The Effects Of Poetry On His Noble State

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

In book IV Adeimantus wonders that except guardians who have the most power everyone seems happy in the city. According to Socrates in the city there is not such a duty to make rulers or guardians happy in fact their job is to provide justice and make citizen happy and do any necessary thing in order to live in honour and justice.

In Phaedrus, Plato expands on the social implication that those who wield rhetoric ought to be just and act justly when utilizing it. This recurring theme is clearly portrayed through his analysis of love, the soul, and rhetoric itself. Phaedrus is written as a dialogue, with Phaedrus and Socrates discussing their views on rhetoric. Plato structures his writing so that Socrates is the one bestowing knowledge upon Phaedrus, his young and playful pupil, by asking pointed questions to which Phaedrus replies. The relationship between Phaedrus and Socrates is both one of a student and teacher but also one of lovers, made clear by Socrates’ soft attitude and affection towards Phaedrus.

Poetry has a role in society, not only to serve as part of the aesthetics or of the arts. It also gives us a view of what the society is in the context of when it was written and what the author is trying to express through words. The words as a tool in poetry may seem ordinary when used in ordinary circumstance. Yet, these words can hold more emotion and thought, however brief it was presented.

In response to Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus, Socrates seeks to show that it is always in an individual’s interest to be just, rather than unjust. Thus, one of the most critical problems regarding the Republic is whether Socrates defends justice successfully or not. Socrates offers three arguments in favor of the just life over the unjust life: first, the just man is wise and good, and the unjust man is ignorant and bad; second, injustice produces internal disharmony which prevents effective actions; and lastly, virtue is excellence at a thing’s function and the just person lives a happier life than the unjust person, since he performs the various functions of the human soul well. Socrates is displeased with the argument because a sufficient explanation of justice is essential before reaching a conclusion as to whether or not the just life is better than the unjust life. He is asked to support justice for itself, not for the status that follows. He propositions to look for justice in the city first and then to continue by analogy to discover justice in the individual. This approach will allow for a distinct judgment on the question of whether the just person is happier than the unjust person. Socrates commences by exploring the roots of political life and constructs a hypothetical just city that gratifies only fundamental human necessities. Socrates argues

In the Republic, Plato proposes the complete censorship of imitative poetry from his ideal city, arguing that it corrupts individuals’ souls and therefore has a negative effect on society, resulting in injustice within the city. Although seemingly trivial at first, when considered within its proper context, the censorship of imitative poetry from the city would result in severe consequences. Throughout this essay I will discuss the political and psychological implications of its censorship, and will also refute Plato’s argument, showing how it lacks soundness: notably, through a criticism of his epistemology. Regarding the political implications of the censorship of poetry, I will draw from the ideas of Karl Popper, who argued Plato to be one of the most influential philosophers on the emergence of totalitarian regimes in the 20th century, laying the foundations for their very existence (K. Popper, 1945). I will also show how poets themselves have an important political role within cities, in that they enable the general population to hold the state accountable for their actions. To discuss the psychological implications of poetry’s censorship, I will compare the contrasting views of Plato and Aristotle regarding its effect on the soul, whereby Aristotle claims that poetry actually has beneficial, cathartic effects. Following these criticisms, it will become apparent that Plato’s proposed ban of imitative poetry is indefensible.

Though defeated on this point, he's not yet satisfied with Socrates' argument, and sticks by one of his previously stated views which held that injustice is more profitable than justice. However, he shrinks back and seems no longer able to speak for himself after Socrates refuted his argument on justice. Despite his withdrawal from the argument throughout the rest of the Republic, his early ideas help lead Socrates farther on his search for justice through the construction of a hypothetical just city. In describing the education of the guardians of this city, Socrates discusses the need for a balance between gymnastics and poetry. He relates how too much gymnastics lead the spirited part of someone to be overtightened and hard. "He'll be museless and hate discussion" explains Socrates. This hardness and hate for discussion reminds us of the actions of Thrasymachus at the beginning of the argument defining justice. Thrasymachus becomes an example of a "badly tuned soul" that Socrates goes on to describe.

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

“See human beings as though they were in an underground cave-like dwelling” (193). Although Plato’s famous allegory of the cave doesn’t appear until Book VII of The Republic, its significance cannot be understated. The meaning behind the Greek philosopher’s imagery manifests itself throughout the rest of the work, specifically Book I. After outlining the description of the cave and demonstrating how the rest of The Republic dramatizes it, I argue that Plato (or Plato’s Socrates) is revealing a relationship that posits philosophy, which can only come about through mutual respect, as critical for the city’s well-being, but ultimately not enough just by itself.

It is argued that one of the most important part of the book is when Socrates tries to define justice and find it in his artificially established city therefore I chose to critically analyze the passage from Book IV. Before starting to assess the argument he

poem is not merely a static, decorative creation, but that it is an act of communication between the poet and

In Book IV of Plato’s Republic, Socrates reasons that the embodied human soul is a tripartite plurality consisting of a rational part, an appetitive part, and a spirited part. An individual, or a society, thrives when these three parts strike a balance. In a just and perfect society, people from each of the three groups must maintain a delicate position compromised of control and influence relative to the other groups. An important feature of Socrates’ ideal city is its lack of intersectionality. Each person in the various classes must complete their specific job requirements, without meddling in outside affairs, in order to maximize the city’s efficiency. The ideal city is made up of the craftsperson, the auxiliary and the guardian ruler classes. The three classes directly parallel the three parts of the soul. The craftsperson represents the appetitive part of the soul, while the auxiliaries parallel the spirited soul and lastly, the guardian rulers embody the rational soul.

    Censorship of the arts has been around for a very long time. Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or "inconvenient" as determined by government authorities or by community consensus. Poetry is an art, displaying an array of ideas or story through words. While Plato discusses with Glaucon how damaging poetry is for his society, I will be discussing how Plato contradicts himself by his use of censorship of poetry, which should be considered in his just society. In his republic, justice is doing the job that was assigned to you based on your nature. There are people who have a nature for poetry, specifically imitative, it would be unjust to dismiss these people who are doing the job that is best suited to their nature. I will be using a variety of contemporary sources in order to support my claim that Plato is contradicting himself by keeping poetry from his republic.

Socrates was an influential Greek philosopher; however, he never wrote any book and his ideologies are mostly presented by Plato, who was his student. Plato explains Socrates’ attitude towards poetry in his books, the Republic and the Symposium. Afterward, he offers his perceptions and solutions to the matter. Plato’s Republic explains Socrates’ mindset towards poetry censorship. Socrates argued that poetry lacked wisdom because there was no censorship of works of poetry. As a result, poets can write about anything they wish to inscribe, which enhances imitation. On this note, Socrates argued that poetry exposed citizens to different forms of imitation, which would corrupt their minds because they had no restrictions.