Plato makes a passionate presentation for the rightness of justice in The Republic; it is imperative that the place of justice be fully understood because it is the cornerstone upon which the ideal city-state is built. Justice is the principle that differentiates Platos ideal community from the current status quo.
Plato sets out with two primary objectives: one is to understand the nature of justice, and the second is to find out in what ways justice can be ensured within a community.
Plato starts by first finding out the perception that there is of justice from Socrates discourse with his fellow sophists. The first response Socrates gets from Polemarchus, is that justice constitutes being honest and paying off what one owes.
However, the philosopher points out the loopholes in this premise, from whence the definition of justice broadens, with the proposition that justice is giving a man what he deserves. Again, Socrates blows this argument by pointing out that a just man cannot do an unjust man wrong, just because the unjust one deserves it (Plato 7-13).
The argument proceeds, with Thrasymachus declaring that justice is that which serves the purpose of the stronger party, even if it is the government, because, if one is presumed to have broken the law, then there is no defense against authorities, whether the perceived lawbreaker is unjust or not (Plato 14). The conclusion is just men are wiser and better, and that unjust men only act so out of their ignorance (Plato 32).
At this point, Socrates states the first quality of a just leader; that such a person is one who has special knowledge coupled with the understanding that this knowledge is not intended to take advantage of those whom are under his rule, but rather he is to be of service. The mark of a true leader is having the interest of his subjects always at heart (Plato 22).
Gradually, Socrates view of justice begins to take form, after pulling down the conformities on morality and justice that are known in their own societal setting. Socrates explains that the position held by people on morality is more out of a moral code than a true appreciation of justice. It is because people are trying to avoid the ramifications of injustice if one is at the receiving end that they keep to the moral codes that bind their neighbors too (Plato 37).
Socrates has identified that morality and justice, as it is perceived, is something of a compromise that means one will not necessarily do good, but rather will restrain from doing evil (Plato 38).
After exhaustive debate, Socrates and his fellow sophists conclude that justice entails two things: doing ones task for which one is best suited without interfering with the tasks of others, and keeping ones property as well as ones occupation (167).
How this conclusion is drawn is that justice has three aspects: courage, wisdom, and temperate, and just society is one in which all three are in harmony. Socrates proposes that each person has a duty, which he/she can perform better than other tasks. There are those who are meant to be carpenters, and it is for the good of all if they focus their energies on being carpenters. When they try to be something other than their craftsmanship, they interfere with the balance of the community and create injustice.
In a just community, as Plato envisions for the ideal city-state, there is total harmony because every individual is playing his role. In this kind of setting, people find fulfillment, not only for themselves because they are undertaking that which is most suitable to their nature, but also because it sums up to a community in accord. (Plato 47-52)
There are three classes in which people in a just society fall: the warriors, the guardians, and the producers. The warriors are charged with the task of protecting the community, the producers, who constitute the craftsmen, farmers and artisans provide the community with its basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing. The guardians are charged with the task of ruling the community. When all three people in the different classes do their tasks as they are meant to, then justice is created (Plato 53).
Plato states that there is outward justice, that which is seen within the community, and inner justice, that which comes from the individual. He further expounds that a just society is merely a reflection of the individual who is in himself just. He explains that a just individual is one who is supremely balanced, who lets one of his three parts of his reason take control.
Central to how just a community is, as Socrates mentions from the very start, depends very much on leaders. Socrates makes a point for why leaders are to be chosen from the one whose dominant mental part is the quest for truth and wisdom.
He says that the wise make the smallest proportion of the communitys population, because of the specialized education that they have, and that is more important than the knowledge contained by the rest. This, however, does not mean that apart from the leaders the rest of the community has no sense of reason. Reason can only be governed by reason; it is just that the other members of the community fit their designed tasks (Plato 96-100).
The selection of leaders has to be done with great care; first and foremost, this leaders, whose temperament leads them always to seek wisdom, must be given a special and wholesome education that in part contains music and gymnastics. The leaders must also be older men, who have learned much over the years and can be entrusted to safeguard the city.
These leaders, above all else, must put the interests of the city first, and treat these interests like their very own. This is the true hallmark of a just leader; one who genuinely thinks of his subjects before himself. Furthermore, a leader has to be tested for his steadfastness before he can be deemed worthy of his position (105).
Plato then surmises that justice is good in and of itself, that true justice is an inner state which is little affected by what can be outwardly observed.
Conclusion
Systematically, Socrates illustrates that a just society is much better than an unjust one. He starts by stating the downsides of living in an unjust community: distrust, lack of harmony, dissonance, violence, constraint and mayhem.
Then he illustrates how a just society can be achieved, outlining exactly what it means to live justly. Socrates points out that there is a three-piece approach to creating a just community as he envisions for his ideal city-state, that of embracing the three aspects of justice; courage, temperament, and wisdom. Why justice is essential to a community is because it nurtures harmony and
Everyone has the intentions of living the best life on their days here on earth. For us to achieve the form of life that we dream about, it is necessary to make the best moves in all the situations that come our way. In this essay, the use of wisdom is going to be discussed about the views of wisdom of the philosophers of wisdom Plato and Nietzsche.
The discussion will be based on the key statements of Plato He advised people to be like Socrates, the separate soul from their bodies and practice death, then they will make the right moves. On the other hand, Nietzsche told them to act in a way that they will wish to live their life again. This will mean that they normally appreciate each moment of their life.
Philosophies
Plato is using a study of the allegory of the cave where he gives an example of a man who had been confined in a cave since he was born. In this allegory of the cave, the story has five parts; the shadow, the common man, the ascending man, and the descending man. All these parts are related to explaining morality and reality. On the other hand, Nietzsche, an eminent philosopher, understood human nature. He recognized that many people live on myths that they believe to be true. His popularity helped much in the advancing of postmodern philosophy.
Last year, during the festive season of December, I was traveling upcountry. Many people were traveling and so securing a ticket was a problem. The fare was also at its peak as usual. The bus that we were traveling looked old, and I did not like it. We fastened our belts as our journey started at six oclock in the morning.
We were to use a road, which is normally full of trailers. Before we had covered 5 kilometers, the breaks of the bus failed, and it started waving from one side of the road to another. Since I was seated near the window, I quickly decided to jump through the window. I landed in a trench and broke my arm. The bus went on and hit an oncoming trailer. All the passengers perished in the accident. In this story, we can relate it to Platos statement of practicing death.
I tried to assume that I was already dead, and I cared less about the consequences of the action. My move of jumping through the window was the right one. Even, though, I broke my arm, I was the only one who survived in that accident. This story could also be related to Nietzsche statement that we should do actions that show that we wish to live our lives once more. This means that we appreciate the moments that life gives us each day.
Conclusion
According to the story, the first ideal on Plato is the one that is applying to the action that I took. I decided to jump through the window and thus saved my life. By taking this decision, I managed to save my life because the other passengers died in the accident. I can appreciate each moment of life that I live. This is because of the move that I took turned out to be the right decision.
