Category: Plato Republic

1. Pericles and Plato differ greatly over what the ideal form of government should be. What are their respective views and how does each justify his position? Are there any points, in theory or practice, on which they might agree?

Pericles- Democracy, majority rule

Plato- Republic, (Aristocracy followed by an Oligarchy)

Pericles views- Based on Pericles’ aristocratic background he understood what the people of Athens wanted, a city fit to rule an empire. Pericles wanted the people who lived in Athens to admire where they lived and Pericles wanted to make it possible for them to voice their opinion. Justice for Pericles is equal treatment among all people. Fleck expands on this in the document Pericles Democracy vs. Plato’s Republic saying, “Justice is achieved through the laws for Pericles, and there is equal justice for all in a democracy which by definition ‘favours the many instead of the few. . .’ In a democracy, men are not restricted by their social standing, class or poverty (as long as they are in the class “citizens”). There is freedom to do what one pleases, freedom to participate in public life, and tolerance toward others who may do as they please, insofar as there is respect for the law.” Pericles put his trust in the people to make the decisions for Athens.

Plato considered the ideal form of government to be either an aristocracy, followed by an oligarchy, as long as it held to the structure as outlined in The Republic. His vision contemplates justice being derived from the overall condition of the state, that is, when the state is “good in the complete sense of the word . . . then, it is wise, brave, temperate, and just” – Plato’s Republic. Plato’s justice derives from an individual fulfilling “the one function in the society which conforms to that individual’s nature”, which is essentially “minding one’s business and not meddling in others’ affairs.”

Pericles’ vision of justice is based upon the confidence that the “demos”, the collective Athenian citizens, had the wisdom to decide matters for itself, rather than to have important matters determined for them by a few powerful decision makers.

Plato had more of extremist approach to creating a strong society. His ideal state contemplated a “guardian class” which was essentially prohibited from individual property ownership, and was under the direction and control of a ruling class which would make reproductive decisions for them. (This is starting to sound like current events!) Plato even went as far as saying how children born of inferior parents should be hidden away saying, “Children born of “inferior” parents and “defective” children are to be secretly hidden away; children born from certain incestuous, non-sanctioned, relationships are to be disposed of (461c). All of these measures are intended to keep the whole of the commonwealth as strong as possible.”

Plato justifies this role for the guardians by claiming that freedom from the perils of property ownership (lawsuits, quarrels, etc.) will mean that they will live in peace and harmony with each other and have assigned and secure employment and receive honor while they live.

Both: They both agreed that an important aspect of an ideal state contemplates “luxury”, that is, recreation, beautiful buildings and successful trade, servants to provide a measure of comfort – and of course, an army to provide protection and defense against jealous neighbors. Pericles and Plato’s favoritism towards a powerful army could also lead to expansion and a potentially more powerful society. Both Pericles and Plato wanted the best for communities. Neither Pericles or Plato was trying to set up the society through democracy or republic for their own personal gain.

Pericles had confidence in the reasonability of the people to moderate the luxuries of life with the discipline required to lead a healthy life. Plato was not so confident and believed that the “pleasures and desires of the masses must be controlled, not by the reasoning minds of the individuals, but rather by ‘the desires and wisdom of the superior few’- Fleck, quoting Plato’s Republic.

Foreign Policy

Pericles was in favor of an open society which welcomed foreigners and did not fear their potential influence on the body politic. Pericles trusted his fellow Athenians; “Although the eyes of an enemy may occasionally profit by our liberality; trusting less in system and policy than to the native spirit of our citizens . . . . In generosity we are equally singular . . . And it is only the Athenians, who, fearless of consequences, confer their benefits not from calculations of expediency, but in the confidence of liberality”.

Plato’s society was closed and dependent upon controlling the masses, rather than trusting them. It is reasonable to infer that his ideal society did not welcome outside influences.

Pericles’ vision of the ideal state includes an educated populace that fully participates in politics and political discourse. If they do not, they are ”useless”. Plato disagrees that everyone should have a role in politics – in the ideal state, everyone should stick to what they are best suited for and any crossing over into another’s business would be an “injustice”

4. Discuss the respective views of human nature found in Civilization and Its Discontents, Letter to the Grand Duchess, The History of the Peloponnesian War and The Republic. Based on those views what conclusions and prescriptions does each have concerning what best allows for the advancement of civilization?

