Plato 's View Of The City State

The idea for a just city was constructed in the book, Plato Republic, and in that blueprint, the ultimate goal was to have a just city, it should also be noted that before Plato there were numerous theories of Justice. The other theories were proposed by Cephalus, Polymarchus, Trasymachus and Glaucon all of which Plato did not agree with and all three had one common element. The element

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.

Beginning in Book I Socrates states clearly that injustice causes war and justice causes the opposite, but by Book V he seems to have a completely different perspective on whether war is just or not. His mind apparently begins to change in Book II when he introduces the second class of people, namely the guardians, with the purpose of defending the city. Throughout Books II, IV and V Socrates discusses the topic of war in light of justice and finally concludes that war is the outworking of the perfectly just city.

In Plato' "ideal" model of a city; he chose an aristocratic form of government, describing it as

Since the proper order of the city has now been established, it is time to turn inward to one’s soul to determine where justice and injustice might lie, and what the difference is between the two. Plato believes, “if an individual has these same three parts in his soul, we will expect him to be correctly called by the same names as the city if he has the same conditions in them” (Cahn 148). Now that Plato has found the four virtues within the larger environment of the city, he now wants to investigate their relationship to the smaller environment of the soul.

In Plato’s republic, a philosophical account on the kallipolis (the beautiful city) is built on the perspective of Socrates and his discussion between his companions. In the republic, the city in which ones live in depends on the soul and the character of the city one lives in. In this paper the character of human nature and politics will be discussed in how a city is ought to be by the influence of human nature and politics. Firstly, the influence of human nature on politics will be looked at, for example according to Plato on behalf of Socrates; he claims that a just soul creates a just society, where it is human nature to be just, that influences in creating a just political system. Secondly, politics influences human nature, where in

In The Republic of Plato, Plato, in addition to sharing his views on justice, shares his views on democracy using a fictionalized Socrates to outline the most pressing issues. Plato’s views on democracy are negative; he believes democracy to be bred from a response to inequality of wealth and to heighten all of humanities worst traits. Plato believes democracy leads to unequipped leaders who hold offices and power without the necessary traits and preparation.

The component of specialization within the city-soul analogy, that of which classifies the working class as the most inferior in comparison to the ruling and guardians classes, and must succumb to the authority of the latter, raises questions to possible alternate purposes of the analogy. Perhaps, along with attempting to simply define the nature of justice, this analogy also attempts to pacify the portion of the city population deemed as appetitive and perhaps threatening, possibly to strengthen the political position of the philosopher-kings, a political class Plato was most likely apart of. Although Socrates is quite harsh in his definition of the working class and is straightforward in his requirement for it to succumb to the authority of its superiors, he provides a justification for the workers that allows the class to view their circumstance as inevitable or ‘natural’, thus not worth fighting against. Bernard Williams brilliantly words this view in his article ‘The Analogy of City and Soul in Plato’s Republic”:

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

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.

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.

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

More than two-thousand years have elapsed since Plato wrote what many consider his most famous work, Republic. To this day, students and scholars alike grapple with the challenging philosophical issues presented therein. The thematic crux of the work lies in the nature of justice. In defining this slippery concept, Socrates details the structure and workings of what he considers a truly just city, the kallipolis. There are those who would say that this kallipolis may be equated to a utopia, an ideal society; however, I intend to illustrate a much divergent point of view. The justice of this city, made analogous to the justice of the individual, is specifically what precludes the kallipolis from being an ideal society. For this

This paper will argue that money is problematic to Plato largely because his ideal city Kallipolis is filled with virtuous leaders and citizens living in harmony and unity. When money is involved, Plato believes that it is human nature for even the most virtuous leader to lack the will to resist the temptation. Plato discusses the five different types of regimes and constitutions people can live under, Aristocracy, Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy and Tyranny. As regimes shift into the next, virtue decreases and corruption in the state arises. When obtaining wealth and acquiring private property is a motivating factor for humans, people start making self-interested decisions; choosing to take part in politics and fighting in wars for personal gains, and not for the benefit of the whole. When education and training is not the priority from an early age, citizens become lazy and there is a divide in the city between the rich and the poor. Plato goes to great lengths to ensure that the city is just by abolishing private property and creating the noble lie.

Democracy is often referred to as the rule of the many, but Aristotle called this definition incomplete. In his book “Politics”, he explained that in a city if the majorities are aristocrats and if they have political authority, then it is an aristocracy not a democracy. He therefore defined democracy as when “free people have authority and Oligarchy as when the wealthy have it” (1290b). Plato viewed Democracy as a flawed system with too much inefficiency that would make any implementation of a true democracy not worth it. While Aristotle viewed democracy as a system that could work if it is limited to certain restrictions and if it is the regime that best fits the culture of the people to be governed. In this essay it will be argued that Plato’s view on democracy as a flawed system is more prevalent or more compelling if the current political arena around the world is observed.