Reading Meno by Plato, it is possible to define virtue in several different ways. However, using the general terms, virtue is the power of governing justly (Plato 2). However, this is not the only definition used by Meno in Platos dialogues. Reading the text closely, it becomes obvious that Meno offers several definitions of virtue depending on the sex and on the belonging of a person. Therefore, using several rules of good definitions, the notion virtues is going to be defined with the further explanation of the rules used for this,
Meno says that the virtue of a woman is to order the house and the virtue of a man is to govern the state. The difference is in the scale. However, each of the definitions of virtue should go along with temperance and justice (Plato). Therefore, considering the information in the article and trying to define the word virtue, the following considerations come to mind. Virtue is the power of governing justly and with temperance but depending on the age and on the sex different scope of the object of government is considered.
There are many different ways of defining the notions. Trying to explain what virtue means Meno uses various approaches to definition. Before considering the types of defining the notions used in the article, it is important to consider those types. There are four rules of definition, rule of equivalence, rule of essential characteristics, rule of neutrality, and rule of clarity. The main idea of the rule of equivalence is to present the notion explanation by means of using one or two words depending on the number of words the notion consists of.
This definition is always to narrow. The rule of essential characteristics points at some particular features of the notion under consideration. This definition is more specific, however, it cannot be called broad. The rule of neutrality is aimed at defining the notion using just simple words without referencing to the emotive tone.
Such definitions lack terminology and therefore it is understandable for other people who may have little knowledge in the notion under discussion. The rule of clarity is considered to apply to the most general and wide definition of the notion as while explaining the meaning of the word, it is necessary to be as specific as possible and at the same time to deliver the most detailed information about the notion.
Considering the definitions used by Meno in Platos work, it is possible to notice several types of definitions. The notion virtue in the piece of writing under discussion applies to the rule of essential characteristics and the rule of clarity. The rule of neutrality is not used as dwelling upon philosophical notions a person is unable to hide his/her emotions and the discussion remain passionate from this or that way. Additionally, the rule of equivalent is not used as well because of the same reasons.
The philosophical issues should be explained, but not just defined. The notion virtue is considered by two people and questions one person directs another one in defining the notion. Therefore, it is possible to say that the whole dialogue is the definition of the notion using the rule of clarity. Using the rule of clarity we also applied to the rule of essential characteristics to make sure that the is defined in a appropriate way.
In order for us to be able to define the main differences/similarities between the Platonian and Hegelian conceptualizations of what accounts for the actual purpose of the state/polis, we will need to outline the main qualitative aspects of Hegelian dialectics. In its turn, this will allow to gain a better understanding of the discursive significance of Hegels view on the actual nature of the state/civil society.
The main theoretical premise, upon which the philosophy of Hegel is based, is the assumption that, contrary to what Immanuel Kant used to believe, the physical manifestation of a particular idea is just as objective as this idea itself, because they do derive out of each other. What it means is that there can be no things in themselves, in the Kantian sense of this word, by definition according to Hegel, there is no any metaphysical gap between the ideas actualization and its innermost being both are the integral parts of what Hegel used to refer to as the unity of contradictions.
As the philosopher pointed out: Every self-consciousness knows itself as universal, as the possibility of abstracting from everything determinate and as particular, with a determinate object, content, and end. But these two moments are only abstractions; what is concrete and true (and everything true is concrete) is the universality which has the particular as its opposite, but this particular through its reflection into itself, has been reconciled with the universal (Hegel 41). According to Hegel, the notion of reality connotes the notion of fluidity the reality around us never ceases to remain in the state of constant transition, which in turn reflects the never-ending interplay between causes and effects.
This implies that it is indeed possible for philosophers to grasp what account for the quintessence of the surrounding realitys emanations, which in turn establishes a hypothetical possibility for one to be able to gain an in-depth insight into how the universe actually functions, and into what predetermines the concerned phenomenas qualitative characteristics.
The above-mentioned helps to explain the foremost particulars of how Hegel used to reflect on the notion of statehood. These particulars can be formulated as follows:
The state is the intermediary phase of the process of the universal spirit growing ever more self-aware
According to Hegel, there are three consequential phases to the dialectically predetermined transformation of the universal spirit the subjective spirit (concerned with ones will-powered state of consciousness), the objective spirit (concerned with the existence of the state/society) and the absolute spirit (which emanates itself through art, religion and philosophy). What it means is that, contrary to what many people believe, the state is not merely the sum of the affiliated citizens wills. Rather, it is something that is there to synthesize the individual wills of citizens into a single one, which in turn presupposes that the state is being qualitatively different from happened to be the quality of its building blocks citizens. This Hegels suggestion correlates perfectly well with his idea that, after having attained a critical mass, the matter of quantity inevitably becomes the matter of quality.
The societal implication of the above-stated is quite apparent the purpose of the state is not to serve citizens, in the sense of helping them to satisfy their animalistic urges, but to help them on the way of acquiring a qualitatively new consciousness. As Goodfield noted: Hegels primary quest (aims) to fully articulate the transformation of being out of itselfa project initiated out of being as the preliminary phase of both the major and minor works on logic (851). In its turn, this implies that it is only by the mean of serving their state, that citizens will be in the position to be able to realize their full existential potential.
There is a difference between the notion of the state, on the one hand, and the notion of a civil society, on the other
According to Hegel, the realities of a bourgeois living presuppose that the provisions of the social contract, signed between citizens, define the dynamics within a particular society. Because the earlier mentioned contract is there to ensure that there is a healthy balance between the citizens strive to pursue with the agenda of self-actualization, on one hand, and their social responsibilities (defined by the contract in question), on the other, Hegel concludes that what it is being commonly perceived as the state is in fact a civil society. According to the philosopher: Civil society is an association of members as self-sufficient individuals in what is therefore a formal universality, occasioned by their needs and by the legal constitution as a means of security for persons and property, and by an external order for their particular and common interests (Hegel 198).
In other words, the primary function of a civil society is to reduce the severity of the antagonisms between the society-members that happened to belong to different social classes, which in turn is expected to make it possible for them to pay attention to the prospect of attaining self-actualization by the mean of becoming increasingly disfranchised from their monkeysh nature. The function of the state is altogether different. As Hegel pointed out: The state is the actuality of the ethical Idea the ethical spirit as substantial will, manifest and clear to itself, which thinks and knows itself and implements what it knows in so far as it knows it (275). In other words, Hegel considered the state to be the instrument of improving the actual quality of citizens, which in turn he believed was the main precondition for them to be able to fulfill their destinies.
In order for an individual to become integrated into the state, as its integral part, he or she must proceed with leading a historical lifestyle
According to the philosopher: History is the process whereby the spirit assumes the shape of events and of immediate natural actuality (Hegel 374). Because history is nothing else but the process of the universal spirit exploring different aspects of its being, the measure of peoples affiliation with the currently predominant socio-economic discourse reflects the subtleties of their worth, as citizens. The social realities of living in the early 18th centurys Germany, prompted Hegel to identify three social classes, the representatives of which had what it takes to be able to influence the course of history: landowners/peasants, industrialists and governmental officials.
