Plato 's Theory Of Government

The U.S. government is a union of partially self-governing states or regions under a central government. It is composed of three distinct branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, whose powers are vested by the U.S. Constitution in the Congress, the President, and the federal courts. The separation of powers, which neither any branch working alone can change the U.S. constitution, is a kind of harmony that is similar to what is described in Plato’s aristocratic regime, where each class minds their own jobs to keep the state functioning. Besides, in my opinion, the current U.S. government is a combination of timocracy, oligarchy and democracy, which of four regime types of Plato.

In his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe in, and practice it. I shall further argue that Plato establishes that the metaphorical bridge between the city and soul analogy and reality is the leader, and that in the city governed by justice the philosopher is king.

The Crito and the Republic were both works of Plato. Plato’s works were divided into early, middle and late dialogues. The Crito falls into the category of the formal while the Republic falls into the category of the latter. In his early dialogues, Plato was influenced by Socratic philosophy but as he ages, he starts to develop his distinct and independent philosophy. Justice is the fundamental concept that will be discussed in this paper. The scope of discussion will mainly revolve around the Crito, the Apology and the Republic. In Socrates’ submission and acceptance of his sentence lies the implication that Socrates agrees with democracy as a political system. Plato, on the other hand,

Plato’s Republic, is a classic philosophical novel that covers many points and topics regarding philosophy. One of these main points includes justice. In this essay I will be answering the question of whether justice in soul is choice worthy for its own sake. While this topic is quite complex, I will use a mixture of personal analysis as well as evidence from the book itself to assert that justice in soul is the best choice for its own sake. In the following paragraphs I will discuss what justice in the soul is, why justice in soul is choice worthy and finally to what extent this choice entails.

The Republic by Plato examines many aspects of the human condition. In this piece of writing Plato reveals the sentiments of Socrates as they define how humans function and interact with one another. He even more closely Socrates looks at morality and the values individuals hold most important. One value looked at by Socrates and his colleagues is the principle of justice. Multiple definitions of justice are given and Socrates analyzes the merit of each. As the group defines justice they show how self-interest shapes the progression of their arguments and contributes to the definition of justice.

They are educated through their strict curriculum, and due to the virtues that they learn, they are able to rule in a just manner (Plato 515a). The purpose of life for Plato is to create a just state. Through a broad education, and a democratic government, justice can be pursued. Justice is defined as the harmony that results when everyone is actively engaged in fulfilling his role and does not meddle with that of others (Plato 434e). When each person follows their role in life, stability can be achieved in the state.

In The Republic by Plato, Plato constructed an ideal city where Philosophers would rule. Governed by an aristocratic form of government, it took away some of the most basic rights a normal citizen should deserve, freedom of choice, worship, and assembly were distressed. Though the idea of philosopher kings is good on paper, fundamental flaws of the human kind even described by Plato himself prevent it from being truly successful. The idea of an ideal democratic government like what our founding fathers had envisioned is the most successful and best political form which will ensure individual freedom and keep power struggle to a minimum.

Book II of the Republic opens with Plato’s two brothers, both who want to know which is the better life to live: the just or the unjust. First, Socrates

The main issue Plato has with democracy, as outlined in The Republic of Plato, is democracy has a uniquely level playing field for all and that this leads to people working toward endeavors that do not suit their best abilities, which goes against Plato’s own image of justice as Plato’s image holds to the idea that justice is primarily found in the community more so than the individual and that it is realized on an individual and societal level when people help to advance society by working toward endeavors that best suit their natural abilities (55). This democratic equality, the author feels, leads to those who are unequipped and unprepared to rule leading the masses. For example, Plato utilizes the metaphor of the ship to show this issue of democracy, that many of the crew, though not equipped to lead, will try to steer to steer the ship and that the struggle will eventually lead the crew to wreck the ship (195-196).

In Plato’s The Republic and The Apology, the topic of justice is examined from multiple angles in an attempt to discover what justice is, as well as why living a just life is desirable. Plato, writing through Socrates, identifies in The Republic what he thought justice was through the creation of an ideal city and an ideal soul. Both the ideal city and the ideal soul have three components which, when all are acting harmoniously, create what Socrates considers to be justice. Before he outlines this city and soul, he listens to the arguments of three men who hold popular ideas of the period. These men act to legitimize Socrates’ arguments because he finds logical errors in all of their opinions. In The Apology, a different, more down-to-Earth, Socrates is presented who, through his self-defense in court, reveals a different, even contradictory, view of the justice presented in The Republic. In this paper, the full argument of justice from The Republic will be examined, as well as the possible inconsistencies between The Republic and The Apology.

The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those

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.

Plato’s Republic proposes a number of intriguing theories, ranging from his contemporary view of ethics to political idealism. It is because of Plato’s emerging interpretations that philosophers still refer to Plato’s definitions of moral philosophy as a standard. Plato’s possibly most argued concept could be said to be the analogy between city and soul in Book IV, partially due to his expansive analysis of justice and the role justice plays in an “ideal city,” which has some key flaws. Despite these flawed assumptions that my essay will point out, Plato’s exposition on ethics is still relevant for scholars and academics to study, due to his interpretive view on morality and justice.

In short, it outlines the problem that there can be no correct leadership in a democracy. The leader elected by the people must act accordingly to secure and maintain his position, as a result the leader cannot act in the best interest of the society, only in the interests of the ‘mob.’ Secondly, Plato argues that within a democracy there will always be factions or a group of people that believe they are right, these factions gain power and support through their wealth and property. This problem creates conflicts and a breakdown of society which Plato believes could lead to civil war. Thirdly, Plato suggests that a proper society maintains itself by stability and authority. Stability is maintained by looking towards the future rather than short term, when authority is lost the people lose sight of what is best for them, thus losing stability. Finally, considering points two and three Plato argues that with a breakdown of authority and stability combined with factions, this would result in violence creating the inevitability of civil war. As a consequence, tyranny is formed to end violence in the interest of the many for the power of the one. These four problems present the inevitability that democracy is destined for ruin.

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