How do they all see human nature and what is their own opinion on the best advancement of civilization.

Civilization and Its Discontents- In Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents, he talks about human nature of Id, ego and super-ego.

Freud’s Id- the Id is your primal instincts and selfish view to obtain things you want at this moment. Whether it be food, sex, somebody’s car etc.

Ego-

Grand Duchess – Galileo talks about how there is a separation from science and faith. The bible texts are not to be taken literally at all times but more so as teaching points. Literalists have a hard time with the texts of the bible. For example- how God created the world in 7 days and people ask but if humans were created first then when did the dinosaurs come into play?

God’s mind = God’s works and God’s word.

The understanding of the bible needs to be changed to help the literalists comprehend what the bible is preaching. For example, Pope John Paul II attests that the big bang theory very could have been what created us. And in the 7 days that created the world, who said that each day needs to be 24-hour day. Each day in the worlds creation could have been an ion but days were used as an expression. The bible is not a science book. ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven. not how heaven goes.’- Galileo

The History of the Peloponnesian War- Between the Mytelian and Sicilian debates there were 4 speakers involved in the History of the Peloponnesian War. Mytelian Debate involved Cleon and Diodotus about whether or not Athens should invade and pillage Mytilene. Sicilian Debate involved Nicias and Alcibiades. Alcibiades favored advancement towards invading of Sicily and Nicias opposes this advancement leading to the sicilian debate.

Mytelian Debate-

Cleon’s reputation was ruthless, violent and merciless. Cleon wants to punish the island of Mytilene because they refuse to join the fight with Athens against Sparta. Cleon wants to barbarically destroy Mytilene for their refusal to join the fight. Cleon asks the crowd if they are smart and want to win this war. Cleon questions democracy saying, “Personally I have had occasion often enough already to observe that a democracy is incapable of governing others, and I am all the more convinced of this when I see how you are now changing your minds about the Mytilenians.””BETTER A CITY RULED CONSISTENTLY BY INFERIOR LAWS TO ONE WITH UNENFORCED GOOD LAWS, AND DEPENDABLE ORDINARY FOLK AS RULERS THAN INTELLIGENT PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY KNOW MORE THAN THE LAW.” Cleon believes that democracy is not at all the best advancement for civilization. Cleon believes that a society should be ruled by one or a few smart men than have dumb people vote for runs a society.

Diadotus- argued against the invasion of Mytilene saying how it is way too harsh. Diadotus says ‘haste and anger are… the two greatest obstacles to wise counsel.” Diadotus argues that anger and quick action are not the way to go about making this decision. This may not even be Athen’s best decision. Diadotus goes saying how it is not necessary to destroy Mytilene since Mytilene is a neutral country. Mytilene and Athens will lose future trade and allies with Mytilene if Athens invades Mytilene. Diadotus’ human nature and thought process was to think about the future of Athens. Diadotus was thinking in the sense of long term success of Athens, rather than short term unnecessary vengeance like Cleon. Diadotus was viewing this as the best decision for the advancement of Athens. Diadotus thought about how Athens future in the war would fair because of this rash and very unnecessary decision making by Cleon. There is no need to invade Mytilene since they are neutral and will lead to loss of trade and ally possibilities with Mytilene. Invading Mytilene will also leave their guard down of protecting Athens. Then you have to factor how useful the island of Mytilene would be if you invade and conquer it. It’s also not even a given that you conquer Mytilene. Diadotus was also thinking about how many highly trained Athens Navy soldiers would be lost.