The logic behind this suggestion is that the very existence of the earlier mentioned social classes presupposes the situation when, as time goes on, the class-stratification within the concerned society becomes increasingly more acute. However, even though the situations side effect is that there is a continual inequality between people within the society, it nevertheless enables the continuation of a historical progress. The reason for this is that, being essentially a one-directional process, the history-triggering progress can only be initiated if there is a strongly defined misbalance between the energetic potentials within the society. What it means is that the elimination of inequality between citizens will prove counter-beneficial in the long run.
Those who actively oppose the state, regardless of what happened to be their excuse for doing it, violate the most fundamental laws of history
Hegel believed that the properly functioning state is nothing but the actual manifestation of the universal spirit being at liberty to consciously seek self-actualization. What it means is that the notion of statehood is synonymous with the notion of freedom. This assumption prompted the philosopher to suggest that it is utterly inappropriate for an individual to strive to undermine the integrity of the states wholesomeness from within (such as by the mean of adopting a critical stance towards the government). After all, what people may perceive as the proof there is something wrong about how their country functions, may well be the indication that it is simply standing on the threshold of making a revolutionary leap from quantity to quality, which in turn implies the sheer adequateness of the situation in question.
Constitutional monarchy is the best form of a political governing
According to Hegel, the state is actually the entity of its own. In this respect, it can be well compared to ones body in order for a person to be able to move its hand, he or she does not need to be aware of the processs actual mechanics. All that is needed, in this respect, is that the concerned person has a will to do this it is this will, which ensures the hands actual movement. In the similar manner, the state is something that is quite capable of functioning on its own, for as long there is a will to animate the proper workings of its elemental components.
The philosopher believed that it is namely a constitutional monarch/king, who serves the function of bringing the state into life, by the mean of turning its own will into the tool of setting the states mechanics into motion. As he noted: The objective guarantee of the power of the sovereign& lies in the fact that, just as this sphere has its own actuality distinct from that of other rationally determined moments, so also do these other moments have their own distinct rights and duties in accordance with their determination (Hegel 327).
This, of course, implies that, even though monarchs do in fact animate the state, they are not in the position to define the processs qualitative aspects. This simply could not be otherwise, because as it was pointed out earlier, the Hegelian state is nothing but one of the universal spirits emanations, which in turn presupposes the intelligibleness of just about any geopolitical entity, as a thing in itself.
The form of a political governing, associated with a particular country, cannot be discussed outside of what accounts for the concerned peoples dialectically predetermined cognitive and perceptual leanings
According to Hegel, there are four consequential phases to the process of the universal spirit continually extrapolating itself through the ages Oriental (theocratic), Greek (democratic), Roman (aristocratic) and German (meritocratic). The spirits theocratic extrapolation presupposes the possibility of freedom for only a single individual (acting as the Gods representative). The democratic and aristocratic forms of a political governing provide freedom to only a few; whereas, meritocracy enables all the citizens to enjoy a true freedom of consciousness regardless of what happened to be the specifics of their affiliation with a particular social class.
The main discursive implication of this idea is quite apparent there can be no good and bad forms of a political governing, but only those that do correlate with what happened to be the predominant societal discourse of the time and those that do not. Another implication of the above-mentioned idea is that the manner, in which a particular country functions, is being reflective of the workings of the concerned citizens mentality: Hegel stated that every people possesses its own traditions and fantasies about gods, angels, demons, and heroes; they are transmitted from generation to generation, constituting the socio-political and cultural heritage (Avineri 473). This, of course, implies the fallaciousness of the assumption that a particular country can be made much more functionally effective by the mean of adopting a progressive statehood-paradigm unless this paradigm is being fully consistent with the particulars of how the would-be-affected citizens tend to perceive the surrounding reality and their place in it.
The conceptual differences between Plato and Hegel
Based upon the initial paper (about Platos The Republic) and the earlier mentioned Hegelian insights into the nature of a statehood, we can define what account for the major differences between how both philosophers used to expound on the purpose of the states existence, in general, and on what can be deemed the most conceptually sound model of a political governing, in particular.
The first thing that comes to ones attention, in this respect, is that Platos idea that it is specifically the so-called philosopher-kings, who alone should be assigned with the responsibility of ruling a country, is inconsistent with Hegels vision of the state, as the spatially extended extrapolation of the universal spirit. After all, whereas, Platos concept presupposes that it is quite possible for a wise philosopher-king to be in the position to change the vector of a politys development, the one by Hegel denies this possibility altogether.
This simply could not be otherwise, because, whereas, in Platos The Republic, a Greek polis is represented in terms of an abstraction, quite unaffected by the flow of time, the Hegelian view of the state presupposes the never-ending qualitative transformation of the latter. Therefore, it is thoroughly explainable why Socrates (in the Republic) promotes the idea that kings are able to rule effectively by the very virtue of being philosophically minded he believed that the external circumstances have very little influence on the philosopher-kings tendency to act in one way or another. In its turn, this can be well interpreted as the indication of Socrates idealistic belief that one is capable of adopting a particular stance towards addressing life-challenges, by the mean of applying a mental effort: When a mans desires are firmly set in one direction, we know that his desire for everything else is correspondingly weakened as when a stream has been diverted into another course (Plato 485 d-e). In this respect, Hegel could not possibly agree with Plato.
The reason for this is that, according to the philosopher, the state is itself a highly systemic organism, the overall quality of which defines the quality of its components. This, course, implies that the idea of philosopher-kings exercising a supreme authority over their subjects, in the Platonian sense of this word, is a rather utopian one. After all, as the Hegelian principle of dialectics points out to, a part of something bigger cannot be possibly elevated to a higher existential level, as compared to that of the latter. Therefore, Hegels model of the perfect state stands in contradiction with the one by Plato, because it is based on the theoretically different premise of what the state/polity really is. Whereas, for Plato, the concerned notion signified something utterly static, Hegel used to perceive it as such that presupposes the everlasting motion of things in the universe, as the very precondition for the emergence of the state, in the first place.
Another fundamental difference between Platos conceptualization of the ideal state and that of Hegel, has to do with the particulars of how both philosophers tended to make gnoseological inquiries into the surrounding realitys nature. The Platonian model of the ideal state promotes the essentially metaphysical idea that there is an irreconcilable duality between an object, as a thing in itself, on one hand, and the objects physical embodiment, on the other.
The validity of this suggestion can be illustrated by the so-called allegory of the cave, mentioned in the initial paper. This allegory suggests that Plato never ceased believing in the existence of some higher reality, to which the surrounding physical reality relates in terms of a shape but not in terms of a quality or being. Therefore, he used to promote the idea that, in order for the state to realize its true calling, its functioning must be concerned with serving some higher metaphysical purpose. Hegel, on the other hand, viewed the state as the actual purpose of everything he believed that the state is nothing less than the spatially sensed extrapolation of the universal spirit at work.
