Category: Plato

Introduction

The question of the existence of the soul and its fate after a persons death occupies the minds of many philosophers. One of the dialogues introduced by Plato, Phaedo, contains his view of the soul, presenting it as indestructible and the opposite of death. The philosopher provides dialectical evidence to support his final argument that the soul is immortal. Even though the philosopher convincingly constructed his statements, one can challenge his claims by accepting different views on the critical properties of the soul.

Understanding the Concept of Forms

The understanding of Platos arguments builds on his concept of Forms presented in the Five Dialogues. Forms can be considered as ideas that indicate things: It was agreed that each of the Forms existed and that other things acquired their name by having a share in them (Plato 102b). That is, one can describe any objects through their relation to specific Forms. Their examples include Justice, Beauty, Warmth, and many other characteristics. The Form can be essential if it is always inherent in an object and accidental if it is not its constant attribute. At the same time, the philosopher believes that Forms cannot admit their contraries and should retreat from meeting them. He gives examples of the opposites of Hot inherent in fire and Cold, the characteristics of snow (Plato 102d-e). If the fire takes the Cold, its Form retreats and it dies, and if the snow accepts the fire and the Form of Hot, it will no longer be snow.

A Final Argument about the Souls Immortality

Further, Plato discusses the soul, arguing that it brings Life to the body and, therefore, Life is the Form of the soul. The opposite of Life is death, and the soul possessing an essential Form of Life cannot accept death  it must retreat or perish. However, since the soul cannot accept death, it is immortal and must leave at the approach of death, making it indestructible. Plato (105e) presents these arguments as follows:

Very well, what do we call that which does not admit death?
The deathless, he said.
Now the soul does not admit death?  No.
So the soul is deathless?  It is.

Thus, by adopting the concept of Forms and Life as Form for the soul as premises for the final argument, Plato proves that the soul is immortal and imperishable.

Challenging the Final Argument

One can challenge the arguments presented by Plato since one can question that Life is necessarily manifested as the Form of the soul. In particular, considering the idea of Cold and snow proposed by the philosopher, cold as Form is not tied only to snow but may be among other phenomena. Similarly, Life as a Form does not have to be attached to the soul, which casts doubt on the souls essence as a phenomenon that brings Life and is the opposite of death.

Platos Response and Its Evaluation

Plato could change this argument to debate and say that as snow necessarily refers to the cold, the soul will bring Life. One may doubt this response because the answer and the whole arguments fairness about the souls immortality come from the adoption of Platos view of the soul as a living substance. If consider the soul from a different perspective, for example, as a persons consciousness originating from experience, Platos arguments will not be so convincing.

Conclusion

Thus, Plato proposes the concept of Forms that give a particular characteristic to the phenomenon and bases his final argument on the souls immortality. He believes Life is the Form of the soul, and opposite Forms cannot admit and tolerate each other. Therefore, the soul cannot accept the opposite of Life  death and must be immortal and indestructible. However, his arguments can be challenged since Life can be a Form of other phenomena besides the soul. Moreover, Platos evidence may be challenged when accepting a different view of the soul and its essence.

Work Cited

Plato. Five Dialogues. Translated by George Grube, 2nd ed., Hackett Publishing Company, 2002.

Introduction

The caves inner part embodies the sensual world; it is dim, gloomy, and devoid of natural light, where a group of prisoners sees the shadows. Consequently, the outer part illustrates the intelligible, material world, filled with the magnificence and beauty of light from the sun. Thus, the prisoners journey is an attempt to help the people from the cave to comprehend the truth and free them from the bonds of ignorance in the case of non-acceptance of ideas by comrades.

Discussion

Through the allegory, Plato presents general ideas of philosophy to people. Think more is one of the critical thoughts that make one think carefully and logically about life (The School of Life, 2014, 1:05). Hence, the data provided to people is a shadow of its natural essence, and through questioning, research, and investigation, an individual has the opportunity to come out of the shadow into the light.

The difference between the allegory of the cave and the divided line lies in the opposition of methods, processes, and strategies for obtaining knowledge and ideas about the world and its elements. In brief, knowledge is light, and ignorance is darkness; there is a limitation between these concepts. Accordingly, prisoners crossing the cave line go to the sun and can see natural objects, not their projections.

The difference between opinion and knowledge lies in the approaches to obtaining knowledge and the type of reliability and trustworthiness of the information. As a rule, opinion is based on feelings since it concerns individual objects and is characterized by variability and relativity. An opinion is subjective and cannot be evaluated from the point of view of truth or falsity. In contrast, knowledge grasps not personal but general properties, which is evidence that knowledge has a universal character and immutability.

In the era of the Internet and the rapid development of information, critical thinking is necessary. When I come across rumors or unusual opinions  for example when a lot of fakes began to appear in the news, I try to be critical of each of the possible attributes of information: the source, the presentation of the material, the need to verify the authenticity of the event, even if on a sensory level it seems that it is pure truth and much more. This approach allows me to turn my opinion into real fact-based knowledge.

Conclusion

Indeed, in studying the philosophers concepts, Ive been struggling with problems. Firstly, it is necessary to consider the external difficulty of mastering Platonic materials from the point of view of the lack of a special and systematic presentation of philosophical thoughts. Moreover, there is a great hardship regarding the inner understanding of Platos philosophy since It is challenging to give a clear and distinct analysis of his doctrine of ideas.

Reference

The School of Life. (2014). PHILOSOPHY  Plato [Video file]. Web.

Plato was known for being concerned about society and its morals. He knew that art had a great influence on the youths, which is why he expressed some concerns. The philosopher feared that certain negative influences depicted in it could have a negative impact on people. This is why the man has offered some rather drastic solutions, while elaborating on the reasons why he felt that way.

The first concern that the philosopher expresses is that by imitating a negative person, one can eventually adopt their behavior. This is exactly why he believes that a decent person would be more likely to imitate an individual of more sound morals, as opposed to someone who is either faced with a disaster or is sick. The man contrasts the depicted individual with another one, who will be open to imitating anything, even bad things (Hofstadter & Kuhns 22). Meanwhile, unlike the former, the latter will have very little narration in his work. The philosophers perception of beauty is represented as something eternal and just in one perspective and unjust in another (Hofstadter & Kuhns 76). Another disdain Plato has for imitation is expressed in his belief in the fact that a person of good morals must not fall victim to sorrow or delinquency. The philosopher believed that they had to be a representation of everything that is morally decent, similar to the depiction of deities in art. That way, the man wanted to ensure the sanctity of morals and avoid negative examples.

