The Republic By 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.

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,

Phaedo is a recount of Socrates’ final hour before his death, written by Plato in the form of a dialogue between Phaedo (Socrates’ prison guard) and Echecrates (1). In Socrates’ final hours we find him surrounded by like minds, pondering what happens to the soul after death, and if death is truly the end or just a new beginning. Those present at the prison include Socrates, Apollodorus, Simmias, Cebes, and Phaedo (2).

Book II of The Republic by Plato showcases the two very different views of Socrates and Glaucon in regards to the account of nature and origin of justice. Socrates and Glaucon discuss the theory presented by Glaucon that states that injustice is something that is intrinsically desired by all humans. Glaucon presents this argument to Socrates in order to understand and defend justice for its own sake. Glaucon seeks reassurance from Socrates that justice is not just only good for the positive consequences that it produces, so he asks Socrates to explain that justice is desirable for its own sake and, additionally, the consequences that it provides. In the defense of justice, Socrates begins to explain that justice is a virtue that needs to be found in the individual as well as the state. Socrates believes that true happiness can only exist with a true set of virtues that are justice and respectable morals. Socrates’ assumption is on the fact that a man committing unjust actions will never be able to have complete satisfaction with his life if he has achieved everything through unjust actions because he cannot fully claim his accomplishments. Through examination of the assumptions of both arguments presented, Glaucon’s opinion on justice is superior to the views of Socrates. Glaucon’s presumptuous claim that humans are innately greedy is able to provide an understanding that justice is only a social contract for the weaker people of society by handicapping the strength of the

At the beginning of Book I, we are introduced to the narrator, Socrates, and his audience of peers. We are made aware, however, of Socrates' special charm and intellectual gifts through the insistence of Polemarchus and the other men for the pleasure of his company. The tone is casual and language and modes of expression rather simple, as is commonly the case in Plato's dialogues. However, Plato's unaffected style serves at least two purposes. For one it belies the complexity and elevation of the ideas, thus it is in accord with Socrates' characteristic irony itself, which draws the "fool" in by feigned ignorance, only so that the master can show that he does not know what he thinks he knows. And second,

In Book IV of The Republic, written by Plato, Socrates makes an argument for why an individual should strive to be just, or more importantly, why being just is more profitable than being unjust to the individual. The three parts of an individual: rational, spirited, and appetitive, must all strive to pursue truth in the just individual, but it is possible that this requirement may not be met while still profiting the individual. Through an analogy between justice in the city and justice in the individual, Socrates makes an argument that is impossible to accept on the basis of false assumption. The assumptions that the rational part of the individual must rule over the spirited and appetitive parts, and that just actions always engender justice and unjust actions engender injustice, can easily be shown to be false under certain circumstances.

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.

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.

In the Republic, Plato divides social classes into three categories. These categories were Rulers, Guardians, and Craftsmen. These classes work together to ideally create Utopia. Plato believes social order must be maintained in order to have a fully functional society. These social classes are similar to the Feudal System, and modern day social classes. Each class has its own role, which if not carried out can disrupt the flow of society. Within each social class all men, women, and children had their own roles that they also had to fulfill.

In Plato’s Republic Book 1, Thrasymachus argues that morality is the advantage of the stronger. To support his view, Thrasymachus first claims that the governments, which are the stronger parties, always pass laws based on their own interest, and then argues that subjects must always obey these laws, therefore morality is the advantage of the stronger. Socrates gives two sets of counter arguments. First, by differentiating apparent advantage and actual advantage to the stronger, Socrates argues that the obedience to the laws by the subjects can be occasionally not in the actual interest of the rulers. Second, by claiming that all craftsmen only consider the welfare of the recipients of expertise instead of their own interest,

“the having and doing of one’s own and what belongs to one would be agreed to

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

Although written nearly two centuries apart, The Republic by Plato and The Prince by Machiavelli offer important views on political philosophies of rulers. Plato writes of a perfect society where status as ruler is naturally selected through innate abilities. These abilities are used to sustain the society, better it, and preserve it. Machiavelli writes of a society where anyone can be a prince; which for our purposes is a synonym for ruler, if they follow his instructions. These instructions are to ensure a new ruler can take control of new lands and maintain order in them for the sake of conquering and expanding power.

After reading The Republic there are three main points that Plato had touched on. The first of these three points is that Plato is disheartened with democracy. It was due to Socrates’ untimely death during Athens’ democracy that led to his perception of the ideal state as referred to in The Republic. Plato perceived that the material greed was one of the many evils of politics; in Plato’s eyes greed was one of the worst evils of political life. Thus economic power must be separated from political power; he came to this conclusion due to an experience that filled him with a hatred for mob mentality. He concluded that a democracy must be replaced with a government ruled by the wisest and the greatest people fit for the job; the people that would be fit for the job would be called Philosopher-Kings; which I will touch on later. Plato feels that democracy is a form of political organization that is exceptionally inferior as compared to other types of political organizations such as a monarchy and aristocracy. He came to this notion because of the fact that in his eyes the average man and woman would be inclined to make improper decisions for the society based on greed. Plato viewed all forms of government as being corrupt; the key components in an ideal society are morality and justice. The forms of government that Plato thought were corrupt was timocracy, which would ultimately fall and crumble into an oligarchy which then turns into a democracy, then last but not least turns

The Republic by Plato was a fascinating piece of literature to read. This book focuses on issues that are still very relevant to this day. That just really shows two things, how smart Plato was and also how humans haven’t changed. Over the years’ humans may have developed and advanced so much, but who we are and how we behave, think and feel hasn’t changed a bit. Prior to reading this, I believed that as time has gone on we have developed as a people, but Plato shows that the problems and issues of Ancient Greece are similar, if not the same as our modern day ones. Plato has made me aware that we have only developed on the surface, our natural desires and instincts however are something that hasn’t changed. In fact, it bares to question if we will ever change.