As Kelly noted: He (Hegel) was& a state-worshiper& because he saw it as the organizing principle which, through the institutional civilizing of the situated human being and the protection of his higher values from disruptive disorder, made the creation of culture and philosophy possible in the modern age (4). In its turn, this implied that the idea of the state could not be separated from its physically felt emanations. Instead of referring to the state as the mean of advancing humanity, he considered it as the actual end of the humanitys endeavor to attain self-awareness.
The above-stated helps to explain another major difference between the Platonian and Hegelian conceptualizations of the state the fact that, whereas, Plato favored the idea of a communal living, Hegel considered it thoroughly incompatible with the spirit of a statehood. One of the reasons for this is that Platos model of the ideal state is essentially concerned with the ancient Greek city-polis, one of the main characteristics of which was the concerned citizens endowment with the acute sense of a corporate/national solidarity. After all, while living in such a polis, people are being naturally driven to believe that it is specifically their ability to act as one (especially during the time of war), which makes it possible for the city-state in question to effectively face different internal and external challenges.
In its turn, this significantly reduces the acuteness of their deep-seated desire to own land/property, as one of the main preconditions of ones egocentric behavior, quite inconsistent with the paradigm of an urban living. Simultaneously, while alienated from the notion of a private ownership, people naturally grow susceptible towards the political ideologies of authoritarianism, which in turn prevent them from being able to enjoy freedom, in the Hegelian sense of this word. In this respect, we can only agree with Smith, who pointed out that: The difference between the ancient polis and the modern state is that far from recognizing the individual autonomy of each of its members, the polis was the paradigm of a tutelary community based on a shared moral understanding and directed toward a specific way of life (8).
Hegel, on the other hand, believed that it is namely by the mean of owning land/property that citizens are able to attain what he used to refer to as the state of substantiality (being able to impose its will upon others). The rationale behind such his belief is as follows: In order for just about anyone to be able to contribute to the states well-being, he or she must exercise the rights of a sovereign being.
Because at this point of history, the qualitative dynamics within just about any country are defined by the essentially economic factors, there is only one way for citizens to exercise their sovereign freedom (which in turn qualifies them for self-actualization as the states integral elements) to be in the possession of private property. As the philosopher noted: The person must give himself an external sphere of freedom in order to have being as Idea& The rational aspect of property is to be found not in the satisfaction of needs but in the superseding of mere subjectivity of personality. Not until he has property does the person exist as reason (Hegel 73).
Apparently, in contrast to how Plato used to perceive it, Hegel did not think of the idea of freedom (out of which the idea of the state derives) as a mere abstraction. This explains Hegels insistence that the existence of the institute of a private ownership is crucially important, when it comes to ensuring that the state does live up to its purpose of being. By being in the position to exercise the rights of an ownership, citizens are able to subjectify themselves within the surrounding social environment, which in turn makes them the agents of progress.
The apparent dichotomy, between the Platonian and Hegelian views on the nature of statehood can also be seen, within the context of how both philosophers used to elaborate on the essence of civility, as the states metaphysical foundation. For example, even though he remained thoroughly aware that there is a line between the personal agenda of every individual citizen, on one hand, and his or her interest in ensuring the polis overall well-being, on the other, Plato never considered the possibility for this situation to cause a number of different negative effects on the actual quality of the polis. This explains why, even though the Platonian model of the perfect state (Callipolis) does presuppose the societys division along social lines, it does not acknowledge the effect of every citizens social/corporate affiliation on his or her ability to understand what the concept of citizenship actually stands for.
The same cannot be said about the Hegelian conceptualization of the state. After all, it does presuppose that the very dialectical laws of history naturally cause the representatives of different social classes to grow increasingly aware that their sense of self-identity is something inseparable from what happened to be these peoples corporate agendas. Thus, the actual significance of the notion of a civil society within the methodological framework of the Hegelian model of statehood it is there to enable citizens to go about realizing their private interests, without undermining the inner integrity of the state. In its turn, this explains Hegels adherence to the idea that the proper functioning of the state is only possible under the condition that the principle of checks and balances lays at the foundation of this states functional philosophy.
This brings us to discuss another conceptual inconsistency, between the Platonian and Hegelian outlooks on the nature of a statehood the fact that; whereas, Plato believed in the inborn essence of every individual citizens tendency to act in one way or another, Hegel could not disagree more. According to him, even though people do in fact exhibit a number of spatially stable behavioral patterns, this state of affairs is being environmentally (externally) rather than dialectically (innately) predetermined. What it means is that, contrary to Platos idea, in this respect, there can be no citizens who by the virtue of their affiliation with a particular social strata can be deemed more or less capable of ruling a country.
The reason for this is that, regardless of what happened to be the psychological leanings of a particular person, he or she never ceases to be the embodiment of duality, in the Hegelian sense of this word: Individuals as a mass are themselves spiritual natures, and they therefore embody a dual moment, namely the extreme of individuality, which knows and wills for itself, and the extreme of universality which knows and wills the substantial (Hegel 287). What it means is that there can be no rationale in suggesting that the intellectually advanced representative of the aristocracy should necessarily prove itself more effective, as a public official, when compared to a simple-minded peasant, for example. After all, according to Hegel, the social classes of peasantry and aristocracy are being equally capable of serving as mediums, through which the idea of the state is able to become conscious of its own divine essence.
In Hegels opinion, this once again exposes the conceptual fallaciousness of the ideal city of Callipolis, as such that that is being primarily concerned with suppressing the rights and freedoms of its residents. This simply could not be otherwise, because as it was mentioned earlier, according to Hegel, it is not only that the concepts of the state and freedom are closely related, but they in fact derive out of each other. This, of course, implies that the Platonian version of the ideal state is inheritably flowed the direct consequence of the fact that it does not consider the possibility for a polity to serve as the universal spirits conduit.
We can also well mention the fact that the models of the ideal state, on the part of Plato and Hegel, differ in terms of what account for their systemic subtleties. The Platonian ideal city-polis appears to be discursively petrified the flow of time is not supposed to affect the main principle of its functioning, as such that it being concerned with singling out worthy individuals and allowing them to exercise an undisputed political authority. This, of course, implies that the situation when in Platos city-polis, a good share of citizens continues to be considered imperfect, can hardly be considered tolerable. After all, this idea is based upon the perceptionally arrogant assumption that the citys ongoing cultural and technological development has no effect on the citizens sense of being.
Hegel, however, provides a qualitatively different outlook on the subject matter in question. According to him, the very fact that his ideal state is being governed by an impersonal law (which enables the existence of a civil society), encourages the affiliated citizens to have a personal interest in becoming ever more ethically minded. The reason for this is that, in order for just about anyone to be able to attain a social prominence in the modern state, he or she must be a thoroughly educated person. However, it is not only that educated individuals happened to possess knowledge of how the world actually turns, but they are also expected to apply such their knowledge, as the instrument of making it a much better place.
