Plato Vs Socrates

The start of theater and drama in Ancient Greece took form in about 5th century b.c, with Sophocles being considered the master of tragedy. In his plays and those of the same genre, classic fables that the people of the era knew well were used to tell the stories. The tragic hero’s of these stories often strive to live honorable and righteous lives, but because of some mistake their lives would often great and noble death. The idea that serving the state was proper way to gain honor was a popular belief during this time period. This philosophy was echoed by Plato in his book, the Republic. Plato dealt with establishing the ideal state. The way to achieve the ideal state was through striving for justice. Justice, according to Plato, is doing only the tasks assigned to them by nature. This is the fundamental notion for his creation of an ideal city. It is both knowing what true justice is and where one belongs in the city that the ideal can be achieved. Justice in a city can be found in an individual as well outside the individual because it is a concept that is universal. If a ruler of a state was to maintain order and control over his people

Now let us take a look into the background of the story. Plato gives his ideals on a perfect society and everything it should include. He basically implies that justice is rightness, and rightness is whatever he feels it should be. He breaks society down into guardians, wage earners, and auxiliaries. Wage earners are people such as surgeons or shoemakers.

whether justice is for people with power. On the one hand, some argue Socrates is a

In book VI of The Republic, Plato uses Socrates as his mouthpiece to reveal the ideal city. Plato points out that the idea city is based on the foundations of three basic forms. Consequently, these three forms are manifested in the individuals that make up the city. The functioning of the city will thus depend on the analogy of the structures within the city and within the souls of the people. The main purpose of this paper is to analyze the argument by Socrates with respect to the three forms in the city and in the soul. Additionally, the paper seeks to analyze the rationale behind Socrates’ comparison and subsequent establishment of analogy between the forms in the city and the forms in the city in the context of justice. The paper also

Book four of The Republic of Plato starts out with Adeimantus suggesting that being a ruler does not sound like it would be fun because they would have no wealth to themselves. Socrates says to him that their goal is not to make just one group happy but to make the whole city happy and then he brings up the example of the statue. Afterwards, Socrates says that there should be neither wealth nor poverty in the city because both make the people perform their tasks worse. He then says that the city is complete and they start to look for the four virtues within it. They decide that wisdom lies with the guardians, courage lies with the auxiliaries, and moderation and justice lie throughout the whole city.

Socrates and Aristotle would think that philosophy was for the greater good and expanding the minds of those around them. Socrates in particular would regard philosophy as conversational and weeding out those who ‘know’ and those who do not. Aristotle would use philosophy to try to reach the conclusion on what happiness is. These great thinkers believed absolute contemplation was the greatest pleasure human beings could reach, so for them philosophy was reaching a type of Nirvana.

In the Republic, Plato, through Socrates, presents the idea of the kallipolis and is not only apathetic to the idea of a perfect city but goes as far to discourage thinkers from attempting to attain this perfect city.

To try to get it those discoursed conflict all things considered specific case is required with ponder these subjects. Socrates tries to demonstrate that it is dependably in an individual's enthusiasm to be only, as opposed to unreasonable. Along these lines, a standout amongst the most problems that are begging to be addressed in regards to the Republic is whether Socrates guards equity effectively or not. Socrates embarks to watch those felt that it might be always On one's enthusiasm on make basically Also ought to motion truly Furthermore he shows the Exactly illustrative Similarly as you quit offering on that one who require a balanced souk. Socrates protects is psychic prosperity on the other hand sensibility which may lead you quit offering on that one on an opportunity to be content At he fails will watch Equity. Socrates fails to show the reason Hosting a balanced souk will lead individual on motion truly or the reason psychic prosperity totals will Equity. Socrates protects will be psychic prosperity or sensibility which may lead one ought to be merry Anyhow he falls level ought to monitor

can also help one to distinguish it as a just city. Therefore, within Plato’s definition

in my opinion, Plato did a good job which helps us to understand the reality by learning more and that supporting the importance of education and study. We must understand the reality not be same the people who get their knowledge from what they see and hear, we must leave the cave and see the real world. at the end, I will never come back to my cave because I found my beautiful real life outside of it.

With this allegory, Plato is not only stressing the idea that specialization is key to the running of the Republic, but also that philosophers were unappreciated in 420 BC Athens, and thus useless because the world would not use them and their knowledge. It also stresses the dangers of liberty and equality, as well as the unnaturalness of

These are the words of Socrates, who spoke before the Athenian jury in the trial that would, ultimately, condemn him to his death. Through works such as the Apology and The Republic, we can see Plato’s distaste of the concept of democracy. Why does he consider democracy to be so flawed? Let us look through his own eyes and see what his individual criticisms are, and determine

Socrates proves that justice brings unity to any group of people, because it allows them to trust and rely on one another. The discussion of justice is continued in the beginning of Book II. Glaucon enters the conversation and he divides all things into three categories: 1) Those that are pleasurable for themselves and their results, 2) Those that bring good results, but with difficulty, and 3) Those that bring no results, but are pleasurable. Glacon then asks Socrates which category justice falls within. He replies by placing it in the first category. "I myself put it among the finest goods, as something to be valued by anyone who is going to be blessed with happiness, both because of itself and what it comes from" (Republic, Book II 358a). Glaucon claims that the general view of justice lies in the second category, the mean between two extremes. Glaucon defends his argument by using the example of the "Ring of Gyes," a magical ring that turns its wearer invisible. He continues to argue that if humans were given the opportunity to be unjust without getting caught or without suffering any punishment or loss of good reputation, they would naturally choose a life of injustice, in order to maximize their own interests. Now the issue at hand is to prove whether it is more beneficial to lead a just or unjust life. In an attempt to provide a satisfactory definition of justice, Socrates tries to make an analogy between the

The Republic is an ancient Philosophical story written by Plato. Plato was the student of Socrates. Republic talks about the real life experience of Socrates and it capture an event from the life of Socrates.

Plato and Aristotle provided elaborate political theories on who should rule and why. This is always an important question for us to ask of any political thinker. Both of the philosophers divulge on the idea of justice. Justice is a virtue that concerns the good of others, both of our family and others in society. Therefore, both of the philosophers hold opposing political and social views. Plato indulges in the state of ideas and fate, while Aristotle believes in freedom and reality. However, which one of these societies is the best to live in. In the paper, I will argue that Plato's society is an ideal place to live due to the connection the soul of individual makes with the society as a whole. Therefore, this paper will analyze the political theories of both the scholars and determine why Plato’s society is ideal.