to participate in government are the Auxiliaries and, of course, the Philosopher Rulers. The lower class does not partake in politics because they are not mentally able. In other words, they do not understand the concept of the forms. Thus, it is better to allow the Philosophers, who do have this knowledge, to lead them. Providing food and abode for the Guardians are the only governmental responsibility the lower class has. The Auxiliaries are in charge of the military, police, and executive duties. Ruling and making laws is reserved for the Philosopher Rulers whose actions are all intended for the good of the state. To ensure that public good continues to be foremost

Plato and Aristotle’s views on the nature of a human being and the city are fundamental blocks of forming the best political regime. The ideal city of Plato stands upon the four virtues: wisdom, courage, moderation and justice. The concept of justice embodies the understanding that only when citizens are fulfilling their obligated roles while not interfering with others can a city achieve harmony. For this purpose, farmers, artisans, and shepherds will do what’s expected of them per their expertise while the Guardians, a special class, is fit to rule the state. So his view that since every individual has a different yet pertinent role in the city and as most men are only

Rulers, otherwise known as “True Guardians” held the most worthy role, although not the most important. Their social metallic property was gold. The Rules were leaders and philosophers who kept society in order. To fulfill this role one must be specially educated in specifically math and dialect. Plato believed that rulers must live in poverty, with any possessions they do have held in common. The very things, then, that mean the most to commoners will be denied to the rulers. The next class were the Guardians, otherwise known as “auxiliaries”. As the name implies, they were soldiers or warriors. They were responsible for defending the city from invaders, and for keeping peace. They enforce convictions and ensure that rules were obeyed. Their metallic property was silver. Although not as worthy or as looked up to as Rulers, the Guardians held what is considered the most important role in society, much as in modern day society our

Plato being aware of this dilemma offers a reason the philosopher would be compelled to rule. One reason the philosopher would return to rule would be a sense of obligation to his former fellows. After all, he was enabled to reach this understanding of forms by the education the city made available to him. Since the city gave him this knowledge he owes them his service as ruler. This claim is countered by the suggestion that by compelling the philosopher to

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