As Hegel suggested: Education is the art of making human beings ethical: it considers them as natural beings and shows them how they can be reborn, and how their original nature can be transformed into a second, spiritual nature so that that this spirituality becomes habitual to them. In habit, the opposition between the natural and the subjective will disappears, and the resistance of the subject is broken (195). In other words, a persons ability to act morally and wisely (something that Platos philosopher-kings are assumed to be capable of doing) is not an unchangeable trait, but rather a spatially prolonged process, which has its highs and lows. It is understood, of course, that the earlier mentioned provision stands in a striking contradiction to Platos idea that there is an innate quality to how one acts.
Finally, Hegel would disagree with Plato on the account of the latters belief in the sheer universality of his idea of how the ideal city-polis (state) is supposed to function. After all, Plato never doubted the fact that, at the time when he was working on his philosophic masterwork, the city of Athens constituted nothing short of the universes center he viewed it as the beacon of civility in the sea of barbarianism, surrounding it. Therefore, it never occurred to the philosopher to consider the probability for his theory of the state to prove inconsistent with what happened to be the cognitive and perceptual predispositions of those people, who would be willing to put this theory in practice.
The same, however, cannot be said about the Hegelian view on the nature of statehood, as such that features a number of the culturally relativist undertones to it. For example, Hegel used to insist that the appropriateness of the adoption of a particular model of governing, must be measured in relation to what are the specifics of the concerned peoples ethno-cultural affiliation: Since spirit is actual only as that which it knows itself to be, and since the state, as the spirit of a nation, is both the law which permeates all relations within it and also the customs and consciousness of the individuals who belong to it, the constitution of a specific nation will in general depend on the nature and development of its self-consciousness (Hegel 312). This, of course, implies that there can no universally applicable models of the ideal state whatever the model may prove beneficial to the well-being of one nation, could well end up proving itself harmful to the well-being of another one.
Conclusion
Because, as compared to what it is being the case with the Platonian philosophy of politics, the Hegelian one is much more discursively mature, many of its theoretical insights appear to be thoroughly consistent with what todays physicists know about the functional specifics of just about any systemic phenomenon (such as society). For example, due to the recent breakthroughs in the field of physics, sociology and cybernetics, it now became quite clear to scientists that just about any society can be well discussed in terms of a thermodynamic system. As such, the societys proper functioning can only be ensured if the concerned communitys integral components (citizens) remain well in their sub-functional places.
This is because the thermodynamic outlook on the societys functioning implies that the overall quality of its geopolitical/historical performance is not being solely defined by the de facto quality of citizens, but also by the particulars of their interrelation with each other. This suggestion correlates with the Hegelian view of the state, as such that has been brought to life by the circumstantially adequate functionality of the affiliated civil society. Thus, there can be indeed only a few doubts, as to the fact that Hegel did contribute to the development of a political thought in the West rather considerably.
Nevertheless, I personally think that, discursively speaking, the Platonian model of the ideal state is much more practically valuable, as compared to that of Hegel. Probably the main reason behind this suggestion is that Hegels model suffers from the lack of intelligibility. Even though that, as a whole, the political philosophy of Hegel does make much of a logical sense, it nevertheless cannot be considered 100% discursively legitimate.
This simply could not be otherwise, because many of this philosophys provisions reflect the subjective workings of Hegels mind. Therefore, many insights into the nature of a statehood, contained in Hegels Elements of the Philosophy of Right, cannot be referred to as anything but strongly speculative. In comparison, Platos concept of the ideal city-polis is not only easy to understand, but it is also intuitively sound many of its provisions correlate perfectly well with the working of peoples unconscious psyche.
There is even more to it Hegels view of the state is overly idealistic. This explains why, even though he was able to predict the continual rise of the social antagonisms within just about any bourgeois society, the philosopher somehow believed this would have a potentially beneficial effect on the society in question, because the irreconcilable dichotomy between these antagonisms is exactly where the absolute spirit originates from. Given the fact that, according to Hegel, the state is this spirits physically embodied emanation, it means that the more there are phenomenological aspects to how a particular country functions, the better. Nevertheless, one does not have to be a philosopher to understand a simple thing that there can be only one ultimate consequence of a particular society continuing to be affected by the growing tensions within this societys eventual collapse.
In this respect, the political philosophy of Plato makes a much more favorable impression. Partially, this has to do with the fact that it does not operate with terms that can be vaguely interpreted, such as spirit, ethics or morality. According to Plato there are those people who have what it takes to be perceived as natural-born rulers and those who do not (Mara 605). Nevertheless, even though this suggestion may appear utterly simplistic, it cannot be brushed aside as highly speculative. After all, it has been well observed that one of the major factors that contribute to the sensation of unhappiness, experienced by citizens in a particular country, is the concerned peoples intense dislike of the countrys rulers; as such do not quite deserve to be elevated to the position of rulership, in the first place.
Finally, the spirit of German nationalism affects the political philosophy of Hegel rather considerably, which hardly adds to its conceptual legitimacy (Franco 843). Platos idea of the ideal state, on the other hand, is essentially cosmopolitical, which in theory makes it universally applicable. Partially, this explains the fact that, even today; this idea continues to radiate a certain appeal something that can be hardly suggested about the highly subjectivist philosophy of Hegel.
I believe that the earlier deployed line of argumentation, in regards to what account for the main provisions of the Hegelian conceptualization of the state (and what differs them from the thematically relevant provisions of Plato), is fully consistent with the papers initial thesis.
Works Cited
Avineri, Shlomo. Hegel and Nationalism. The Review of Politics 24.4 (1962): 461-484. Print.
Franco, Paul. Hegel and Liberalism. The Review of Politics 59.4 (1997): 831-860. Print.
Goodfield, Eric. The Sovereignty of the Metaphysical in Hegels Philosophy of Right. The Review of Metaphysics 62.4 (2009): 849-873. Print.
Hegel, Georg. Elements of the Philosophy of Right. Trans. H.B. Nisbet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Print.
It is important to note that the allegory of the cave by Plato is a valuable thought experiment, which highlights the distinction between ones knowledge and beliefs. The core concept revolves around a search for truth through enlightenment, where a person is no longer chained to the real world. The emphasis is put on the abstract realm of ideas, where undeniable truths can be found. The storys main purpose is to illustrate the stark difference between an individual, who found the truth, and someone, who is chained by unsubstantiated beliefs.
In order to properly understand why Plato chose Socrates as the core speaker and character of the allegory, one should understand the latters practices and beliefs. One of the most known and defining practices of Socrates was his Socratic method of inquiry. In short, it was both a teaching approach as well as a form of argumentative dialogue, where an issue is segmented into many questions (Riju par. 5). The basic concept is to begin from what a person already knows and is familiar with and impose questions in the direction of a supposed answer. The philosopher firmly believed that the unexamined life is not worth living (Timmons par. 17). In other words, he always questioned everything, and thus, he considered that reason and wisdom were the only source of morality, ethics, and ultimate happiness.