Sicilian debate- Alcibiades favors invasion of Sicily which would expand Athens land in the War, stop any sicilian aid to Sparta and also inherit any Sicilian assets onto Athens. Alcibiades wants a large naval invasion upon Sicily. This invasion of Sicily would involve zero allies. If Athens loses a large portion of their navy due to this expedition to Sicily, Athens could see big trouble later in the war. Failure to capture Sicily and losing a ton of highly trained Navy soldiers of Athens would be a huge blow to Athens. Alcibiades got the people on his side because of how excited he made them. Alcibiades was basically selling the people of Athens a pipe dream. He wasn’t thinking logically and realistic. Alcibiades human nature was thinking that Athens is bigger, better and more powerful than little old Sicily. Alcibiades human nature was cocky and entitled. Nicias argued against the invasion of Sicily and after the people denied his argument Nicias failed to use reverse psychology in order to stop the expedition. Nicias also did not want Athens to put all of its eggs in one basket for the invasion of Sicily with a huge naval invasion. Athens’ biggest asset in the war was their Navy comprised of highly trained soldiers and powerful ships. Nicias then puts out an idea to the young men of Athens about how Athens should send the largest possible naval fleet to Sicily. Nicias was hoping this would scare the young men out of invading Sicily, but this actually proved to make them excited and the crowd agreed with Nicias’ try at reverse psychology. Nicias knew, like Diadotus, not act with haste and anger. In Nicias’ case it was more like “haste and cockyness are the two greatest obstacles to wise council.” The invasion slaughtered Athens’ navy and Sicily was not captured. Alcibiades showed his true human nature when after the failed mission, he deserted Athens and joined Sparta in the fight against Athens.

Niacias and Diadotus had the best understanding of the advancement of human civilization in the Peloponnesian War because of their ability to think long term instead of short term payoff for Athens. Cleon and Alcibiades were cocky and haste when thinking that Athens was better than everyone. Nicias and Diadotus understood the importance of trade and allies of Athens and Cleon and Alcibiades thought Athens was powerful enough to whatever they wanted against a Spartan nation who had trade partners and allies and a lot of land. I also found it interesting about how both of these debates were about the invasion of other countries rather than the protection of Athens.

The Republic-

Human Nature in the Allegory of the cave: Plato claimed that knowledge gained through the senses is no more than opinion and that, in order to have real knowledge, we must gain it through philosophical reasoning. Plato argues that just because we see something does not mean that it is real and true.

This suggests that truth is never attained through a passive attitude toward human reality. This entails that man must be proactive in his search for truth. This also suggests that the quest for truth is fundamentally tied to the nature of man as a cosmic, metaphysical being. Plato argues that our ability to decipher truth will affect the nature of the ideal State, morality and the good life.

This is the active search for truth.

In Plato’s books of the Republic, Plato believes how people should be appointed at a young age to do what you are told through aristocracy. These people should just do their job and stay out of the way of other people. Plato’s conclusion best allows for the advancement of human civilization is people living in a just society. Plato defines a just society is when the city state is lead by a smart aristocracy, guardians of the society and then workers. Plato puts very little value on the arts, he is mainly concerned with order in the society.

To be fair Plato was coming off of a 50 year tyranny being upheld by one leader chosen by democracy. I can see how Plato was sour towards the idea of democracy.

Introduction

According to Socrates defines justice as the working at that is which he is best suited, justice is sustained and for one to acquire he or her needs three virtues, Temperance, wisdom and courage and this the cause of justice. Since the mid-nineteenth century, Plato’s dialogs about the republic have been widely debated. The Plato Republic, he explains his views about justice as harmony can lead to a very interesting, this how the individual should behave but also this how a state should be organized. for someone, this means being able to balance the three parts of the soul that is the drive being free-spirited and the desire to be reasonable, this how you act accordingly to have the wisdom to know what is right and what is wrong.

The analysis of the Republic by Plato, the case for the injustice that was argued by Adeimantus and Glaucon, we find these arguments were compelling because the case of injustice in this current society is conducted by the self-interest of the public. Adeimantus and Glaucon were both Plato’s Brother they seek out to come with terms whether justice is better than injustice, The first argument was against Socrates and the station of justice, Glaucon argued that by nature we as human are selfish and unreasonable and that justice is not good by itself , Justice is significant good. In his argument, he illustrated that justice is always self-interested, while Adeimantus added to his argument and further claimed that people are only just because of the profits a good an example is that when you’re just it does give you a good reputation. The same can be applied in our current society.