Regarding the dangers art has for society, Plato emphasizes societal order. In the first case, he believes that imitating something negative can disrupt society. From his perspective, this is especially notable in cases of young people, who are impressionable and cannot tell right from wrong (Hofstadter & Kuhns 20). By following a negative example, chaos is inevitable as the amount of people affected by this influence increases. Another concern the philosopher had is the way an imitation of delinquent behavior through humans and deities normalizes it. Generally, Plato viewed poetry, along with many other forms of art, as imitative (Hofstadter & Kuhns 19).

From Platos perspective, a decent person, especially a god, cannot be capable of harm if they are meant to represent something good. The only case in which a deity is capable of something negative is when its goal is to punish a certain group for doing something atrocious. This, of course, creates a conflict between their function as benevolent beings and their desire to punish criminals. That way, it would be better to claim that deities did not create everything, only the positive things.

The author concludes that art needs to consist of positive influences only, without depicting deities and men of high standards in a negative way. Since younger people are more easily exposed and affected by delinquent influences, the philosopher believed that a more appropriate solution would be to ban such portrayals completely and only teach good things. Plato feared that poor influences could motivate people to follow them as examples. However, the solution offered is too drastic and has negative implications for the officials in control, making it authoritarian. Some of the better solutions would be parental guidance and educating younger people on telling right from wrong. Parents are more capable of telling the two apart, which makes them suitable educators on the matter. They could explain that the negative actions committed by someone are not being promoted by the author and are not to be repeated.

Work Cited

Hofstadter, A., and R. Kuhns. Philosophies of art and beauty: Selected readings in aesthetics from Plato to heidegger. 1976.

In Platos work Crito, Socrates argues with his friend about the escape from prison. Crito has come to free him, but Socrates does not want to follow his friends advice and chooses to stay waiting for his punishment. Both Crito and Socrates present their arguments in support of their ideas. Tomas Aquinas writes a lot on imperfect human laws in comparison with just natural laws in his works. In his point of view, people should follow the law only if it is morally acceptable. Socrates has a possibility to doubt the morality of his conviction but decides that the laws of Athens are just. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the strength of claims by Socrates, Crito, and Aquinas and examine whether Socrates should have disobeyed the terms of his conviction and escaped prison from Aquinas point of view.

Socrates was imprisoned for the impiety and corruption of the youth. He was accused of refusing to show respect to the existing gods and in speaking about new deities. The Athenians leave him in prison to wait for his death sentence. His wealthy friend, Crito, bribes the guards and offers Socrates to escape and hide in another town. Nevertheless, Socrates refuses to follow his friends advice and stays in his prison cell. Crito presents three arguments to persuade his friend to go with him. First of all, he tells that the death of Socrates will hurt him as well. He does not want to lose a good friend, and his reputation will be harmed when people will know that he has not helped Socrates. Crito implies that it is unworthy to act in a way that will harm a friend. These arguments are weak because they are connected only to the life and prosperity of Crito.

In continuation of his argumentation, Crito tells Socrates that he should not be worried about the consequences of his escape for his friends. Everybody wants to help Socrates, and it is easy to bribe the guards and everyone else to hide him. Nevertheless, Socrates remains unconvinced and questions the morality of bribery later. Crito makes a stronger argument telling Socrates about his parental responsibility to his children. In Critos view, he should free himself from prison and raise his children for them to become educated and well brought up.

Crito underlines that it is easy to do nothing and stay in prison, waiting for nothing. Socrates needs the courage to escape and help his children to become better people. This argument touches Socrates, he wants his children to be educated and well brought up, but he points on the erroneous nature of Critos assumptions. Socrates argues that his friends will bring up his children in a better way because, after the escape, he would need to hide. The life of foreigners will not be good for the development and education of children. Socrates says that his friends should take care of his children in Athens. There is no difference if he dies or if he escapes because he will not have the possibility to see his children.

Socrates responds to Crito also by three arguments, speaking about the opinion of the majority to his friend, the possible outcomes of his escape, and the justification of his actions. He underlines that it is crucial for him to live following the rules and principles adopted in the society: For I am and always have been one of those natures which must be guided by reason, whatever the reason may be which upon reflection appears to me to be the best; and now that this fortune has come upon me, I cannot put away the reasons which I have before given: the principles which I have hitherto honored and revered I still honor, and unless we can find other and better principles on the instant, I am certain not to agree with you; no, not even if the power of the multitude could inflict many more imprisonments, confiscations, deaths, frightening us like children with hobgoblin terrors (Plato).

Crito is very concerned with the opinion of the majority in his arguments. Talking about the escape, he mentions that its outcome will affect his reputation. Crito supports his arguments with the opinion of their mutual friends who are ready to help Socrates. He talks that nobody among them will accuse Socrates in dealing with harm to them by his escape. Socrates answers that the opinion of the majority cannot be better than advice from a professional.

He illustrates his argumentation with an example of a sportspeople training according to the recommendations of their coaches: And he ought to live and train, and eat and drink in the way which seems good to his single master who has understanding, rather than according to the opinion of all other men put together? (Plato). He underlines that if the opinion of the majority can be harmful for a person in sports, it will be so in other aspects of life as well. Socrates claims that a person will harm his soul with his body listening to the crowd. Only his own decisions based on rules and regulations adopted by the authorities can lead to the prosperity of the society.

Socrates agrees that a majority can put a person in prison and sentence him to death but the most important thing for all people is not only to live but also to conduct in a moral righteous way. He implies that it is worth to give away something to ascertain a better life for society as a whole even if one needs to sacrifice his life. He is sure that citizens should support the laws to keep the order in the society. Therefore, he disapproves of bribery and escape. Socrates supposes that the laws of the Athens will be destroyed if he escapes what can result in anarchy.

Moreover, Socrates implies that the breach of law will harm his soul. He will not be happy living with a thought that he disturbed the order of the city by his escape. For him, it is better to die sentenced to death by the law than to live with a broken soul feeling remorse every day. Justice is crucial for Socrates in all his deeds. He has made an agreement with the city, and he is ready to fulfill his part even if it will cost him his life. The breach of agreement is an unjust action and should be punished by the society. Therefore, it is better for him to stay in prison and wait for his punishment.

Socrates supports his argumentation with good examples and logical conclusions. Nevertheless, Thomas Aquinas can easily put his assumptions to doubt because of the controversial nature of human laws. For Aquinas, all laws in the society derive from higher natural law. According to Bradley, The dilemma is that man may not disobey the higher law, yet he is bound to obey the laws of the civil authorities because their right to make laws and expect obedience to them is ultimately from God (49).