Therefore, the main reason why Plato chose Socrates as the speaker for this parable is due to the latters representation of wisdom, knowledge, and intelligence. It is stated that Socrates himself never wrote anything, and in Platos writing, where he uses Socrates as the main character in his dialogues, it can be difficult to tell how much is the historical Socrates and how much is Plato (Lake par. 3). In other words, Plato was Socratess student, who learned a great deal in regards to philosophy from him. It is evident that the allegory of the cave, where the central point is to show how truth brings richness in understanding, needed a character representing an enlightened individual who knows was able to escape the trap.
Socrates beliefs and practices are directly related to the themes of the parable. The shadows in the cave are distorted and poorly reflective representations about occurrences taking place in the real world. Therefore, in order to escape the cave and witness these events or objects firsthand, it is critical to question everything with the use of reason and logic. In other words, the Socratic method can be an outstanding tool in achieving enlightenment. Every person is born in the cave, from which he or she must escape by examining ones life and seeking truth through reason. The latter will break the chains and allow a person to escape the prison of ignorance to see the true beauty of the world. In other words, darkness is ignorance, and lightness is wisdom.
In conclusion, the allegory of the cave by Plato is a parable about knowledge, wisdom, and ignorance. The cave represents a world in which a person is placed initially, but by examining ones life and surroundings, it is possible for him or her to escape the prison of ignorance. Shadows are distorted reflections of truths, which lack the details and beauty of a real object. Darkness represents ignorance, whereas light is a source of knowledge.
In his book, Plato critically evaluates overall effects of poetry on society as a whole through one of the characters. Socrates to be precise. Plato insists that thematic aspects of poetry might have an impact negatively on society: Such poetry is likely to corrupt the mind of those of its hearers who do not have the knowledge of a drug to counteract it (Plato, 2004, p. 297).
On the other hand, Nochlin (1988) exposes male chauvinism and its consequences on emergence of women as great artists. According to this author, society has been manipulated to perceive women as inferior to men and this view has constantly been taken from one generation to another. Quoting John Stuart Mill, she writes: Everything which is usual appears natural (Nochlin, 1988, p. 149).
Evaluating their two points of view, it thus makes essence to banish all poets for the effect of their art on the social order of the city. Plato (2004) points out imitation as a major mode of transfer which the society uses to emulate poets. Once a poet writes about a particular voice in the society, people tend to quickly adopt the poets point of view. Successively, other society members copy from their allies and such an idea spreads far and beyond. This is clearly brought out through a conversation between Socrates and Glaucon about craftsmanship. In the course of imitation, the original intent of the poet is manipulated in all ways suitable to an individual. Socrates comments: So, imitation is surely far removed from the truth (Plato, 2004, p. 301).
Nochlin (1988) argues that little effort has been made to honor female scholars who have made significant contributions in various forms of art. Perhaps this is why we have few feminine artists. She does not blame men for this but rather on the earlier interpretations about female greatness. The author points out that the whole idea of feminine artists was earlier on misinterpreted to imply equality. There have been no such structures to clearly elaborate on the issue and those that tried to do so were either manipulated or turned out misinterpreted. This has led to the subsequent scarcity of female artists. Nochlin (1988) writes: We would rather lay the blame on the initial misinterpretation of our institutional structures for the feminine woes (p. 150). Hence just like poets, earlier current structures have significantly affected the population of feminine artist.
In the Republic, Socrates constantly refers to poets as imitators who lack originality in their work. He explains to Glaucon that most imitators seldom have sufficient knowledge of their actions. Thus, Socrates implies that most poets write about issues in the society, which they know little about since they do not live with their poems. In fact, Socrates suggests that a wise teacher will be much more eager to be the subject of a eulogy than the author of one (Plato, 2004, p. 302). Thus, poets instigate and propagate certain vices in society which they do not have sufficient information about such as negative vices.
A similar scenario is brought out by Nochlin (1988). In her article, she widely gives substantial recounts of social injustices as a result of male chauvinism. She highlights on the oppression of female artists under their male counterparts. However, she later points out that besides all these predicaments, no feminine artist has ever come out strongly to claim her position in the society as she states: The fact of the matter is that there have been no supremely great women artists, as far as we know (Nochlin, 1988, p. 151). This clearly implies that many literary pieces are done to agitate society of feminine artists plight yet the same feminine artists do not come out and establish themselves. Consequently, it follows that earlier feminine artists should be blamed for their lack of commitment to stand out and champion for feminine artists.
According to Plato, poets are known to command multitudes of people. Subsequently, poets selectively choose topics that will make them famous. Socrates says they write about things about which the masses think they speak so well (Plato, 2004, p. 302). Having established earlier that most people are easily manipulated by the poets literary works, it follows that a vice advocated for by a poet in his/her art will be widely taken up in society.
The same is explained by Nochlin (1988). Due to male dominance in art, a notion has been created that it takes geniuses and special people to be great artists: Great artists are born special men, perhaps geniuses (Nochlin, 1988, p. 152), and his greatness is also believed to be beyond feminine ability. Through literary works, the whole society has been manipulated to perceive the idea as concrete truth. Really, this is just a calculated misinterpretation by masculine artists to ward off feminine competition. Hence masculine artists ought to carry the blame for misleading the society.
More so, while Nochlin (1988) tackled gender equality, Plato (2004) elaborately dealt with extensive effects of art on society as a unit. In the Republic, masculine artists managed to convince the society into believing that indeed there can be no great feminine artist. This led to the scarce numbers of female and masculine artists. Early artists who put bad structures in place that do not support feminine artists growth are also to be blamed. On this note, I agree with Plato that poets should indeed be banished for their subsequent effects on the citys social order.
References
Nochlin, L. (1988). Why have there been no great women artists. In Women, Art, power and other Essays (pp. 147-158). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Plato. (2004). Republic. (C., D, Reeve, Trans). Cambridge, CA: Hackett Publishing Company. (Original work published 380 BC).
Politicians often lied and so misled when it was necessary or advantageous. A false claim or representation made with knowledge of the truth or intent to deceive lies. The idea that politicians intentionally mislead the public for their gain predates todays claims of fake news. From Plato to Machiavelli, renowned political theorists saw politics as a sphere where lies and deception naturally flourish, such as the objectives justify the means approach, which allows leaders to lie within limits. However, motivations and lies have long been used in political talks. Their critics are either naive fools or clever scam artists, likely to be even bigger spreaders of lies and deceit than themselves. As we shall see, claims of lying and deception and the desire to deceive and mislead seem to be linked to incorrect expectations, false beliefs, and self-delusion on both sides of the political and public spectrum. In this regard, lying has proved to be critical and hence should not be considered a problem. Therefore, it should be celebrated.
