Comparing Plato And Aristotle 's Idea Of Happiness

In his philosophy, Plato places a large emphasis on the importance of the idea of justice. This emphasis can be seen especially in his work ‘The Republic’ where, through his main character Socrates, he attempts to define the nature of justice and to justify this definition. One of the methods used by Socrates to strengthen or rather explain his argument on justice is through his famous city-soul analogy, where a comparison between a just city and a just soul/individual is made. Through this analogy, Socrates attempts to explain the nature of justice, how it is the virtue of the soul and is therefore intrinsically valuable to the

In the era of the contemporary United States, a country that has had the longest standing democracy, we are used to thinking very highly of its system. However, throughout our history, there have been a couple of critics to the system of democracy. It comes as no surprise that democracy does have its issues. One of the first pieces of literature where democracy was mentioned and analyzed at a deeper level was The Republic by Plato. This ancient Greek philosopher did not completely agree with democracy, regardless of the fact that ancient Athens was the first civilization that gave rise to it. In fact, in a numerical list that he composes on which are the best ways of ruling, Plato puts democracy at one of the lowest levels. In order, Plato’s list of types of government from most desirable to least desirable looks like this: 1.) Republic (The ideal city) 2.) Timocracy 3.) Oligarchy 4.) Democracy 5.) Tyranny. Additionally, In The Republic, Plato tells us his beliefs and values on certain aspects of life through the eyes of Socrates. So, even though Plato himself does not appear in The Republic and instead Socrates does, nonetheless, Plato and Socrates shared the same ideology when it came to democracy. As we know, Plato did not agree with democracy. As a result, in this paper, I will explore the greatest intellectual strengths and weaknesses of Plato’s view on democracy.

Happiness is an absolute state of mind, where a person can realize the ultimate contentment in their life regardless of circumstances. Happiness is the end of every desire, after which nothing is desirable. Socrates believes that happiness is a concept of morality and the stable state of ones’ mind, which is non-dependable on the material goods, resources and circumstances. Whereas Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics, states that “happiness depends on our self”, where both the material satisfaction and internal satisfaction is required to relish the human life in a happy way. Both philosophers are stressed upon the ultimate satisfaction of life and ‘supreme goods’. The only major difference between the Socrates and Aristotle’s definitions

Plato?s view of Justice can be seen in his model of The Tripartite Soul. In this model Plato outlines 3 sectors of his ideal society. This theoretical society is composed of Guardians, Auxiliaries, and Producers. The Guardians were the upper class citizens who had the authority to pass judgment. Guardians were rational and wise, and could participate and become involved in politics. The Auxiliaries were positioned as courageous citizens who helped preserve the spirit and emotion of a society by ?protecting and serving? much like a modern day public works department or police and fire squad. In the lowest tier of Plato?s ideal society were the Producers, whose job it was to create. The Producers were to use temperance in their lives, for they were classified as appetitive souls who could easily succumb to bodily desires. The Producers were to practice asceticism, which is the eradication of bodily desires.

Though the whole of The Republic is an investigation of what justice is, the relationship between it and justice is derived from the virtue of sophrosyne. This quality of moderation and balance in a person is what Plato considers essential to the just man. He explains, “The reality is that justice is not a matter of external behavior but the way a man privately and truly governs his inner self. The just man does not permit the various parts of his soul to interfere with one another or usurp each other’s functions. He has set his own life in order.” (Plato, 137) That which is good withstands external pressures so that its essential quality is unchanged. Similarly, the just man is identified not by that which we visually observe about him, but the integrity of his internal composure. We have determined, therefore, that it is what is good about the just man that makes him just. Having established this point about the just person, it is sensible to consider the conditions under which a person becomes unjust.

If the soul is as Plato described it, it will function smoothly only though the rule of its calculating function and well-trained expression of its spirited part. Anyone who has experienced inner conflict would agree that existence is more desirable with out it. Moreover, since the calculating part recognizes the demands of morality, it’s rule within the soul will produce actions most in accord with the strictures of ethics. Thus the soul that functions best by nature will also be the best behaved: the just soul is a happy soul.