Acknowledging the issue of unjust laws, Aquinas presents a solution, implying that people should refuse to follow the laws contrary to the natural law. According to OConnell and Day, the history of natural law thought from Ancient Greece to todays global community reveals three integral elements in the method employed to produce explanations of extra-positive features of the law. These elements include reason, reflection on nature, and openness to transcendence (OConnel and Day). Every law should include these features to be used by the society without harm to the divine good.

This approach supports the claim of Socrates that he should live according to reason. Therefore, when a human law is unjust and leads to the harm of the divine good, people should repel them. Thomas Aquinas sees no harm in refusing to follow the laws imposed by tyrants. Nevertheless, he underlines that disobedience to the law should not result in disturbances in the society. It is always important to evaluate all possible outcomes of the actions by authorities and citizens. Following these assumptions, Socrates should have decided for himself which laws of the city are just and which of them can harm the divine good. Instead, he chooses to accept the decision of the authorities, analyzing only the impact of his breach of the human laws.

The dialogue between Crito and Socrates presents a good example of argumentation for the obedience to the human laws and against it. Their speeches touch upon many important themes such as the opinion of the majority, personal prestige, upbringing of children, and friendship. Nevertheless, the leading issue is the importance of the laws and the right of people to break them. Thomas Aquinas argues that only the natural law should be obeyed. All human laws that contradict it should be repelled by the society. Reason, openness to transcendence, and reflection on nature should be the key elements of any human law. Therefore, Socrates should have analyzed not only his decisions but also the decision of the authorities.

Works Cited

Bradley, Raymond. The Relation Between Natural Law and Human Law in Thomas Aquinas. The Catholic Lawyer, vol. 21, no.1, 2017, pp 42-55.

Plato. Crito. Classics.

OConnell, Mary Ellen, and Caleb M. Day. Sources in Natural Law Theories: Natural Law as Source of Extra-Positive Norms. SSRN,

Introduction

According to Plato, the central axis of the state is justice; it contains the answer to the question of why and how a perfect polis is born and dies. The correct organization of government, according to Plato, is able to curb and make impossible the greed of rulers, in which Plato sees the source of the death of the state. This concept of the inextricable relationship between politics and ethics can be considered quite appropriate.

In the modern world, the unscrupulous conscience of politicians is condemned and leads to extremely negative consequences not only within their countries but also on the world stage. However, Socrates formulated the principle of meritocracy as an ideal political system  the rule of the worthy. However, the utopianism of this concept is clearly visible, for example, in the United States. There, the presence of an electoral college  supposedly by default the most worthy people in each state  can lead to a distortion of the will of state residents and, accordingly, election results at the federal level.

Main body

The words opening Platos Gorgias are War and battle  tough condemnation of the society, which is corrupt is its content. The wrong penetrated the spiritual nucleus of human existence. Socrates perceives his interlocutors (in fact, opponents in the dispute) as public representatives of the corrupt order. Politicians, if they nevertheless manage to seize power, are immediately immersed in corruption. In turn, rhetoric is certainly condemned in Gorgias, and Plato even refuses to recognize it as an art at all. Through Socrates, Plato contrasts rhetoric with ethics  this is the contrast between rhetorical technique and ethics.

Plato puts ethics first (Plato 26). He believes that only by succeeding in the virtues of ethics, one can take on rhetoric. A rhetorician seeking a public career is likened to a cook trying to please society. The rhetorician pleases the demos, and, like the tyrant, cannot, in principle, act virtuously and reasonably. Therefore, the rhetorician only exacerbates his and peoples misfortunes. The rhetoric only serves politics, but in no way it is politics itself. At the same time, a politics that is not aimed at the promotion of justice and welfare among citizens is not true art, a true policy. The true art of politics is an alliance of philosophy and rhetoric.

Socrates finds out in what art Gorgias is strong and receives the answer, which is in rhetoric. Socrates demonstrates that rhetoric in conventional wisdom is meaningless. In fact, it turns out to be a shadow of state management art (Plato 101), since speakers usually talk about justice (Plato 98). Speakers neglecting justice are like tyrants. Socrates refutes the notion that power is good since in this case murderers and conspirators would have good. Thus, in accordance with the views of Socrates, neither rhetoric with its empty arguments, nor unprincipled politicians who do not care about the truth and good in their state, are practicing the true art of politics.

Socrates, in the Gorgias, makes claims to practice the true art of politics, but his specific applied politics suggests culturing in every person he meets a willingness to live a life inspired by the ideals of justice, beauty, and the good. Socrates declares himself one of the few inhabitants of Athens, and maybe even the only one, who practices the true art of politics. This declaration was based on the fact that, in every case of interaction with people, Socrates was speaking in an attempt to inculcate the just and the good (Plato 99-100). Interestingly, throughout the dialogues, this Socrates claim is the sole case where Socrates speaks of himself as about true politician.

By defeating politicians with rhetoric as an integral part of the true art of politics, Socrates gave the young a motivation to turn to him as a teacher of true political art (Plato 100). Socrates touches on the acute question of the good statesman in essence. A statesman can be considered good if under his rule the citizens become better and, vice versa, if the citizens become worse under his rule, he is bad. Thus, Socrates, being one of the few Athenians who care about the true art of politics, is the only person in his time acting like a real statesman.

Conclusion

True political art is the art of salvation and education of the soul, and, therefore, Plato puts forward the thesis that true philosophy coincides with true politics. Only if a politician becomes a philosopher (and vice versa), it is possible to build a true state based on the highest value of Truth and Good. In fact, Socrates claims that it is possible to deal with political matters in private, caring properly about the health of the soul.

Works Cited

Plato. Platos Gorgias. France: Agora Pubns, 1994.

The Republic is a book written in 370-360 BC by Plato, the renowned Greek philosopher. He constructed the reading in the form of the dialog between his teacher Socrates, whom he respected much, and Socrates counterparts Glaucon, Adeimantus, Polemarchus, Cephalus, Niceratus, and Thrasymachus. In this dialog, which starts from the discussion of the very meaning of justice and injustice, Plato described Socrates ideas about the ideal city, whose citizens possess the virtues of wisdom, bravery, temperance, and justice.

Moreover, in The Republic, Plato describes four types of imperfect political systems  timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny as well as the characters of its citizens, which directly correspond to each system. The most outstanding points also include Analogies of the Sun, and the Divided Line, and an Allegory of the Cave. This paper aims to describe Socrates ideal city and present his ideas about the philosophical principles of knowledge.

