Plato And Plato : The Allegory Of The Republic

In the Republic, Plato has Socrates argue that the soul is not simple, rather, its complex and composed of parts. He makes this assertion by first claiming that: “The same thing cannot undergo contraries at the same time, in the same respect, and within the same part.”. For example, something cannot be hot and cold or good and evil at the same time. Socrates posits this as the crux of his argument“let us proceed on this assumption, with the understanding that, if we ever come to think otherwise, all the consequences based upon it will fall to the ground.”(pg. 673). Assuming premise one is sound Socrates posits premise two: “The human psyche undergoes contraries at the same time, and in the same respect.”. This claim references internal conflicts

Plato is remembered as one of the worlds best known philosophers who along with his writings are widely studied. Plato was a student of the great Greek philosopher Socrates and later went on to be the teacher of Aristotle. Plato’s writings such as “The Republic”, “Apology” and “Symposium” reveal a great amount of insight on what was central to his worldview. He was a true philosopher as he was constantly searching for wisdom and believed questioning every aspect of life would lead him to the knowledge he sought. He was disgusted with the common occurrence of Greeks not thinking for themselves but simply accepting the popular opinion also known as doxa. Plato believed that we ought to search for and meditate on the ideal versions of beauty, justice, wisdom, and other concepts which he referred to as the forms. His hostility towards doxa, theory of the forms, and perspective on reality were the central ideas that shaped Plato’s worldview and led him to be the great philosopher who is still revered today.

In Plato’s Republic he has many examples of rhetoric. In regards to the controversial topic of women and eugenics in which Plato is almost forced into mentioning because of Adeimantus and Glaucon, he uses various rhetorical statements to portray his view on the matter. His readers believe women should be equal, so Plato attempts to persuade his readers into thinking he believes the same. For example, in the passage on women and family Plato states, “we shall assign these to each accordingly; but if the only difference apparent between them is that the female bears and the male begets, we shall not admit that this is the difference relevant for our purpose, but shall still maintain that our male and female Guardians ought to follow the same occupations” (164). He uses the women are equal and can do the same things as men strategy in order to make Athenian men understand what he is trying to say while still stroking their egos by using rhetoric. Men are in general are hard to persuade when it comes to power, so as a result Plato gives a sense of gender equality while at the same time still giving men the upper hand.

In Book VII of the Republic, Plato intimates that someone “returning from a mode of existence which involves greater lucidity” (63-4) would “much prefer, as Homer describes it, ‘being a slave labouring for someone else – someone without property’ […] than share [the] beliefs and [the] life” of ignorant “people who [have, by virtue of being (born) astute, managed to accrue a great deal of] status and power” for themselves despite the sizeable odds stacked against them (62).

At the beginning of Book I, we are introduced to the narrator, Socrates, and his audience of peers. We are made aware, however, of Socrates' special charm and intellectual gifts through the insistence of Polemarchus and the other men for the pleasure of his company. The tone is casual and language and modes of expression rather simple, as is commonly the case in Plato's dialogues. However, Plato's unaffected style serves at least two purposes. For one it belies the complexity and elevation of the ideas, thus it is in accord with Socrates' characteristic irony itself, which draws the "fool" in by feigned ignorance, only so that the master can show that he does not know what he thinks he knows. And second,

In the end of Plato’s Republic Book I, Socrates and Thrasymachus who had just finished a set of vigorous arguments on what the definition for justice is and whether the just or the unjust life is the best life to live, come to a conclusion. Regarding the true definition of justice, at the end of Book I, Socrates mentions that their discussion have not led them to the true definition of justice (Republic 354b). On the other hand, their discussion on which life is more profitable does come to a conclusion, “So the just man is happy and the unjust man is miserable…but being miserable is not profitable, whereas being happy is” (Rep. 354a) Socrates says, indicating the just life tends to be more profitable than the unjust life. Following their

In Books VI and VII of the The Republic, Plato uses the four analogies to represent his theory of justice in the ideal state. The four analogies include the ship, the sun, the divided line, and the cave. The analogies of the ship, and the cave are used by Plato to represent the people of the state and proving his argument that philosophers are the true rulers of the state. The divided line and the sun analogies also supports Plato’s point about philosophers obtaining intellectual knowledge apposed to the ordinary citizens who only have sensible knowledge. Plato argues that the ordinary citizens can be educated but will never reach the level of knowledge that the philosophers have. Plato’s points, although supported by the four analogies

Philosophy is a Greek word meaning "love of wisdom." Throughout Plato's Republic, wisdom plays an important role. According to Plato, education is wisdom. In the passage, 518d, Plato discusses the true meaning of education vicariously through Socrates. Some literary mechanisms can be found in the passage and I will show how they fit in the text and how they contribute to the main themes of Plato's Republic.

A Buddhist teaching suggests that practicing Buddhism is like taking a raft over a great river. One riverbank represents the realm of ‘samsara,’ the cycle of suffering that we are all spinning around in. On the other side is ‘wakefulness,’ or ‘nirvana,’ an enlightened state of awareness characterized by an infinite sense of unity and bliss. The raft symbolizes Buddhism; its purpose being to help us cross over from samsara to nirvana. According to the teaching, however, a curious thing happens to the individual who manages to reach the ‘banks of enlightenment.’ Having climbed off of the raft, she turns around to discover that she cannot now see any riverbank on the side from which she

Socrates continues the conversation with Glaucon and now focuses on the obligation of the guardians and philosophers to serve the people as a result of their education.

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.

“the having and doing of one’s own and what belongs to one would be agreed to

believes that the son will realize to be just is only worth it if you can get a

workers, so that they do not desire to be in the ruler's position. It is seen

Plato's Republic is often read as a political work, as a statement of some sort on government, society, and law. This is certainly not a rash reading of the dialogue; it is called the Republic, and over half of it is devoted to the construction of a city through speech, a city complete with a government structure, a military, an economic system, and laws. However, I believe that to read the Republic as a political statement is inaccurate. Although Socrates and his companions construct a city out of speech as they attempt to define justice, the dialogue repeatedly frames justice as something that cannot be established through a fixed system of morality, let alone through a rigid