What Is Plato Too Literally

Plato is a philosopher; however, in “Plato’s Republic,” Plato’s view on philosophers within society is rather unorthodox compared with others who study philosophy. This is due to Plato’s views of individuals each having different skills they are naturally good at; he states that only true philosophers will be fit to rule. All others who attempt to rule will create terrible consequences for a city. The people shun philosophers because they are lovers of knowledge and are perceived to be different from them. The majority of people in a city are not lovers of knowledge but rather lovers of beauty.

Plato was never satisfied with accepting other’s ideas or views of things in this world. Instead he would question everything to discover for himself what things in the world meant. Plato as seen in some of his writing such as “The Republic” uses numerous amounts of theoretical questions to try and get a deeper understanding of themes such as justice. Plato refuses to accept that justice is naturally good and injustice is bad as he writes “see, that to do

In The Republic, Plato builds around the idea of Philosopher Rulers. Even though it is not his primary point, it certainly is at the core of his discussion of the ideal state. The question that arises is, 'Why do you need ideal states which will have philosophers as rulers?' There are many layers to the

Wren writes that the idea of the appropriate leaders "was an initial fiction that was "created or invented in response to the challenges of societal governance"¦" (p.13) Wren states that Plato was particularly astute in regards to "implications for leaders in a democracy." (p.14) In a democracy, according to Wren "the people do not recognize what is best for them, particularly with respect to who should lead them." (2007, p.14) Plato utilized allegorical methods to describe the problems of leading a democracy stating that the people "honor as a good and profoundly wise person any obsequious flatterer who"¦can minister agreeable to their humors, which he is clever enough to anticipate." (Wren, 2007, p.14)

Political and social theories between the two philosophers were very different. Plato had very Totalitarian or even communist views for state government. He in his novel The Republic, he describes in much detail his utopian society. He felt society should be organized into three groups: “rulers, auxiliaries and labourers.”(Gaarder 91) The rulers or guardian class would have reason; education and intelligence this would make them well suited for leadership. Plato called these rulers ‘Philosopher Kings’, they would rule for the good of all in the society. Philosopher

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.

I will identify the content and form of Plato's Lysis. Lysis is a dialogue by Plato which the discussion of the nature of friendship is the main theme. This works form is like that of a debate or a discussion between Socrates, Lysis, Menexenus, and Hippothales. Ideas are shared about the subject which in this case is the true nature of friendship. The content of this work would be the issues raised concerning the true nature of

For hundreds of years, Plato has been admired as a writer, a master rhetorician, an artist, and above all, a philosopher; however, Plato's backlashes against sophistry and art have led to much confusion concerning his ideas and beliefs. John Poulakos says of Plato, "[F]or most rhetoricians Plato has always played the same role he assigned to the sophists--the enemy" (Nienkamp 1). Plato will always appear to be the skilled rhetorician or artist who speaks out against rhetoric and art. In Apology and Phaedrus we see the character of Socrates rail against writing because it can quickly get out of control of the author and just as easily be misinterpreted, yet Plato is known for his skillful dialogical writing. In

Plato had some views that seemed realistic to society while others to me seemed to be unjust for the people. According to Plato everyone by nature has their own function and in order to make an ideal state they each need to serve that role and only that. They are not permitted to do more than one thing or venture off of what they are suited best to do. These roles are people that are motivated by three

Given the arguments in my second seminar paper on Socratic citizenship, the comparison between Plato’s Guardians and Aristotle’s men of practical wisdom seems to be a reasonable one. Both Guardians and men of practical wisdom operate relatively freely in a moral system of substantive justice, with little reference to fixed principles. Plato’s discussion of democracy in the Republic and of obedience in the Crito, however, makes clear that he did not believe regular individuals could operate virtuously in interstitial spaces between fixed rules and principles. Plato feared a democratic expansion of liberty which would allow each citizen to “pursue a way of life to suit himself,” as this would unleash a torrent of subjectivism and a bastardization of virtue. As such, his ideal Republic employed absolute rule of the Guardians, noble lies and temperance (read “disinterest in political participation”) to close the interstitial spaces which would allow the clumsy subjectivism of the lower classes to operate. Emancipated from the rule of the Guardians, the “democratic man” cannot control his desires and sows the seeds of tyranny. Plato seems convinced that the democratic expansion of interstitial spaces could only mean extinguishing virtue.

Plato, arguably one of the most famous philosophers in history is known for his dialogues and theory of Forms. The theory of Forms argues that ideas (non-physical forms) are more real than tangible objects or what our senses perceive. According to Plato, there is the visible realm and intelligible realm. Reality could be divided into three different levels; the level of appearances, the real level, and the ideal level which he explains through the analogy of the ‘Divided Line’ in The Republic.

In my eyes Plato is describing how the society today is full of “unenlightenment” or ignorance and how we as a culture have been conformed to accepted ways and if we were to step away from these accustomed ways we would be casted out and ridiculed by our peers. According to Swapnil

Plato's Republic is often read as a political work, as a statement of some sort on government, society, and law. This is certainly not a rash reading of the dialogue; it is called the Republic, and over half of it is devoted to the construction of a city through speech, a city complete with a government structure, a military, an economic system, and laws. However, I believe that to read the Republic as a political statement is inaccurate. Although Socrates and his companions construct a city out of speech as they attempt to define justice, the dialogue repeatedly frames justice as something that cannot be established through a fixed system of morality, let alone through a rigid

Plato was a philosopher and educator in ancient Greece. He was one of the most important thinkers and writers in the history of Western culture. Plato was born in Athens into a family that was one of the oldest and most distinguished in the city. His father Ariston died when Plato was only a child. The name Plato was a nickname meaning broad shoulders. Plato's real name was Aristocles. Plato had aspirations of becoming a politician, however these hopes were destroyed when his friend Socrates was sentenced to death in 299 B.C. Extremely hurt Plato left Athens and traveled for several years. In 387 B.C., Plato returned to Athens and founded a school of philosophy and science that became known as the Academy. Topics such as astronomy,

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.