The Basics of Justice

In books, I-II, the author thoroughly tries to reveal what city is better  the just, or the unjust one, and who is happier  the just or the unjust man. Socrates uses sophisms to support the discussion, and on the one hand, it makes the reading more complicated. But still, this philosophical tool turns out to be very useful to reach the main point while also paying tribute to each participant.

Therefore, Plato describes the general circumstances in which the dialog is held and the characters of its leading participants. The conversation starts with the monolog of the old Cephalus, Polemarchus father, who gives the reader an idea of how the older man may feel if he lived a full and honest life (Plato 5). Cephalus also describes what sufferings poverty and old age may bring to an unjust man (Plato 6). Cephalus leaves, and Socrates proceeds with the discussion of what justice is, saying to Polemarchus that ancient teachers were determining it as making good for friends and doing evil for enemies.

However, Socrates objects that the truly just person should not do any evil at all. That is because justice is something opposite to evil, and thus cannot bring harm, while maltreating enemies will make them worse people, and not the better ones (Plato 12). Suddenly Thrasymachus meddles into the dispute and presents his point  he states that injustice is better than justice and that the unjust man will always be happier than the just one (Plato 15). Thrasymachus describes a city where injustice reigns and where just people do not receive any rewards for their wise and restrained actions, while unjust people flourish.

Thrasymachus manner of speech deserves particular attention since he seems to be completely unable to control himself and shows disrespect to his interlocutors, trying to frustrate them with anger and ridicule. Nonetheless, Socrates answers him very softly, although not without irony, and gradually refutes Thrasymachus point of view, who is forced to agree with Socrates (Plato 34). Further, in book II, Glaucon joins the conversation, and presents the ideas of Thrasymachus more sharply, describing the city where injustice reigns (Plato 36). In response, the Adeimantus invites Socrates to prove once again why justice is preferable. Socrates proposes to imagine a fictional ideal city where justice prevails, and, having examined its components, come closer to understanding the advantages of justice.

The Ideal City

Describing the development of an ideal city, Socrates explains that such a city will appear as a result of the need for mutual assistance. It will rely on the basis that every citizen will do the work to which their nature is most prone (Plato 46). Since each person will devote all free time to this one thing  for example, growing wheat, or sewing shoes  they will achieve perfection in their mastery, and the city will flourish.

Socrates begins by proposing to determine what essential qualities the citizens of this state will have and name them: wisdom, bravery, temperance, and justice. He explains that the first three qualities will be represented in each layer of the population of an ideal city, where artisans, guards, and rulers will live (Plato 105). As a result, justice will be born in the process of harmonious interaction of these people. In particular, if artisans and guards will obey the rulers, justice will dominate in the city (Plato 109). Using the principle of analogy, Socrates says that a similar order will prevail in the soul of the citizens, who will have all four qualities, and will be guided by justice in their actions.

In book II, Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus also discuss the issues of management, upbringing, and education in an ideal city. Socrates declares that the presence of virtues mentioned above will ensure the proper functioning of the state. Furthermore, the wisest, bravest, and most just inhabitants will become guards and will protect the city when necessary (Plato 51). It is noteworthy that, discussing the qualities of the guards, Socrates concludes that their character will be similar to the nature of purebred puppies  they will protect their people and pose a threat to strangers.

The philosopher also notes that such behavior will be the demonstration of justice for the guards. Finally, Socrates emphasizes that justice in the ideal city will be expressed in the following principle  everyone will do their own thing, and will not interfere in the affairs of others. Following this, the interlocutors proceed to the issue of guards education and say that the rulers will be chosen from this particular class.

Then, in book VI Socrates and the Adeimantus conclude that, since they are talking about an ideal city, the wisest people will have to rule it, and philosophers will be the best choice. He also emphasizes that these will be true philosophers  those who seek knowledge, and not the truth, since truth can be erroneous, and the process of cognition cannot (Plato 186). In this process of cognition, the most useful will be the dialectical approach since it allows seeing the origins of a particular issue (Plato 187).

When making various statements, the philosophers will search for these origins in the statements themselves, which will undoubtedly lead to the discovery of truth faster than when using a sophisticated approach (Plato 187). That is because the sophisticated approach offers to search for truth using assumptions lacking real understanding.

Thus, since philosophers will rule the ideal city, they will be educated in a particular spirit. According to Socrates, their bodies will be strengthened by gymnastics, and their souls will be enriched by music (Plato 148). They will also study philosophy, dialectics, and the quadrium of sciences  arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music (Plato 151). It is noteworthy that Socrates proposed strict censorship of arts, including poetry and visual art. He also suggests there is a need for a careful choice of myths on which children are brought up so that nothing terrible gets into the souls and heads of citizens.

Moreover, some ideas about human relationships within an ideal city give a hint that Socrates deliberately used sophistry in the dialog to emphasize its weak points. For example, these are concepts that children will be taken away from their parents shortly after birth, or that all women will be shared, and only physically perfect people will be treated by doctors. Most likely, the proposal to censor arts should also be attributed here.

The Analogies of the Sun and Divided Line

In book VI, Socrates describes in more detail why philosophers should rule an ideal city. He emphasizes that wisdom is an essential quality for a ruler, and only philosophers possess it (Plato 178). At the same time, bravery is defined as a less critical quality. Nonetheless, bravery is crucial for the guards since it will help them to convince artisans to be temperate and obey the ruler; therefore, bravery will guard wisdom (Plato 179). Here, Socrates also says that rulers and guards will not have any personal property, only the common one.

Then the philosopher claims that neither wisdom, nor bravery, nor temperance is good itself, although they contain good. Hence, Socrates proposes to find a definition of good and uses the Analogy of the Sun. At first, he suggests that among all the human senses, the eyes are most similar to the sun, although they are not the sun itself (Plato 188). Furthermore, vision is the only sense impossible without an external agent  light. Indeed, at dusk, a person sees objects indistinctly, no matter how hard he tries to strain his eyesight, and then there is a feeling that such a person does not see well (Plato 188). On the opposite, in bright light, objects are visible, and it becomes evident that a person is sighted and sees well.

The same thing happens with the mind in the process of knowing the truth. First, it should be assumed that good is similar to the sun. Then when everything plunges into darkness in the absence of good, an individual trying to examine objects in this darkness seems foolish (Plato 189). But when the good illuminates all these objects, as if from the inside, they become visible and understandable (Plato 189). Therefore, it becomes evident to everyone that this individual is capable of thinking clearly and smartly.

Thus, Socrates concludes that eyes and vision are similar to the mind and the ability to think. At the same time, good  is similar to the sun and its rays, which are necessary for this process. Interestingly, the philosopher says that the sun, just like a good, nourishes objects and gives them life, although it is not life itself, but is something outside and above it (Plato 190). He also notes that the good can be comprehended through the dialectical ability of the mind.