By character, Machiavelli paints an image of a leader who is nobler but resorts to deception to acquire prowess and control. In addition, he details no evidence that the legislator is impacted by his repeated lies, which Plato would find objectionable. For example, Plato would consider such deeds harmful to ones spirit and internal liberty. He would further question whether the ruler will be seen as truthful once the deception is detected, which is usually the case with political leaders. Although Machiavelli is not overly concerned with the damages incurred by lies and deceit, he set some boundaries on untruthful procedures. Precisely when he emphasizes that a prince should practice deception only when it is necessary to achieve his objectives or when he says a prince should at least appear to be somehow telling the truth. Machiavelli also lists particular occasions in which breaking trust is allowed, for instance, when the pledge becomes a burden, which seems to indicate that these are outliers rather than the rule being followed. Despite the fact that he is not always clear on the topic, he claims that the prince is acting in the countrys best interests.
Based on Machiavelli, there are some circumstances in which it is appropriate to lie. For example, when the commitment or promise turns against rulers, the reasons that motivated him to take the pledge are no longer valid. The leaders, according to Machiavelli, must violate trust in this manner for the sake of their state, irrespective that it is wrong to do so. Further, Princes must also conceal their false goals by seeming friendly and genuine to everyone. However, bearing the falsehood factor, the prince must manifest specific characteristics: faith, compassion, honesty, humanity, and religious belief. The ruler will have to go against these characteristics in practice, but he will be protected since the general public perceives he is competent at his job. These characteristics will assist a prince in avoiding hostility and contempt from other rulers and citizens. Thus, he will maintain his peoples faith and respect while pursuing political benefit via deception and brutality.
In regards to Machiavelli, violence solely does not secure power for a ruler. Thence, deceit is essential for the effective execution of power within the jurisdiction. In this way, a successful prince will exploit lying to attain his purposes but create the idea that he is genuine to the population. Typically, a prince is well-educated and is generally a kind guy, but he learns how to be terrible and understands when he must deploy lies. He would speak the truth when feasible or reasonable, resorting to lying when required to retain or increase his influence. Basically, Machiavelli wants rulers to fulfill modest pledges that will not limit their authority but employ cunning to funnel more power toward themselves. If one participates in such dishonesty, he will be considerably more powerful and effective than someone who constantly preserves trust.
In Platos work, he demonstrates that the idea of lying in personal or public life, which is a crucial part of knowing the truth, has been eradicated from human consciousness. The situation, therefore, is one in which reality is rendered meaningless by a rhetorician seeking to be successful in his dictatorship. The upshot is that we are getting closer to an aftermath-of-truth condition that takes into consideration aspects other than whether a citizen or leader is intentionally propagating a specific deception. Overall, falsehood is a critical topic in mans everyday life; it would be reasonable to define rationally to include persons who would use prejudices and feelings to achieve political advantage.
Moreover, both Plato and Aristotle agree that the purpose of lying is conviction rather than an understanding of the subject matter. But he pushes for viewpoints opposed to the majority of the population. Gorgias argues that this is an admirable objective; however, Plato believes that the concept of placing persuasion above the facts in this dispute is unjustified and unworthy of consideration. Regarding Plato, the rhetorician is not concerned with educating people about what is good and evil, false and true; instead, he is concerned with convincing them regarding one or more issues. Persuading people via emotions rather than facts is a popular persuasive approach, and it is also a crucial part of the act of deception.
Platos assertion for a need of falsehood in social and political life is expressed in his account of the education and upbringing of children, as well as in his discussion of the ways in which sociocultural expertise is transferred an early age through teaching and learning, as well as through myths, fictional character, and stories. In Platos view, the most crucial reason for his preoccupation with rearing and education. He exacerbates that it is most easily shaped and takes on the design that is desired to be stamped onto it. Hence, mothers and nurses should mold the spirits of children by telling those tales from a distance rather than molding their bodies with their hands. Furthermore, the fictive stories presented to children are deemed by Plato to be a kind of lies in speech. To be specific, he believes that families begin by telling children stories, and the fairy tale is incorrect when viewed as a whole, but there is truth in it as well. The consequences of being exposed to cultural material at a young age conveyed by a storys fictitious and sometimes inaccurate narrative are long-lasting and difficult to modify.
According to the Republic, the idea of genuine or fundamental falsity is associated with poetry and the false beliefs that it legitimizes and propagates. Platonics work on true lies is based on his ethical principles, which highlight how one should live and what one should seek as a goal in life. More than that, he compares the poets distorted ethical teachings to the biggest falsehood about the things of the most significant consequence, a description that embraces their epic tales of gods and heroes. These tales include Uranus and Cronos, gods at war and fighting, God producing evil or misleading humanity, and heroic narratives that encourage uncourageous or incorrect action in the event that deception is allowed to run rampant. Plato argues that poetry is often false because it is made by those who are uninformed of the most fundamental things, which causes deception among its audience.
Ultimately, lying is desirable in situations when politicians are attempting to exercise authority or safeguard the interests of people. However, lying has its drawbacks and should be avoided at all costs in order to avoid serious repercussions in the future. According to this viewpoint, prominent philosophers such as Machiavelli and Plato employed deception in their regimes, and their theories are still in use today by many people.
In the first book of The Republic, Plato tried to solve two issues by representing his teacher Socrates. The two issues that are outlined in the book are the definitions of justice and the reasons of being just. Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus provided different definition of justice, but Socrates rejected these definitions through giving his reasons. Cephalus provided the definition of justice as an effort to express the basic Hesiodic notion. He defined justice as an achievement of legal responsibilities, and the act of becoming honest. Socrates disputed this definition with an example of a person taking back a weapon to a madman. A person owes the madman his weapon to a certain extent if the madman has a right to keep his weapon lawfully. However, this may be an undeserved action because it may put at risk the lives of other individuals. Therefore, according to Socrates, it cannot be appropriate that justice is nothing above respecting lawful responsibilities and becoming honest.
Polemarchus defined justice in their discussion as a case where people owed enemies who harmed and friends who helped. Although this meaning of justice may appear different from Cephalus definition. They share fundamental imperative of offering somebody things he or she owes or giving someone things that are acceptable. Socrates provided an explanation against this perception. He stated that since the decision about enemies and friends was imperfect, these beliefs would take people to help the wicked people and hurt the fortunate people. People are not often friends with the moral people, and enemies are not often the scum of the community. Socrates stated that there was incoherence in the perception of hurting individuals through justice.
Thrasymachus provided also the definition of justice as nothing more than the advantage or gain of the stronger people. Although Thrasymachus stated that this was his explanation of justice, it was not truly intended to be the meaning of justice, but it represented a delegitimization of justice. Thrasymachus believes that justice is unnatural control on peoples natural wish for more. The logical approach to do is to disregard justice entirely. Socrates provided three explanations to oppose this suggestion. First, Socrates made Thrasymachus confess that the perception he was providing would encourage injustice as a virtue. In this perception, life is observed to be a persistent competition to receive more finances, authority, and other requirements.
