Comparing Plato and Aristotle Essay

Glaucon sees the issue from the perspective of personal gain or loss, while Plato sees it from outside that realm in the sphere of absolute truths. Clearly, an absolute truth is more viable and defensible than a personal interest. Justice is a higher order than personal advantage and as is associated with happiness whether one receives a reward for justice or not. The argument Glaucon raises against the absolutism of justice is exemplified in his story of the man who discovers a gold ring that allows him to become invisible. Glaucon proposes these two representative men as extreme examples of the two sides of the argument and suggests that their positions be examined after their death to see which was happier, based on the premise that the unjust man meted out injustice at will without ever suffering it himself, while the just man acted only justly but was treated unjustly himself. Glaucon takes this example to the extreme, with the just man being: “whipped...racked...bound; he'll have both his eyes burned out; and at the end, when he has undergone every sort of evil, he'll be crucified and know that one shouldn't wish to be, but to seem to be, just” (39). Glaucon sets these two men at extremes to prove his point-that happiness does not come from being

In this discussion Glaucon explains to Socrates why giving the Gyges's ring to a just person will cause them to strive for personal gain with the cost of who they interact with. He also questions if the just person would take in account for the impact of there actions on others? Another interesting thing that was stated was if a just person had the ring why wouldn't they give up the quest of just, and take advantage of the injustice. Like that of the man who used the ring to become invisible and have intercourse with the kings wife and then kill the present king to become king. Then Adiemantus chimes in or tries to finish the discussion by pointing out that having good reputation is a personal benefit because it is gathered by someone who

In Plato’s “Ring of Gyges,” Glaucon is, for all intents and purposes, seeking to define the true meaning of “justice.” In order to do this, he has decided to attempt to paint a beautiful picture of injustice in the most untainted way to his friend Socrates; to portray an unjust way of living as superior to being a “just” man. Glaucon discusses several notions in order to acclaim injustice as the superior lifestyle for man.

To begin with, a discourse about the nature of justice arises between Glaucon and Socrates. As expressed in book 2 of the Republic, Glaucon begins a step by step process of reasoning, first attempting to identify justice as either an intrinsic or extrinsic good, or possibly both. To expand, Glaucon first describes intrinsic goods as welcoming for their own sake, regardless of outcome, causing pleasure and delight in the heat of the moment (Pg. 497). Inversely, Glaucon then describes extrinsic goods as desirable for their own results, as, for example, gymnastics and care of the sick, and in the case of justice, the reputation of being just, not actually being just (Pg 498). Consequently, Socrates responds by placing justice in the highest class of goods, believing that one pursues justice for its intrinsic rewards, since it's the ethical thing to do, while also seeking it for the extrinsic rewards, such as a promotion for ones just behavior.

Glaucon argues that even the most just man would use this ring to satisfy his appetites for material things and power. In response to this reasoning, Socrates makes a strong argument in favor of justice that help to prove, without a doubt, that behaving justly is in our best interest. Socrates first describes a tyrant, the epitome of an unjust man. The tyrant is controlled by his appetites for wealth and material things. When he eventually spends the last of his money on material things he borrows money from others, and later turns to crime in order to fulfill his increasing desires.

The classification of goods that Socrates described at the beginning of Book II of the Republic fall into three categories; The first category is about things that bring the satisfaction of the moment with no results and we want to have “not for their consequences, but just for their own sake.” Then, things that are for our own sake and their consequences like “… health and the use of our eyes.” And things that are useful, but we only want them for the benefits they bring. Socrates placed justice in the category, which values both the results and our own sake as values that anyone who gain happiness should have. On the other hand, Glaucon described justice as a compact crated by men who has done wrong and suffered wrong, but that at the end men do right only under compulsion of not suffering.

Socrates account of justice stems from Glaucon’s arrangement of the three categories of goods: inherently good, pleasurable, or both. Glaucon asks if there is any value in simply being a just person, he comes to find that if a person can be unjust and get away with it then the unjust life is better. The first of its three categories is meant for the things that are “a kind of good we like for its own sake (scc.357c)”. The second category is for what’s good as a result of their consequences- such as exercise for fitness and sex for pleasure and children. The highest category is for things that are both good in themselves and because of their consequences. Continuing the challenge and reinforcing his second

Substantial amounts of controversy arises with the perception of the concept of justice; whether justice is worth pursuing or not, the definition of justice itself and what classifies a person as just and vice versa. However, in Plato’s Republic the same controversy arises. One by the name of Glaucon poses a challenge toward Socrates. He forwards his conception of a good and explains the three subcategories of what a good is. Glaucon then declares that justice is undesirable for its own sake in the sense that the act of injustice is more beneficial toward human nature. So, Socrates successfully disputes an argument in opposition to Glaucon’s challenge, therefore justifying that justice is indeed desirable for its own sake.