No less impressive is the Analogy of the Divided Line. The philosopher says that there is a visible world of real things and the images of real things, which are reflections, like visions on the water or in polished metal (Plato 190).

Besides, in the human mind, there is an invisible world of ideas about real things and their images and assumptions about real things and their images (Plato 190). Thus, all things can be expressed as a line divided into four segments  AB, BC, CD, and DE (Plato191). AB is the visible world of images, BC is the visible world of real things, the CD is the world of ideas about images and real things, and DE is the world of assumptions (Plato 191). Socrates also says that the Analogy of the Divided Line speaks of the existence of four states of the human soul necessary for knowing the world  mind, wisdom, faith, and assimilation.

The Allegory of the Cave

The philosopher goes on and represents his most famous allegory  the Allegory of the Cave. He explains that people, his coevals, are like prisoners of a cave, chained in shackles. They sit in the cave with their backs turned to the entrance, and can neither move nor turn their heads (Plato 193). Above and behind them, is a source of light and a wall similar to a scene in a puppet theater. Behind this wall, people walk and carry various objects above their heads (Plato 193). The shadows of objects fall on the walls of the cave, and the voices of people echo in it. Prisoners in chains can only see shadows on the wall and discuss what they see.

However, if one of them is lucky to be chosen and forcibly brought to light, at first, he will not be able to see anything, blinded by an unbearable brilliance, although he will be told how beautiful the sun is. At first, he will begin to distinguish the shadows already familiar to him, then the reflections of things on the water, and only then will see the visible world (Plato 195). At night, in the light of stars, he will observe celestial bodies, and only at the very end will be able to look at the sun without squinting and, after seeing it, understand its essence and meaning.

Having seen enough, such a person then, most likely, will be imbued with compassion for his fellows sitting in the cave and will try to go down to them. However, his vision will again take time to get used to the darkness of the cave (Plato 195). He will also lose interest in discussing shadows on the wall, and will probably be criticized by his comrades (Plato 195). It will be difficult for him to convince them of the unreality of the shadows, and if he tries to force someone out into the world, such a person at first will most likely resist.

Socrates notes that, therefore, there are two types of people  those who cannot get used to the light, as they came out of darkness, and those who cannot get used to the dark, as they came down from the illuminated world. The former, in his opinion, are usually filled with joy and delight, and the latter is worthy of sympathy (Plato 198). As for the city, Socrates proposes to educate future rulers with the light of good but then obliges them to go down and rule those who so far see only shadows.

Political Systems of Timocracy and Oligarchy

In book IV, after listing the characteristics of an ideal city, the participants in the dialog agree that such a city can be considered healthy. At the same time, there are four types of unhealthy political systems that grow one from the other  timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. There are also four types of people who live in these political systems and are part of them.

Further, in book VIII, each of these systems is discussed in detail. Initially, Socrates and his collocutor, Glaucon, seek advice from the Muses. The muses glorify the fall of the ideal city since people stopped observing the cycles of nature and began to have children at the wrong time (Plato 223). Their children, having been born, were deprived of the perfect qualities of their parents (Plato 224). Thus, the ideal city turned into timocracy, where the rulers already had property, and greed began to prevail in their souls over wisdom, bravery, temperance, and justice.

People could not openly spend their fortunes, acquired secretly, and kept them in their houses, around which they built high walls. Power began to be valued better than justice, and military merits  better than wisdom and temperance (Plato 225). However, the people of this society retained the frenzy of the soul, which still pushed them to exploits when they, risking their wealth, sought to gain fame and honor (Plato 226). Thus, the citizens of such a city will be greedy and ambitious, but they will retain the frenzy of the soul, or in other words, bravery, which is a good companion of justice (Plato 226). This bravery will help them to preserve the sprouts of justice and temperance in their souls. But they will forget about the thrive for wisdom and the knowledge of good.

Socrates then gives an example of the relationship between fathers and sons in such a society. He assumes that after the transition of a society to timocracy, a particular father was not ambitious and greedy, and did not seek to surpass everyone in politics, military campaigns, and civilian gatherings (Plato 227). He only quietly and peacefully did his business, and therefore had little money, for which his wife always complained to neighbors and his children, calling their father a worthless person.

Supposedly, the son listened to these words and was imbued with hatred for his father and a thirst to surpass him. In the city, he also heard how people glorified ambitious and money-hungry men (Plato 227). On the opposite, those who loved their jobs and did not meddle in someone elses business were usually showered with mud (Plato 227). On the one hand, such a young man, under the influence of his father and seeing his lifestyle, will retain the desire for good in his soul (Plato 227). But on the other hand, he will be imbued with a thirst for money, ambition, and the desire to prove to everyone that he is better than his father.

Sooner or later, timocracy will inevitably become an oligarchy, since it will be increasingly difficult for people who refuse wisdom to control their vices, which they will indulge in secret. As a result, the central vice  greed  will prevail over all other vices (Plato 228). Presumably, people one day will become tired of hiding their vices from others and will want to indulge in pleasures openly (Plato 228). For this, they will offer to change the political system that prevents them from doing so to a more suitable one.

Therefore, the property qualification will be introduced, and people who do not have enough wealth will be deprived of civil rights. Thus, Socrates concludes, society will be divided into the rich, who enjoy all kinds of privileges, and the poor, who are in every possible way condemned and deprived of any rights (Plato 229). Besides, in such a society, the rich will hate each other, fearing for their wealth; they will also hate the poor, who will reciprocate.

Further, the philosopher again refers to the example of fathers and children to reveal the main traits of the oligarchs soul. He describes a young man who lives in a family whose father, a prominent statesman, suddenly loses both his position and means for a living (Plato 231). Being pushed to this distressing situation, he is also deprived of civil rights, thus becoming a poor and helpless man.

The son of such a father will be shocked by the change that has occurred (Plato 231). He will lose the ambition inherent in the timocrats and focus on making money, trying to save enough to never again be in a similar situation (Plato 231). Above all, he will value money and will raise his children in austerity and thrift. He will also try to teach them to control their desires and spend money only on what is necessary, reasonably discarding everything else.

However, here Socrates again returns to the prospect of the transition of one political system to another. He says that the oligarchy will inevitably turn into democracy in approximately the following way. The only noble quality that will remain in the citizens of an oligarchic society will be temperance  the quality crucial for the accumulation of wealth (Plato 232). However, wars where citizens will be able to show up  will not end, as well as various competitions (Plato 233). The oligarchs will not be inclined to participate in wars and will spend small shares of their capital on them.