In the eyes of the Classical Greeks, political participation is the manifestation of the most important of freedoms. Those who were most useful to society, to their polis, were those who made the most of their capability to think and speak in such a way as to benefit those around them. Unlike the modern man, and specifically the modern American, the Greeks, in the words of Paul Rahe in his “Primacy of Politics in Ancient Greece”, “did not value political freedom for the sake of life, liberty, and property; they valued the last three for the sake of the first” (Rahe 279). This notion of political action being the foundation of a functional society is not one that is implemented today—most Americans consider the government to be infringing on

The Republic by Plato emphasizes how justice is exemplified by arguing that our soul is divided into three different parts and relates to Eudaimonia, happiness. A Greek philosopher, Socrates, was determined to find the exact meaning of justice. Socrates along with other philosophers, such as Thrasymachus, Adeimantus, and Glaucon, continuously argued until a perfect definition was formed. Justice first started in the city that had an organization of three classes: a general class of craftsmen, a class of soldiers, and a class of guardians (423a). In order to understand what justice looked like in an individual, Socrates used the classes that worked in the city as inspiration for parts of the soul within the human body. Socrates proposed that the three single parts of the soul consisted of rational, appetite, and spiritual, which need to harmoniously cooperate with one another for justice to occur. In result, Socrates defines justice as the quality of the soul where each part does its own job and does not meddle with the other parts, whereas injustice has one part that meddles with the job of another part of the soul. Overall, Socrates’ division of the soul stops at three parts because it is the basics of how one’s soul operates. It accomplished the necessary relationships of power and influence relating to one another, and without the three different elements, neither the soul nor the society would be just or be able to function properly.

Plato continues to relate the categories of a just state to the individual soul. He says that the soul has different parts to it as well and for them to be in harmony is for

How will this happiness be accomplished? It will be accomplished by making the State just. Plato believes that justice for the individual consists in fulfilling one’s proper role – realizing one’s potential while not doing what is contrary to one’s nature. This is also true for justice in the State. Each class and each individual has a specific set of obligations to the community that will result in a harmonious whole if everyone fulfills them.

One of the central claims of Plato’s Republic is that justice is not only desirable for its own sake, but that it maximises the happiness of those who practice it. This paper examines Plato’s arguments in support of this thesis to determine (a) what he means by happiness, (b) to what extent it exists in his proposed ideal state, and (c) whether this in any way substantiates his claims about the benefits of justice. In particular, I will argue that there are two different conceptions of happiness at play in The Republic, and two methods of achieving its highest form, namely the pursuit of justice and philosophy, before arriving at a final definition of

The ability to live a just life even when circumstances do not allow and there are no future benefits rests on a person, and is indeed possible. Being just takes more than a personality and extends to the belief that life has rewards far much better than what people see in normal circumstances. According to Plato, philosophers are the best in terms of leading just lives, and the nature of what they do makes them see things differently, which further prompts the idea of a just life. It follows that living a just life starts at a person’s early stages in life, and the upbringing influences outcomes, as well. In order to live a just life, therefore, the form of upbringing nurtures this requirement in a person’s soul and they see the need to be good and just in every aspect. It then becomes worthwhile for such people to live a just life since they do not see reasons for doing otherwise. Being just forms part and parcel of a person’s life, and such people appreciate life with every experience it brings since it is from such that they as well learn.

In Book I of the Republic, Plato examines whether injustice is more profitable than justice. Thrasymachus claims that statement to be true so Socrates sets out to show that justice is stronger and more powerful than injustice. Also, that a just person is happy while an unjust person is unhappy. Socrates establishes right before with Thrasymachus that injustice is wisdom and virtue while injustice is ignorance. From this, Socrates believes it will be easily shown that justice is stronger. In this paper, I will begin by examining Socrates’ weaker argument that says a just person is happy. Here, he claims that the virtue of a soul is justice, and the soul has multiple functions that can only be performed well through justice. However, this

Throughout The Republic, Plato argues that the virtuous person is the only individual capable of achieving true happiness, since his tripartite soul is in complete harmony. In contrast, the immoral individual is unable to achieve any sort of true happiness, as without virtue, his soul is in a state of chaos and would thus impede any action to satisfy his desires. While virtue is depicted as the most crucial and major key to achieving happiness, Plato also acknowledges that a moral individual can achieve happiness through performing civic duty as well. He regards happiness that comes from performing socially just acts from fulfilling one’s duty to his society, as on the same level as happiness that stems from morality. On the other hand, Plato suggests that material and sensual forms of happiness, such as wealth, leisure, and pleasure, are deemed to be essentially false forms of happiness. Individuals who indulge in these forms of “happiness” cannot be considered as individuals who are experiencing true

one essential conviction, expressed in the word democracy itself: that power should be in the hands of the people. Although democracy today has been slightly inefficient in this idea, with the wealthy, elite class challenging this right, “it nevertheless claims for itself a fundamental validity that no other kind of society shares….” To completely understand the structure of democracy, one must return to the roots of the practice itself, and examine the origins in ancient Greece, the expansion in the Roman Empire, and how these practices combined make what we recognize as today’s democratic government.