Social And Political Thought

In the Republic of Plato Socrates presents four potential regimes that a society could bases its structure around. These four regimes are Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy (and Anarchy), and Tyranny. Within each one of these regimes Socrates goes into great detail on how each term would be valued and categorized in their society. These regimes all could be understood in the order in which there presented in desirability falling one into the other. Each description leads into the other regime in order of how they would best operate as a society.

Despite living thousands of years ago, Socrates and Machiavelli were both influential thinkers whose works are still relevant today. These two great thinkers and philosophers wrote about and extensively studied political systems. The influences of their work can still be seen today in constitutions and governments around the world. Were it not for their transcendent works, there is a real chance today’s systems of government would look very different. While no governments today exactly match those advocated for by Machiavelli and Socrates, their writings surely influenced other thinkers later on in history. Both of these philosophers advocated for different leadership structures with the hope of creating fair and long-lasting states.

government, Socrates asks Crito, “Well then, since you were brought into the world and nurtured and educated by us, can you deny in the first place that you are our child and slave, as your fathers were before you?” (Plato 664). This question clearly indicates Socrates’s firm belief that the individual is beholden to the state as the child is to the parent; he owes nothing less than his life to the state. Therefore, one has no alternative

As a defender of civic virtue, the significance of obligation and authority of one’s representative government epitomizes the magnitude of respect that Socrates had for Athenian Jurisprudence, irrespective of the fact that he was prosecuted against. In the accounts of the Apology and Crito, there exists a plethora of evidence that demonstrate Socrates’s adherence of institutionalized authority. His loyalty of the Athenian State derives from his notion that the obligation to surrender to the law manifests a just society. One may ask, “how is it possible for a persecuted man to continue to profess allegiance to a polity that sought his trial and execution”? Though many would not have the capacity to sustain such integrity, Socrates had his reasons in

Politically, Socrates’ ‘sting ray’ method of questioning in today’s society would be most useful given that political institutions are one of the oldest on the land (Rhees 49). Most of the approaches in the political arena have been around for centuries without a keen mind questioning their validity. The ideas of democracy and

While democracy has a simple definition, “power for the people”, the interpretations and means of executing that right by centers of power can vastly differ. In the ancient Roman republic, optimates and populares had vastly different political attitudes on who should play an active role in the government. In the name of democracy, leaders from both sides executed their power in different ways. However, optimates best represented the ideals of modern democracy through their attempts to prioritize efficiency and reduced conflict with qualified officials and have the people’s best interests at heart, with famous optimates such as Cato often standing up for the citizens against some populares’ attempts to abuse their power.

Socrates, a critic of Athenian society, is also known as a critic of democracy. “Athens is a democracy, a city in which the many are the dominant power in politics, and it can therefore be expected to have all the vices of the many” (“Socrates’ criticism of democracy,” Encyclopedia Britannica). Socrates claims that he did not want to take part in government because he feared imprisonment or death, which eventually became his fate. Socrates’ problem with democracy was his concern with the citizens who run the

In The Republic Book IV, pp. 130e-136d, Socrates sets out to prove that societal justice is analogous to individual justice. In order to substantiate the analogy, Socrates compares the individual and the city. As he previously defined, justice in the city involves the power relationships between the different parts of the city, namely the guardians, the auxiliaries, and the producers.

While Socrates and Machiavelli lived over 1900 years apart, the dilemmas their societies faced draw many parallels. In Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, he demonstrates a wide-ranging set of rules and principles to be followed by a leader to ensure the steady maintenance of authority and stability in a state or principality. Not only would Socrates be opposed to many of the espoused views in “The Prince” on what creates a successful ruler, thereby society, but had he lived in Machiavelli’s “ideal” state, he would openly question and rebel against the cogs that maintain its stability, possibly even advocating its upheaval. Socrates would most ardently disagree with Machiavelli’s depiction of the supremacy of the prince and state over its

This essay will consider the quote by Plato ‘the price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. It will be discussed how this quote is still as relevant today as it was when Plato first constructed the statement.

Socrates’, Plato’s, and Aristotle’s main criticisms of democracy were based on both theory and precedents. Whereas Plato and Aristotle believed that democracy could lead to mob rule in part due to group-think based on a population’s impulses, Socrates advocated that governance should not be solicited based on the citizenry’s desires at any given time. Aristotle advocated that democracy was indeed the best form of government, or better said he believed democracy to be lesser of the forms of government. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all believed that only the wisest should govern because those governed might squander resources and wealth, make decisions based on emotion, and revolt due to a perceived or real notion of inequality.

This paper argues that Socrates makes a plausible case for justice. Socrates raised two main questions in the first two books of Plato’s Republic, what is justice? And why should we act justly? Thrasymachus and Glaucon both have different and more negative views of justice than Socrates. Throughout books one and two, Socrates, Glaucon and Thrasymachus go back and forth discussing the definition and application of justice in society. He starts his discussions with Glaucon and Thrasymachus by stating simply, “What is justice?”

In Plato’s, “The Republic,” Socrates mediates conversation, as he challenges himself, and those around him to arbitrate the value of justice and conceptualize the significance that it holds for both the individual and the state. Throughout books I to VI, Socrates, Glaucon, and Adameitus constructively develop a sense of justice through argument and the formation of an ideal state. However, this embodiment reaches a deadlock in the middle of book V when Socrates pronounces that everything discussed thus far is nothing but an ideology, unless a philosopher king is manifested.

Socrates explains how democracy is ruled by someone appointed by the citizens, and is a place where everyone can purse the life they want to live. Socrates explains how old desires will be replaced with new ones, which in turn will result in people giving into their unnecessary desires. This will in turn create a city where people indulge in their appetites, seeking a life of joy and bliss, disregarding the need for law and order. (Plato, 421) Socrates defends his claim that a democratic state is not a good one for the city because he shows how giving into appetites creates a world of indulgence and greed, and disregards the need for the ruler to bring about law and order.

The general understanding of democracy is that it is a state of leadership where citizens of a country participate equally either directly or by representative individuals in the establishment of laws, which run the society. However, like many other forms of leadership, democracy has its cons and may not give the citizens the necessary freedoms that they think they have. Different philosophers have different insights on democracy in terms of concepts such as liberty, which they embraced. This paper will look at Benjamin Barber and Joseph Schumpeter’s idea of democracy contrasting their definition in terms of citizenship, obligation, rights and duties of each individual in the society declaring whose idea of democracy creates a compelling vision (Terchek & Conte, 2001).