Moreover, not to participate, they will give weapons to the poor and rehabilitate them in civil rights. Among the poor, by that time, a rather large number of former rich people would be accumulated, dreaming about revolution (Plato 234). Having appeared together on competition or the battlefield, the poor will look at the rich and will see that they have neither wisdom nor bravery (Plato 234). Therefore, the poor will think to themselves  Those men are ours, for they are nothing (Plato 234). As soon as such an opinion spreads among the whole population, a revolution will come, bringing the new political system to life.

Thus, Socrates ideal city was described, and his ideas about the philosophical principles of knowledge were presented. To summarize, an ideal city, like its citizens, should have such virtues as wisdom, bravery, temperance, and justice. The main advantage of an ideal city is that each of its inhabitants is engaged in their own business and does not meddle in others ones. Besides, such political systems as timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny are the most common diseases of the city and are deviations from the ideal.

Work Cited

Plato. The Republic. Translated by Allan Bloom, Basic Books, 1968.

Introduction

Plato is one of the most studied and celebrated philosophers. His attempt to find concrete, specific solutions to the significant problems in the world resulted in his work on the Forms. Elucidation of Forms is his major work describing them as supra-sensible identities. According to Plato, ideas or forms are not dependent on the human mind being non-mental entities. Simultaneously, genuine knowledge might be obtained only by studying the forms.

Theory of Forms

Plato attempted to solve the major problems in his times world he considered essential ones. The first issue was ethical as before then no one explained the ways humans should live fulfilling lives in a continually changing world. The second issue was the problem of change and permanence. Plato sought to approach the question of whether the world can be simultaneously permanent and changing. As Plato studied these problems, he divided existence into transcendent forms realm and material realm. He stated that individuals could access the realm of the form through reasoning using their minds.

According to Plato, everything has a form which is independent of the actual instances of the thing. It is by these forms that we recognize a characteristic when it occurs (Piyong, n.d.). Although things, in reality, tend to change, forms stay single, unchanged, and eternal. The cases of conceptions and objects change all the time in the sequence of forms being the source of different opinions.

Conclusion

The Forms theory reflects Platos attempts to engage the capability of abstract thinking. During his time, psychology was a new unique science. Hence, it had to compete with epic poetry and mythology to describe how individuals perceived their position in life and the world. Art and Mythology primarily appealed to emotions and desires. In turn, a philosophy called intellectual potential and abilities. According to Plato, this approach enabled individuals to gain more excellent knowledge through differentiation between the abstract worlds of senses and thoughts.

Reference

Piyong, L. (n.d.). On Platos theory of forms. Canadian Social Science. Web.

This essay will discuss the significance of Plato’s theory’s and how they may or may not affect scientists’ ideas. These ideas may be affected by Plato’s belief in ‘a priori’ knowledge. This means theory’s using reason rather than experience. Reason meaning using knowledge and common sense to come to a justified conclusion on a scientific study where reason may have been used to arrive at an end solution. This will therefore consider whether scientists have used Plato’s theories of reason to find an explanation for something or have arrived at the end result in a different way, illustrating Plato’s theory’s as being ineffective. Plato used mathematics to show lines of reasoning as in mathematics everything is seen as a pattern and answers are derived through reasoning and working out of a specific formula. This metaphor helped Plato to come to conclusions about nature through reason as he applied the same knowledge of mathematics to real-life scenarios. ‘In astronomy, as in geometry, we should set problems to be solved and leave the visible heavens alone. This quote can be automatically seen as Plato advising and encouraging people to use their inner knowledge of reason and using the comparisons of astronomy and geometry to show how they link to each other and to trust your ‘a prior knowledge. This topic of discussion can be seen as important as we can see how one Philosopher could be viewed as significantly influencing scientists in ways to use their own knowledge rather than relying on ‘Empirical evidence.’ This could then answer how and why scientists get to various conclusions, like mathematics, astronomy, nature and many other factors. This essay will also give a clear point of view of how Plato may be shown as deluded and wrong, in affecting scientists’ ideas. Sources like. Plato as ‘Architect of Science’, Phronesis vol 43, No3, Brill) show the other side of the argument. They show how Plato’s relevance in the scientific world was nothing to be referred to or commended. Plato’s theories can be judged as they do not have any evidence for supporting them. This is due to all his theory’s using his own line of reasoning and knowledge as he thinks that evidence is not needed to make judgements on specific things such as Nature. Many people like ‘Zhmud’ may be sceptical of these ‘judgements’ as he believes science is mostly based on evidence rather than knowledge. Moreover, showing that by the end of this essay there will be both points to remember and forget Plato’s significance in affecting scientists. In addition, this essay will display whether scientists’ ideas are even still affected today by Plato’s theories. It will continue to show the relevance of his theories. It will judge if his theories were only used for specific amounts of time, or if they have carried on throughout time and are even being used in today’s modern science. This will also show how admissible they were even if they did affect scientists’ ideas. Overall, we can see that Plato’s great gift to science was his insight that mathematics is essential to decoding the mysteries of nature; though his academy may not have been a scientific institute, his ideas may have continued to inspire many scientists today.

There are various significant reasons why Plato is a strong influential character when affecting the way scientists think. One way this is presented is by ‘geometrization of nature’ Plato advised that you should approach the study of nature as an exercise in geometry. Plato’s remark in the republic was ‘Let’s study astronomy by means of problems, as we do in geometry, and leave the things in the sky alone.’ This shows how Plato is referring to the discoveries of astronomy in science the same as the way we solve solutions in geometry. (John Freely, Before Galileo: The Birth of Modern Science in Medieval Europe (2012). John Freely shows how Plato is seen as a huge influence on scientists’ ideas by this point as the article shows the ‘geometrization of nature can be used to discover many things like the ‘Big bang theory’ he says that this theory was discovered mainly to do with reason and understanding the alignment of the Planets. This clearly illustrates how Plato has affected science as the Big Bang was formed due to the use of common sense and reason. Geometry was made and solved through reason and inner knowledge. Therefore, John Freely is showing how we can use these points of Geometry being solved using reason, and link it to nature, e.g. ‘The Big Bang.’ Moreover, this can be seen as affecting scientists’ ideas as without using reason as we do in mathematics, it would be impossible to come up with ‘The Big Bang.’ This means Plato’s a priori knowledge can be seen as influencing scientists to use their own knowledge and common sense to come up with solutions and conclusions, in this particular scenario about how the world was formed. Plato says that scientists should use their reason to arrive at deductions about mathematics and therefore nature, and ‘the slave boy experiment in Plato’s Meno’ is a demonstration that it is possible for almost anyone to arrive at mathematical and scientific truths by thought and reason. (Thoughtco.com The slave Boy Experiment in Plato’s ‘Meno’ By Plato written 380BC Translated by Benjamin Jewett). The view of the slave boy experiment is that we have innate ideas and that we are literally born with knowledge. (Emrys Westmacott, 2019 ThoughtCo.) The experiment is when a slave boy asks Plato if he can prove that ‘all learning is recollection,’ he, therefore, calls the slave boy (Meno) over and gives him a geometry problem. He draws a square and asks the slave boy who has had no teachings of geometry at all to draw a picture doubling the square. The slave boy, therefore, completes the question and gets it right. Therefore, without needing any teaching the boy answers the question with ease using his own knowledge and reasoning to answer the question. Accordingly, this shows that without needing evidence or previous teachings scientists can easily make judgements and come to justified conclusions through reasoning and their own embedded knowledge.