In Book II, Socrates believes he is done having the conversation of Justice. Glaucon and others are no satisfied with the conclusion. Glaucon states that all goods can be divided into three classes: things we desire only for consequences such as physical and medical; things we desire only for their own sake like joy; and what he believes to be the highest class. Things we desire for their own sake and what we get from them, things such as health, sight and knowledge. Glaucon wants Socrates to prove that justice is desirable for its own sake, like joy, health and knowledge.

Plato versus Aristotle Plato and Aristotle, two philosophers in the 4th century, hold polar views on politics and philosophy in general. This fact is very cleverly illustrated by Raphael 's "School of Athens" (1510-11; Stanza della Segnatura, Vatican), where Plato is portrayed looking up to the higher forms; and Aristotle is pointing down because he supports the natural sciences. In a discussion of politics, the stand point of each philosopher becomes an essential factor. It is not coincidental that Plato states in The Republic that Philosopher Rulers who possess knowledge of the good should be the governors in a city state. His strong interest in metaphysics is demonstrated in The Republic various times: for example, the similes of the cave, the sun, and the line, and his theory of the forms. Because he is so involved in metaphysics, his views on politics are more theoretical as opposed to actual. Aristotle, contrarily, holds the view that politics is the art of ruling and being ruled in turn. In The Politics, he attempts to outline a way of governing that would be ideal for an actual state. Balance is a main word in discussing Aristotle because he believes it is the necessary element to creating a stable government. His less metaphysical approach to politics makes Aristotle more in tune with the modern world, yet he is far from modern. Plato 's concept of what politics and government should be is a direct result of his belief in the theory of forms. The theory of forms

Glaucon attempted to prove that injustice is preferable to justice. At first, Glacon agreed with Socrates that justice is a good thing, but implored on the nature of its goodness? He listed three types of “good”; that which is good for its own sake (such as playing games), that which is good is good in itself and has useful consequences (such as reading), and that which is painful but has good consequences (such as surgery). Socrates replied that justice "belongs in the fairest class, that which a man who is to be happy must love both for its own sake and for the results." (45d) Glaucon then reaffirmed Thrasymachus’s position that unjust people lead a better life than just people. He started that being just is

Plato was born around 428 B.C. which was during the final years of the Golden Age of Pericles Athens. Plato came from one of the wealthiest and most politically involved families in Athens. His father Ariston died when he was a child. His mother Perictione remarried a politician by the name of Pyrilampes. Plato was raised during the Peloponnesian War and was educated in philosophy, poetry and gymnastics by well known Athenian teachers including a philosopher by the name of Cratylus. Plato became a devoted follower of Socrates in fact, Socrates was condemned for corrupting the youth which included Plato at the time. Plato would go on to remember how Socrates believed in questioning everything which became the basis of his early studies.

Socrates, undaunted by the example presented to him by Glaucon, speaks in great length about the actual value of justice and why it is to be loved for its own sake as well as its consequences. In the Republic, Socrates clarifies that a truly just man would act in an upright manner even if he possessed the ring of Gyges. While Glaucon saw morality as a restraint placed upon man by society, Socrates argued that the ring would not make a man more free, but rather, a slave to his base desires. Furthermore, he likens functions of a human mind to that of the ideal state, classifying the sections of the mind as reason, spirit, and desire. Socrates believed that the ideal state needed leaders and military men capable of controlling the lower classes and explained that this follows the proper ordering of the mind, where reason and spirit restrain one’s desires.

Plato was from the wealthy elite class in Greece at the time which made it easier

At some point and time every college student will face the task of taking a philosophy class and within that class will most likely find themselves comparing the views of the ancient Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato. As both men knew each other and in fact, Plato was the teacher of Aristotle it's always interesting to see how the thoughts of the student differ from the views of their teacher. Both men are equally matched to compare as both critically studied the matters of science, politics, ethics, and art over their respective life times. While Plato’s works have been documented and keep in style as they have been copied for centuries. It can be argued that Aristotle’s work has had the greater influence in the worlds of politics, ethics, and art. But could that be true? Are the two men so different in the worlds of politics, ethics, and art?