Platos debates that the soul needs to be comprised of three major parts namely one has to be rational, have the appetite, and be spirited. And these three ranks are part of our community, I believe that justice implicates maintaining the three parts in the proper balance whereby reasons rule m and appetite obeys. According to Plato appetite is what drives the human soul, it’s what drives us effortlessly in the cravings needed to stay alive a good example would be hunger and thirst, desires are what drives our thirst and appetite to accomplish one’s goal. Plato’s analysis is that the community needs to be complete as a whole if there are guardians m producers and soldiers each part participates in a particular function. For society to be just, every element has to achieve a role to be the best capacity that involves good worth. Platos debates that there are at least two parts of the soul that stops one person from undertaking action and another, which brings about the need for actions. These two elements cannot act any different. The three parts of the soul that reflects. The parts of our society. A man has fervent appetites, even if he does not follow through on the desires all the time. Spirit is the concierge that helps the man in ensuring the two forces are in check while offering the human being’s vitality and life. Devoid of the three parts, the souls would fail to be just, and the commend

Plato’s view about Justice is, we only think a good behavior and superior is marked as a good character a good example would The argument that Glaucon and Adeimantus are making is that man is naturally drawn to being unjust rather than just (Plato, 40). It is in Mans nature to follow their interests and desires and if they behave unjustly they make these pleasures more achievable, secondly, the society flashes out injustice with or without a command to insert full fear among its citizens. Life of oneself is much more fruitful than the life of justice (Plato,44) justice is the tool that seeks for.

In my conception about justice with Plato before the United States, Plato believed that different types of personalities that dominate a man m and that is desire, money, and positions. Plato’s huge contribution to the republic and structure of our modern society. Plato’s dialogs have helped shaped the justice system of this country, even if sometimes we contrary, but his perception of how justice comes from power, hunger and the drive of man’s succession, to live up to his expectation. But corruption and fraud is what eludes a man’s mind, so many unjust behaviors have gone unpunished under the law, despite platos , teachings it’s up to us to live according to peace and harmony and maintain the balance of solidity of the state

These two stories are both similar and in many ways. These stories are of women living in a country where their righteousness is tied to their purity. Both women are perceived as objects and see as property’s used for them amusements of men, and their dependence on their safeguard, the twisted turn is that one among these women was able to make a bold turn, I am going to focus on the resemblances and the alterations in these stories.

Livy and Mathhes (2001) portray women as public goods in ancient, women being perceived as men as the subject of objects, as amusements to the eyes of men, both fragile and naïve. His general orthodox was how women, were violently mistreated against their wishes. Livy portrays and writes three stories about rape, the rape of Sabrina, and the rape of Lucrecia.

Women aren’t given to much options a good example of would be the stories of Lucretia and Virginia are women seen as weak and assets (Livy 100) Lucretia is more of hardworking woman at home, both of these women based their integrity in relation of simplicity, this story of both women are bases on compassion. Let’s say if both Lucretia and Virginia hadn’t received their virtue there will be forsaken and this would not take a turn to disaster (Livy,246) When Virginia engaged says that her bride had to be a virgin him. We can tell what gave her honor was that she was a virgin, this would her regard high based on her innocence. women were only told what to do and how to behave, and most suited for home chores and their vitality

Machiavelli’s Sexism Still Matters in the 21st Century, women are tragically underrepresented in diplomatic realism. Our minds would supposedly broaden and progress significantly due to the past effects, men would never treat women as they did back in the days. Yes we have gotten better for now in the 21st-century women are now senators, they can vote, compete for presidential candidacies, however, there is still a “ glass ceiling”, Machiavelli and Livy both indicate that a woman would corrupt a man if there is too much power granted. I think women should be feared we are much as what we are perceived.

According to Machiavelli’s Civic Republicanism, liberty is always to do something that is right that can involve the right of speech, and freedom, the right to practice religion to get married, etc. The concept of republicanism is that is derived from the ruling, it mostly emphases freedom with corruption, though it separates from the democracy, it includes the key prime of rules by the consensual of the government and its sovereignty of the people. For one state to be free.

Liberty and freedom were vital in ancient Rome, the statues of a free man or a woman didn’t come in handy. The division between freedom of citizens and slaves was regarded as one part of the social and natural institution when your freedom is being a privilege and having various rights, liberty was exclusive and not just everyone could afford that title, and this is where conflict collides with liberty. In platos framework wasn’t constituted as the element of human dignity. so the only way they earned their freedom was thought chaos and conflict. Only law-abiding citizens enjoyed the fruits of freedom excluding slaves.