One other major influence Plato had was on a well-known scientist; ‘Stegmuller’ Stegmuller a German physicist who believes that one of the most difficult questions facing science in contemporary physics is the concept of ‘matter.’ (Stegmuller 1987:89 ff. ‘The mysterious matter’) Seegmiller however also said that it should be remembered that there is an important difference between ‘physical space’ and ‘mathematical space’. Seegmiller continues his explanation of the problems explored by the Greek Philosopher Plato. The example he highlights is ‘the nature of matter.’ This shows a clear influence of Plato’s work. Seegmiller realises that he has to understand the nature of the matter before he can fully understand the concept of matter itself. Plato clearly outlines in his philosophy that nature is are the ‘properties of the natural world.’ (Plato, 2007 The Republic). This means all the properties that make up our world and therefore matter. Seegmiller also quotes from Plato that we are ‘not wiser than before’ this means that we already hold our inner knowledge, however, we just need to unlock all the bits that are missing when we were born. Plato believes that matter is translated by his ‘Theory of the Forms.’ This means that for Plato the form or idea is the reality that never changes and therefore makes things what they are. Moreover, clearly showing a significant influence on Stegmuller as he believes that he has to understand the nature of the matter, meaning what makes matter what it is today. The only way this can be done is by finding the properties that created things like the sun, soil, and even objects like furniture. This can all be done through knowledge and understanding, using reason and establishing that ‘mathematical space’ and ‘physical space’ are two different entities. This illustrates Plato as being not only an influential character to physicians like Stegmuller but even a teacher of modern-day philosophy. Seegmiller had been enlightened and influenced by the way the ancient Greek Philosophers like Plato used to think using their inner knowledge to make deductions and judgements on things like matter that have no source of empirical evidence to prove that they exist. Therefore, leading to needing to use conscious decisions and practical but effective conclusions to come to the specific differences of the nature and reality of the matter. It is clear that Stegmuller learnt that the ‘mathematical space’ and ‘physical space’ were two completely different things when describing matter, therefore acquired his own knowledge of the two and made specific diverse deliberations when describing the properties of the nature of matter.

Another way Plato can be explored as an influential character in the scientific world can be seen through convincing scientists like Werner Heisenberg. The physicist doesn’t only focus on the differences but mainly the similarities between indestructible units of matter and elementary particles. He says that they can be transformed into each other. He says that Plato’s Timaeus (The elementary of particles), says they are not just substances but mathematical forms. (Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy 1958). This illustrates Plato affecting physicians in mathematical ways through his book. This shows how Heisenberg has used Plato’s theory in the Timaeus to make a judgement how indestructible units of matter and elementary particles link to one and another through geometry which is reason-based and simple maths that gives a result. Plato can be seen here as a leader as the physicist Heisenberg publishes his book of how matter can be linked by Plato’s theories of mathematics and geometry. This can also be seen in real life where maths is used in physics to work out formulas that involve matter and particles. In addition, showing how Plato’s influence on old day physics has hence evolved and been perfected by physician’s like Heisenberg to derive and find answers to other aspects of physics as well like density, mass and volume. Plato here could of be seen as an ‘architect’ of modern-day science in specific physics. He has been able to simply make clear links between science and maths to come to reasoned conclusions, that can be developed on and followed by physicians. We can now see why many scientists may agree and say Plato was an influential character, as his theories and explanations may have been farfetched, however as soon as they were explored in detail, scientists like Stegmuller, Heineburg, and many more are seen as using their reason, which in 337BC was a priori knowledge. This is the knowledge that we have stored before we were even born, and it was believed by Plato that we are just recalling the information and knowledge we had acquired before we were born. This reason has helped them to come to justified conclusions about the matter. Without the use of this, it would have been impossible to find out the cause of most things as there would have been no knowledge to base arguments from, meaning there would not be answers to many questions in science, therefore leaving gaps due to lack of background knowledge in the first place. This reason that we all acquire can be used as stepping stones to find out more about a topic like matter. There would be no starting point without reason of deduction, which can quite simply mean using common sense to come to a justified and approved answer to something using academic deductions and knowledge.

On the other hand, many scientists may argue that Plato isn’t an influential character in old and modern science. Plato as ‘Architect of Science’. He argues that. ‘The tendency of portraying Plato as an Architect of Science… is based on his Dialogues.’ Zhmud shows a view that Plato is illustrated by not being the influencer of science himself, however, it’s his dialogues that may influence scientists in different ways. The main ways that they will be influenced will be

The aim of philosophy is to clarify the answer any question about life on this Earth. Philosophy is a tool to understand the reality and existence, and each philosopher has his own way to analyze it. In this essay, two important philosophy texts of philosophers Plato and Laozi are going to be compared which are Plato Cavern and Tao Te Ching.