This shows that the most successful individuals in the competition have the highest virtue. Justice can be an action of becoming loyal to some rules that allow people to operate in common. Socrates stated that people were required to be at least reasonably just to meet a certain set of rules and goals. Finally, Socrates asserted that it was accepted that justice was a virtue of the souls that also meant that justice was a safety of the souls. Therefore, justice is enviable since it signifies health or happiness of the soul.
The first book of The Republic does not only discuss the definition of justice, but it also addresses several other issues. Some researchers emphasize that the book is mainly concerning something else apart from justice. First, the book initiates other philosophical explanations that are found in the modern generation. The discussion carried out by Socrates, host, and friends helped promote wider perception and understanding of justice and morality. This book provides a different perception concerning morality more than what will be explained in the second book of The Republic. Significantly, in this notion of justice, morality is an outside action.
In the context of political philosophy, Plato remains one of the most prominent and influential authors. His Republic is not just another ancient dialogue that reveals the elements of the current political and ethical systems. This work contains a variety of complex discussions about justice, wisdom, truth, and trust in Kallipolis, an ideal utopian city-state governed by a philosopher-king (Green, 2021). Plato intends to idealize a state and achieve the excellent by cultivating virtue (Kotsonis, 2021). The philosopher believed people could obtain a good education, which resulted in the prosperity of civilizations. There are many reasons for proving education an important part of an ideal state. This paper evaluates Platos Republic to show how the differentiation between justice and injustice, the worth of a successful beginning, and the exchange of knowledge through education contribute to creating the perfect Kallipolis.
One of the most critical aspects of Platos Kallipolis is the promotion of justice through properly developed educational programs. Although a lack of systems was evident in ancient times, it is hard to ignore the desire to create a proper plan to improve peoples knowledge. Education is considered a good way to recognize the difference between justice and injustice. Plato (2013, p. 38) admits that justice is the interest of the stronger, whereas injustice is a mans own profit and interest. Then, new arguments are gathered to prove that justice is the excellence of the soul (Plato, 2013, p. 52). There has to be a balance in human thoughts and actions, and education, as well as proper training, is necessary to lead the soul and strengthen perceptions (Kotsonis, 2019). Thus, Kallipoliss citizens cannot neglect the role of education in their lives because it is the only way to make the right choices and decisions. Just people are happy and self-cultivated, and unjust individuals are usually miserable. Kallipolis is an ideal state where happiness and justice are essential, supporting the idea of education as a means to achieve the desired goal.
Another explanation of education worth in Kallipolis is related to the necessity to introduce a good beginning of human activities to enhance success and glory in the future. In most cases, people define their opportunities and skills as soon as they get a clear idea of what has to be done and within which limits and deadlines. Thus, the initial stages of any process set the tone of the entire project. Plato (2013, p. 77) has a similar position, explaining the beginning is the most important part of any work, especially in the case of a young and tender thing. Education is the beginning in many directions: people learn how to read, write, cooperate, communicate, and use theoretical knowledge in practice. Kallipolis, as an idealized political arrangement, needs to balance strength and knowledge (Green, 2021). Plato (2013, p. 76) offers an equal combination of studying music for the soul and gymnastic for the body. The task is to create a professional background for people to develop their skills and apply their knowledge for growth and progress. Education is the best way to train the population and define their moral principles.
Finally, the exchange of experience and knowledge become the two significant parts of any progressive society, and individuals should understand how to take the necessary steps. The essence of political philosophy lies in fulfilling the eternality of wisdom, truth, and knowledge (Peprah, 2021). Without education, it is impossible to maintain the connection between these three virtues, which negatively affects social development. Plato (2013, p. 66) presents Kallipolis as a place where people exchange with one another, and one gives, and another receives, under the idea that the exchange will be for their good. Education is no longer a preference or recommendation but a priority determining the quality of life. Intellectual virtues and Platos arguments strengthen the political system because people are more confident when they apply their desires to their knowledge and the information obtained from others (Kotsonis, 2021). Plato (2013, p. 143) shares a simple and clear system: desires follow reason, the reason is under the guidance of the mind, and the mind is related to true opinions that are developed in best-educated individuals. Therefore, education cannot be ignored in Kallipolis, with its strong philosophical position and political adherence.
Platos Kallipolis may not be a perfect state, but the author does everything possible to enhance improvements and share his vision of an idealized society. Many attempts can be made to help people understand what they can do or what should be avoided for the purpose of creating a politically successful system. Education is an important part of Platos state because it allows citizens to differentiate between what is just and unjust, take a right first step, and learn how to use and share their knowledge. If people ignore the worth of musical or gymnastic education, they put their self-development under threat and misuse available resources. Every individual is born with a number of skills and qualities that have to be properly developed and strengthened, and Plato encourages training as a significant element of human success.
Reference List
Green, J. (2021) The first city and first soul in Platos Republic, Rhizomata, 9(1), pp. 50-83. doi: 10.1515/rhiz-2021-0003
Kotsonis, A. (2019) What can we learn from Plato about intellectual character education?, Educational Philosophy and Theory. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2019.1631157
Kotsonis, A. (2021) The prominent role of education in the Platonic account of imperfect political systems, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 55(2), pp. 347357. doi: 10.1111/1467-9752.12556
Peprah, S. O. (2021) Re-examining the compulsion problem in Platos Republic, Plato Journal, 22, pp. 177-195. doi: 10.14195/2183-4105_22_12
Plato (2013) The Republic. Translated by B. Jowett. Moscow: Roman Roads Media. Web.
In Platos Republic, Socrates identifies four ideal virtues of man and civilization. Wisdom is present among guardians, and courage, defined as the ability to carry out the orders of the guardians, is found in the auxiliaries. The first two virtues are distinct, while moderation and justice provide a less obvious difference and purpose. Moderation refers to an agreement to the rule of certain parties over others and is found in citizens. Justice is the power that consists in everyone doing his own work (Arandia 24). In order to understand the relationship of justice and moderation both in a person and a polis, it is vital to assess Platos understanding of the soul.
Discussion
The reason, the spirit, and the appetite are the three divisions of the soul according to Plato. As such, wisdom can be seen to mirror reason, while courage and moderation reflect spirit and appetite reflectively (Arandia 6). Within the landscape of a polis, moderation exists as the ability to control ones desires. On the other hand, justice may be perceived as a capability to do what one should. Guardians utilize moderation in order to remain in their roles and justice for excelling in their positions. The same concept may be observed with soldiers and citizens.
Socrates definition of a moderate man, much like the polis, relies on one being loyal to ones duties and role within a set environment. Overall, moderation is summarized as an act that sets his own inner life in good order and is master of himself (Arandia 6). As such, the ability to control ones desires and to devote time to ones role in a polis creates not only a moderate but an ideal man.
Conclusion
Therefore, the moderate man is simultaneously the ideal man. While I can see the value in such rhetoric, in my personal experience it is incredibly hard if not impossible to identify with certainty ones role not only as an individual but also as a facet of society.
Work Cited
Arandia, Marcos. Competing Visions: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. Kendall Hunting Publishing, 2015.