Machiavelli’s Civic Republicanism helps me understand the role of corruption and the idea of the rule being inherited within state, it involves access to freedom which is now exclusive in today’s world. With America being the head of the superpowers today we can see its influence in the economy, also draws its power from a superior rule, as well as the capacity to influence other states and international institutions (soft power).

From time immoral the question seems to be to dictate or not to dictate, and in no avenue does this seem to hold more prevalent than in the arena of education. Educational reform as of late has been a rudimentary cause to great ill for our nation. Progress is understood as progress only when moving forward, and it is of my opinion that forward momentum should never have been taken from that first educational system in its most perfect inception so very long ago. Simply stated, there is some truth in the acknowledgement of a certain point when progress ceases to be so due to a perfection molded upon the wings of the already perfect ideal. As Alfred North Whitehead once and so insightfully maintained,

“the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. . . . The things which are temporal arise by their participation in the things which are eternal. . . . This ideal realization of potentialities in a primordial actual entity constitutes the metaphysical stability whereby the actual process exemplifies general principles of metaphysics, and attains the ends proper to specific types of emergent order. By reason of the actuality of this primordial valuation of pure potentials, each eternal object has a definite effective relevance to each concresent process. . . . We are here extending and rigidly applying Hume’s principle, that ideas of reflection are derived from actual facts” (Whitehead, 1978, p. 39-40).

With this logic and general assumption in mind, we can easily see that theories of education are in effect all mere divergents of Plato’s collaborative intentions surmised within a variety of his works. Despite the fact that almost every dialogue written by Plato could be considered as educational, an analysis of the overall process as outlined within his Laws as the formulation of the first complete system of a workable nature seems the most prominent place to begin.

Before we commence however, I must mention that it is not my intended interest to advocate immutability of ideas over time, but rather, bring forth an observance concerning the validity of certain foundations as ultimately true opposed to being simply a jumping off point for further footnotes. You see my friends, the greatest problem with footnotes is that by definition they maintain that something more is needed in explanation, and in the case of Plato, that rival opinion is simply a fallacy; as to change the perfect workable ideal is a step backwards from remaining concurrent. I guess the question is why do we insist on fixing ourselves to the path of making things worse when clearly from their inception by one of the greatest minds the world has ever known, the ideal could not have been thought to attain better?

Historically speaking, the problem with Plato seems to be two fold. Although what concerns us today is primarily of educational importance, the fact remains that in order to understand this philosophy, we must in fact delve a little deeper into his political ideology; for what could education ever be beyond the aims of a solid political foundation. To that end it could be said then that one of the major criticisms of Plato seems to concern itself with the fact that he was, not in the modern sense of the term at least, prone to romanticized notions of democracy. However, if one honestly looks at the political dichotomy of all that succeeded his time, it should not be too difficult to conclude that no such thing as democracy could ever truly exist. Although one could argue this by pointing at present systems that may appear as such, it is however only the fool that could truly believe that any nation has ever been truly democratic. At the very least in fact, beyond the scope of ancient Athens, all succeeding forms are but a pseudoistic attempt to recreate the closest possible ideal of the concept in itself. When looking at the modern state of America for instance, what we find is not a nation that is holistically democratic, but rather, an entity that is a pseudo derivative of the initial intent. For even in the ‘perfection’ of the ancient Athenian democratic ideal, there existed a dichotomy of divisions. As John Dewey points out in The Ethics of Democracy, “what Plato himself said of his ideal state, we may with greater truth say of democracy: . . . ‘any ordinary state, however small, is indeed two states at war with each other, and in [its divisions] there are many smaller states… originat[ing] in divisions of the governing power’” (1988/1997, p. 194- 195; Plato, Republic 4.423, 8.545). One could even go as far as to point out that Plato himself was aware of the downfall of such a system as naïve as the rule of the common man all in common. This idea is further illustrated through an examination of the much later philosophies of Alexis De Tocqueville (1958/2003) and Fredrick Nietzsche (1886/2008); each in their own way noting inevitable and irrevocable degenerated mediocrity abolishing morality in favor of individual conquest of materialistic being. In this sense, the dream of contriving a system whereby the will of the people reigns supreme is at its very nature a fallible ideal. This may have been one of Plato’s most noble insights and in all likelihood stemmed from the very tragic first hand witnessing of the trial and conviction to death of his great educator and mentor, Socrates.

