Socrates And The City Of Pigs

Socrates’ view on morality is that anyone can do wrong. It is said that injuring someone in return for injury to oneself is wrong. He follows this with the connection between morality and the city. You do badly without the cities authorization; you are doing wrong towards the city and the laws. He felt if you are behaving against peoples mind and in this

In the discussion between Socrates and Glaucon that involved how to create an ideal city, they divided the people into three classes: rulers, auxiliaries, and craftsmen. In this city each class has a certain role. The rulers are the highest of rank in the city. They are older, wise men who govern the state and make decisions in the best interest of the

In his text, The Republic, Plato leads us through an elaborate thought experiment in which he creates the ideal city. Throughout The Republic Plato constructs the laws and societal structures of what he deems will lead to a high functioning society. He names this city Kallipolis. A cornerstone of Kallipolis’ structure is Plato’s principle of specialization. The Principle of Specialization argues that each member of society must do the job in which he is best suited. Plato explains “The result, then, is that more plentiful and better-quality goods are more easily produced if each person does one thing for which he is naturally suited, does it at the right time, and is released from having to do any of the others.” (Plato, 370c) Therefore,

Although, Socrates seems to promote the idea of war when he later creates the "guardians" as the ones who will go to war and protect the city. Socrates and Glaucon agree in 374b that warfare is a profession. They go on to create a job description or profile for this second class of people in the make-believe city. Looking ahead to Book IV where Socrates concludes that a city is just when each person performs his or her own job, it would cause the city to be just when a guardian is performing his job by fighting in a war to protect the city. So here at the end of Book II,

Socrates is known for his unique practice of Greek philosophy. In The Republic, Socrates discusses building a just city with Glaucon and Adeimantus. Throughout The Republic, the three men decide what classes of people will live within the city, and how each person will be assigned to a class. There would not be a place for Socrates in the just city. Through examining the definitions of a guardian, auxiliary, and money maker, one can justify that Socrates is too complex of a man to be categorized as belonging to one specific group.

The problem with Socrates concerns the problem with the role of value and reason. Nietzsche believes that the bulk of philosophers claim that life is a corrupt grievance for mankind. Nietzsche reasoned that these life deniers were decadents of Hellenism, as a symptom of some underlying melancholy. For someone to paint life in such a negative light they must have suffered a great deal through the course of their own life. Furthermore, these no-sayers agreed in various physiological ways and thus adopted the same pessimistic attitudes towards life. Socrates was ugly, alike decadent criminals and by ways of these similarities was decadent as well. Nietzsche also claims ugliness as a physiological symptom of life in its decline supported by studies in phenology.

As Socrates was building the city, according to his different accounts of how city ought to be. There were different classes of people and the position they held in the cities community. In a just city as Socrates claims there will be citizens, guardians and a philosopher king as the ruler of the city. In order to maintain order, politics influence on human nature by politically influencing laws such as stopping peoples from changing their division of labour. For example, Socrates claims that it is impossible for an individual to practice many crafts proficiently as discussed by the companions earlier. (Plato, 1992, p. 49). The reason there is division of peoples in the city is so the city can run efficiently, if there were many people doing many thing, there will not be an efficiency of work. For this reason, politics constrained human nature in which individual as human nature wants to do more than one thing, but it is stopped through influence of ideology of how one ought to be. That individual does not want to do one job for the rest of his life; this form of ideology is first form pre capital which was discussed in the republic. Continuing, as politics influence increases in the republic the more constrained human nature becomes. In politics, the political thought of Socrates creates a guardian for city, a protector to defend against an enemy or to conquer land for the city. In

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.

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”:

Socrates spent his time questioning people about things like virtue, justice, piety and truth. The people Socrates questioned are the people that condemned him to death. Socrates was sentenced to death because people did not like him and they wanted to shut him up for good. There was not any real evidence against Socrates to prove the accusations against him. Socrates was condemned for three major reasons: he told important people exactly what he thought of them, he questioned ideas that had long been the norm, the youth copied his style of questioning for fun, making Athenians think Socrates was teaching the youth to be rebellious. But these reasons were not the charges against him, he was charged with being an atheist and

In Plato’s Republic a person duty is determined by their natural ability. Unlike Thomas Mores Utopia, Socrates believes that a person should focus on achieving the most for themselves rather than the community being primary purpose. Plato’s Republic greatly supports the idea of inequality, and shows that social stratification is essential for the movement of the economy. For a country to function, there must be some sort of hierarchy and inequality. In page 118 of the republic Socrates states that he “leaves it to each class to achieve the kind of happiness that nature confers it”(pg. 18). Citizens in each class must work hard to prosper in theirs own class. People in the Republic must have the mentality of working hard for themselves. What they don’t realize is the domino effect that is triggered. As they work more, the classes above them are also greatly impacted because they are able to benefit. Social Stratification is valued in Socrates to a certain extend. Socrates mentions the importance of each member in each class to be apart of neither wealth nor poverty. In Plato’s republic, the importance of not being rich and not being poor is greatly expressed. Socrates gives Adeimantus the example of the craftsman.

In the Republic of Plato, the philosopher Socrates lays out his notion of the good, and draws the conclusion that virtue must be attained before one can be good. For Socrates there are two kinds of virtue; collective and individual. Collective virtue is virtue as whole, or the virtues of the city. Individual virtue pertains to the individual himself, and concerns the acts that the individual does, and concerns the individual’s soul. For Socrates, the relationship between individual and collective virtue is that they are the same, as the virtues of the collective parallel those of the Individual. This conclusion can be reached as both the city and the soul deal with the four main virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice.

To show this, Socrates likens himself to a GADFLY (a horsefly). Just as a gadfly constantly agitates a horse, preventiung it from becoming sluggish and going to sleep so too Socates, by (moving through the City) stirring up conversations in the marketplace, prevents the City from becoming sulggish and careless and intolerant (thinking it knows something when it doesn't).

Addressing these and laying the foundation for a conversation, Socrates details a city of necessity, one where a farmer farms food, a house builder builds houses, and a weaver weaves clothes (369c). They have a simple lifestyle, one that consists of a vegetarian diet and little to no alcohol in the form of wine (372b). The idea of this simple life of necessity is quickly

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