Plato illustrates his notions concerning the will of the people best in the Republic and the Laws whereby he notes that certain periods of time exist when the masses need to have their opinions quelled through some manifestation of benevolent authoritarian character towards the greater good beyond the bias of the reasonable capacities of the average man. The best system then in order to allow both the freedom and protection of the most noble society must be based in combination of opposing political orders which allows citizens just enough voice to assume they are free, while at the same time, ensuring integrity of the whole through noble and just leadership of mandated laws preventing the irrational misgivings of the power of mob rule. Although through this analysis it becomes clear that Plato was anything but a liberal democrat in the modern sense, to demonize either him or Socrates as the precursor to Marxism or Fascism is simply neglectful of the truth; for it was not that type of authoritarian rule in which he was prone to, but rather as illustrated within the premise of his Republic, the rule of the trustworthy, the just, and the wise philosopher. For as Leo Strauss so skillfully noted, “Plato was not a Communist in the sense of Marx, or a Fascist: Marxist communism and fascism are incompatible with the rule of philosophers, where as… [Plato’s notion of government] stands or falls by the rule” of the just for the benefit of individual within society as a whole (1963/1987, p. 35-36). We might then consider a replication of sorts of this political ideology within our contrived system of educating the masses. In other words, the most workable system should be recognized as one that allows the student just enough autonomy as not to discourage participation in learning while at the same time affording enough direction to enable those teachings necessary to uphold the value of society in which we live.

What is injustice? There can be many interpretations of the word. Sometimes you need to ask what it means to be just, to understand the true nature of the word itself. What justifies an injustice nature? In “Plato Republic,” Injustice can be viewed as someone who intends to hurt an opposing party. A just person will not do harm into others even when they are an enemy. “The Black Stork” and “The Dark Side of Birth Control” gives evidence to this possible interpretation.

Much of the dialogue about being unjust, in the “Plato Republic,” takes place between Socrates, Polemarchus, and Cephalus. They first begin to interpret the data given to them as being just is giving back what is owed. But as the data unfolds they begin to keep asking questions that lead to better answers. How can you pay back what’s owed if it can potentially hurt that person. They even begin to interpret ones enemies and how it can affect their basic understanding of being just. They eventually come to an agreement based on the question, “it is never just to harm anyone?”[footnoteRef:1] “The Black Stork” and “The Dark Side of Birth Control” are great examples of this interpretation. [1: Plato, and C. D. C. Reeve. Republic. (Vancouver: Crane Library at the University of British Columbia, 2010) 11.]

These two stories intertwine with similar themes. The government, illegal experimentation, genocide, and racism. At the basic root of Socrates understanding of being just, a just person cannot harm someone else. The basic plot of both stories explains how the feminist movement to allow women to gain control of their bodies turned to eugenics. The general idea that through contraception the government could control the Black population. This was considered a type of genocide. One quote from each story could easily explain injustice and prove the general idea of being just.

In “The Black Stork,” “Hamer had lost more than a tumor while unconscious-the surgeon had removed her uterus.”[footnoteRef:2] In “The Dark Side of Birth Control,” “the use of sterilization as a remedy for social problems was an extension of the brutality enforced against Black Americans.”[footnoteRef:3] This concludes the evidence of injustice. The American government proved to be unjust in their dealings towards their Black population. They purposefully tried to harm the population through illegal experimentation to control the reproduction of people they deemed unfit. [2: Washington, Harriet A. Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial times to the Present. (New York: Anchor Books, 2008.) 161] [3: Roberts, Dorothy E. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. (New York: Vintage Books, 2017.) 61]

Plato’s strategy in The Republic is to first explicate the primary notion of societal, or political, justice, and then to derive an analogous concept of individual justice. In Books II, III, and IV, Plato identifies political justice as harmony in a structured political body. An ideal society consists of three main classes of people—producers, auxiliaries, and guardians; a society is just when relations between these three classes are right. Each group must perform its appropriate function, and only that function, and each must be in the right position of power in relation to the others. Rulers must rule, auxiliaries must uphold rulers’ convictions, and producers must limit themselves to exercising whatever skills nature granted them. Justice is a principle of specialization: a principle that requires that each person fulfill the societal role to which nature fitted him and not interfere in any other business.

At the end of Book IV, Plato tries to show that individual justice mirrors political justice. He claims that the soul of every individual has a three part structure analogous to the three classes of a society. There is a rational part of the soul, which seeks after truth and is responsible for our philosophical inclinations; a spirited part of the soul, which desires honor and is responsible for our feelings of anger and indignation; and an appetitive part of the soul, which lusts after all sorts of things, but money most of all. The just individual can be defined in analogy with the just society; the three parts of his soul achieve the requisite relationships of power and influence in regard to one another. In a just individual, the rational part of the soul rules, the spirited part of the soul supports this rule, and the appetitive part of the soul submits and follows wherever reason leads. Put more plainly: in a just individual, the entire soul aims at fulfilling the desires of the rational part, much as in the just society the entire community aims at fulfilling whatever the rulers will.

The parallels between the just society and the just individual run deep. Each of the three classes of society, in fact, is dominated by one of the three parts of the soul. Producers are dominated by their appetites—their urges for money, luxury, and pleasure. Warriors are dominated by their spirits, which make them courageous. Rulers are dominated by their rational faculties and strive for wisdom. Books V through VII focus on the rulers as the philosopher kings.

In a series of three analogies — the allegories of the sun, the line, and the cave — Plato explains who these individuals are while hammering out his theory of the Forms. Plato explains that the world is divided into two realms, the visible and the intelligible. The visible world is the universe we see around us. The intelligible world is comprised of the Forms — abstract, changeless absolutes such as Goodness, Beauty, Redness, and Sweetness that exist in permanent relation to the visible realm and make it possible. Only the Forms are objects of knowledge, because only they possess the eternal unchanging truth that the mind — not the senses — must apprehend.

Only those whose minds are trained to grasp the Forms — the philosophers — can know anything at all. In particular, what the philosophers must know in order to become able rulers is the Form of the Good — the source of all other Forms, and of knowledge, truth, and beauty. Plato cannot describe this Form directly, but he claims that it is to the intelligible realm what the sun is to the visible realm. Using the allegory of the cave, Plato paints an evocative portrait of the philosopher’s soul moving through various stages of cognition through the visible realm into the intelligible, and finally grasping the Form of the Good. The aim of education is not to put knowledge into the soul, but to put the right desires into the soul — to fill the soul with a lust for truth, so that it desires to move past the visible world, into the intelligible, ultimately to the Form of the Good.

Philosophers form the only class of men to possess knowledge and are also the most just men. Their souls, more than others, aim to fulfil the desires of the rational part. After comparing the philosopher king to the most unjust type of man — represented by the tyrant, who is ruled entirely by his non -rational appetites — Plato claims that justice is worthwhile for its own sake. In Book IX he presents three arguments for the conclusion that it is desirable to be just. By sketching a psychological portrait of the tyrant, he attempts to prove that injustice tortures a man’s psyche, whereas a just soul is a healthy, happy one, untroubled and calm. Next he argues that, though each of the three main character types — money-loving, honor-loving, and truth-loving — have their own conceptions of pleasure and of the corresponding good life — each choosing his own life as the most pleasant — only the philosopher can judge because only he has experienced all three types of pleasure. The others should accept the philosopher’s judgement and conclude that the pleasures associated with the philosophical are most pleasant and thus that the just life is also most pleasant. He tries to demonstrate that only philosophical pleasure is really pleasure at all; all other pleasure is nothing more than cessation of pain.

One might notice that none of these arguments actually prove that justice is desirable apart from its consequences — instead, they establish that justice is always accompanied by true pleasure. In all probability, none of these is actually supposed to serve as the main reason why justice is desirable. Instead, the desirability of justice is likely connected to the intimate relationship between the just life and the Forms. The just life is good in and of itself because it involves grasping these ultimate goods, and imitating their order and harmony, thus incorporating them into one’s own life. Justice is good, in other words, because it is connected to the greatest good, the Form of the Good.

Plato ends The Republic on a surprising note. Having defined justice and established it as the greatest good, he banishes poets from his city. Poets, he claims, appeal to the basest part of the soul by imitating unjust inclinations. By encouraging us to indulge ignoble emotions in sympathy with the characters we hear about, poetry encourages us to indulge these emotions in life. Poetry, in sum, makes us unjust. In closing, Plato relates the myth of Er, which describes the trajectory of a soul after death. Just souls are rewarded for one thousand years, while unjust ones are punished for the same amount of time. Each soul then must choose its next life.

In ‘The Republic’ Plato uses the main character, Socrates to explore various issues that societies face and ways in which they should be confronted. For Plato, education was a fundamental to his idea of what it meant for a society to be proper and simple. Ahead of his time, he laid the foundation for various education practices that then and even now still hold great value. Promoting unity and functionality rather than self expression and individualism, Plato’s thoughts on education were rigid and indelible.

Education is touched upon in every book in ‘The Republic’ thus far, emphasizing the importance of the topic. However in Book Three, it is the main discussion between Socrates and several others. Plato believed education was essentially the key to achieving justice within society. Without knowledge, an individual would be unable to prevail in life and therefore virtue could not be obtained. Socrates describes the education that city guardians should receive and reciprocate. He lays rules regarding many different aspects such as diet and sex, emphasizing to keep consumption as well as discussion to a minimum and simplistic. He believes that there are various levels or branches to education that should be tailored as the individual continues to grow but notes that teachings should be simple and focus on the individual’s achievement of natural aptitude. An example of this relative to how the education system is set up now is the transition from elementary to middle and then from middle to high school. He understood the importance of allowing children to play and essentially allow their innocence to grow into moral.

Exposure to evil, including the teachings of anything evil or negative could lead to corruption, Socrates says ‘…And therefore let us put an end to such tales, lest they engender laxity of morals among the young.’ and ‘…And we must beg Homer and the other poets not to be angry if we strike out these and similar passages, not because they are unpoetical, or unattractive to the popular ear, but because the greater the poetical charm in them…’ (Bloom 72), these quotes highlights Plato’s strict ideals in what is and is not to be taught. It also reflects on how he believed such things could lead to the corruption of the youth as many of them portrayed Gods and citizens doing questionable and unjust things. Therefore, various teachings by Greek and Roman scholars or artist were forbidden in Socrate’s ideal society.

Upon reading ‘The Republic’ it is easy to understand why Plato focused on the society rather than the individual. Overall he believed that encouraging harmony and stability within the society would provide a structured and desirable life for those living in it. He also believed that they only way to accomplish such a thing was through education. Through the development of a perfect educational system, perfect citizens would be produced, and in tune the perfect society could be established. He also highlighted the idea that members who are unable or unwilling to play their role in society should be eliminated as the good of the city/society is always above the good of the individual.

Today’s education system is based on the idea of equality, ensuring that everyone has access to the relatively same education starting at a young age. Plato believed in the idea of equal education however many of his ideals suggested customization to the natural abilities of the individual as he or she grew. According to Socrate’s, for education to be affective it must transform and develop the individuals character to make them someone capable of employing technical abilities when necessary, hence his idea was very individual and singular. Who you study with, where you study, and for how long you study were all vital aspects to consider as according to Plato, the purpose of this process was to mold loyal, responsible, and honest members of society. Then and now, education’s goal is not to teach just technical aspects, it is to help individuals cultivate their natural aptitude in order form them to distinguish when and how to use those technical aspects. (Rollins, 00:00:01 – 00:06:00) Still, his idea focused on the betterment of society. Harmonious relationships were a vital aspect as well. Believing that if all individuals were about to cultivate their natural aptitude, then in tune everyone would have ample access to each others knowledge.

I believe the similarities in education that have derived from the teachings of Plato’s ‘The Republic’, are overall beneficial to society and the individual. Plato’s philosophy of education was primally concerned with the society’s full potential. He valued both genders as contributors to society as he encouraged the educating of both men and women. Although it is a concept that some developing countries or counties where men are considered the dominant gender struggle with, they slowly but surely allowing women their right to an education. He also highlighted the importance of physical and and mental education equally. The ability to battle as well as understand the depth of art in all forms was equally as important. I feel today this is something we are beginning to understand as schools continue to develop art programs. Educators today and Plato’s ideas of a city guardian are similar. Each were to guide individuals to their full potential by providing a foundation based on goodness and care. Hence, we see that many of contemporary cultures educational aspects have derived from Plato’s philosophy.