First, in terms of law, Plato tells us society will be served by its individuals, so Plato relied idealism to write his philosophy texts. According to Plato Cavern, prisoners create a society together, but seeing outside the cave by individuals could change the wrong idea of the society about the world outside the cave. In this example, Plato shared the idea of controlling the way society thinks, and this is going to be happens when individuals are serving the whole society for its benefits. “ If this person who had gotten out of the cave were to go back down again and sit in the same place as before, would he not find in that case, coming suddenly out of the sunlight, that his eyes were filled with darkness?'(Glaucon, Plato Cavern). In this quote, Plato claims that, even though it hurts them(individuals), but they have to oppose the general wrong ideas about life on Earth to show the society that this idea they used to believe in is wrong. Laozi also wanted to approach the point of comprise law in society for its people. He claims good, imagination of nature, and profits. It shows that Laozi relied naturalism to write his philosophy texts. He shows some strategy of a good governing to make a better society by using natural laws. There are two examples in the Tao Te Ching philosophy text by Laozi. “When one gives undivided attention to the (vital) breath, and brings it to the utmost degree of pliancy, he can become as a (tender) babe. When he has cleansed away the most mysterious sights (of his imagination), he can become without a flaw.” (Laozi). It supports how Laozi used very specific small details from nature, and how he was interested in using naturalism to confine people in terms of law. “of government in its securing order; that of (the conduct of) affairs is in its ability; and that of (the initiation of) any government is in its timeliness.” (Laozi). Moreover, in this example he exposed governing and confining people to law in a way that seems to be in terms of naturalism. Thinking about attaching people to law in terms of different theory idealism and naturalism of both philosophers leads to another point of how they got realism.

Beside using their specific theories idealism of Plato and naturalism of Laozi, both wanted to get realism of life. As Plato mentioned in Plato cavern, prisoners need to be free and do challengings for changing their life, and transform invisible to visible. Plato is a way of seeing correctly. According to Plato Cavern, “Now, however, if someone, using force, were to pull him [who had been freed from his chains] away from there and to drag him up the cave’s rough and steep ascent and not to let go of him until he had dragged him out into the light of the sun…” (Glacon). this example highlights that Plato wants to say even the right way is hard and tough to get, the freed prisoner still have to go through challenging in order to deduce the right aspect of living outside the cave. Same as Plato, Laozi also wanted to get the realism of life. According to the Tao Te Ching, Laozi mentions how invisibility conceive time and self awareness to be deduced. Laozi is a way of comprehending what is cannot be seen, heard, or touched. As he says, “The equable(can’t be seen), the inaudible(can’t be heard), the subtle(can’t be held)” (Laozi). And another one is also exposes to stay calmly and uninterrupted. “Ceaseless in its action, it yet cannot be named, and then it returns and becomes nothing” (Laozi). Which means commence what you want to know, and never stop. It also leads to another term which is being knowledge and educated.

Moral excellence is another term to evaluate the similarities and differences between Plato’s text and Laozi texts. Plato is so much interested in education. Is shows how the lack of education makes the prisoners illogical thinkers. It is a way to get mass education. This is assessed as a new born child who knows nothing about his life, and he has no idea about how to fix struggles in life. He needs his parents incentive to get the education he needs to be a good person. Another example is using ‘shadow’ by Plato in the Plato Cavern in order to show the false understanding of the prisoners because they do not have mass education inside the cave. As Plato, Laozi also sought about moral excellence. Self examination is evident in Laozi philosophy texts in Tao Te Ching, he used water as an example to show how to behave and think about moral. “The excellence of water appears in its benefiting all things, and in its occupying, without striving(to the contrary), the low place which all men dislike. Hence (its way) is near to (that of) the Tao.” (Laozi). It shows how water arbitrary benefit all things in its way. It means that Laozi advises people do not do anything purposely and you just need to follow your heart.

To conclude, even though today’s society has a different style of living than before, we still need old important philosophy theories. The idealism of Plato and naturalism of Laozi are both important. Each of give benefits to our today’s society in their own way. I found this relation interesting because those texts by those philosophers were written in about many thousand years ago, and both are still influencing in many ways such as education, scientific investigations, law and natural confining.

Plato’s’ views can be seen firmly throughout his expressive dialogue. Plato encouraged his readers to take into account how often the general public has no appreciation for the value behind philosophy. Through his many teachings of Socrates, the dialogue of Plato represents his perceptive and view of philosophical life as he became disgusted with political life.

In his most popular work The Republic, Plato focuses on virtue and the role being philosophy while also analyzing the state’s effort in creating conditions that result in obtaining living a good life possible. These conditions for a good life and a perfect society lies within having justice. To encompass this, The Republic focuses on the main question: “is the just person happier than the unjust person?” (The Republic, Plato.) Plato further emphasizes what justice truly is and the impacts it has on society. In book two, Plato writes, “And is not the love of learning the love of wisdom, which is philosophy?” “They are the same, he replied.”

“Then he who is to be a really good and noble guardian of the State will require to unite in himself philosophy and spirit and swiftness and strength? Undoubtedly.” Throughout the different books of the republic, we see justice defined through different perspectives. Due to the perfect philosophical life being correlated with justice, Plato also writes “the having and doing of one’s own and what belongs to one would be agreed to be justice.” (The Republic, Plato.) What Plato was conveying is that it is not only knowing what justice is but also knowing where you belong that brings forth the idea that a society can be perfect. Bringing forth politics, with this view, only a certain class of person is deemed to have the ability to be able to be in politics. I bring forth the analysis of an ideal society to highlight that justice is the foundation of what is a well of political order. Plato argues that if justice is understood correctly, it can cital to the ideal society in which he states that “injustice causes a civil war, hatred, and fighting, while justice brings friendship and a sense of common purpose” (The Republic, Plato). This quote further emphasizes that justice and political order needs.

We see Socrates hint towards this ideal society in which the younger audience should not be exposed to ethical matters of the doubt until they mature and grow older. Of course, this restriction did not apply to Socrates himself, as he is the teacher. We then see this transition into Plato’s Apology, where he prides himself and contradicts his views by expressing that no one is either too old or young to examine life. In the Apology, Socrates infers that you do not have to put limits upon philosophical analysis, but on the contrary in the Republic, this Socrates states that the same behavior should be carefully regulated. This contrary belief may relate to why it might have been harder for Plato to present an honest portrait of him and further defend the reputation of Socrates after his trial and execution.

Another text, Euthyphro, brings forth the endless questions of what “piety” means to Socrates. The constant analyses are what drove Socrates students into examining what perfect models are in truth and beauty which are how people judge their own experiences or object. The question of “Is piety good because the gods like it or do the gods like it because it is good?” remains unanswered even after five attempts of Euthyphro trying to define it.

Aristophanes’ Clouds shows a dismissive attitude to the veneration of intellectuals and the importance of the philosophic life. Aristophanes’ Clouds is a play starring and an elderly man in debt who enrolls his son in Socrates’s philosophy school to learn the necessary rhetorical skills to win in court. The elderly father soon learns that Socrates’s teachings are mostly just disrespectful in regards to authority and social mores, which then brings the elderly father to burning down the philosophical school. The clouds formed by the fire are a representation of the thoughts that hover over us without an exact form and are based on our experiences.

Aristophanes believes that piety, as discussed in Euthyphro, keeps us from corrupting the lives of each other. In the play, however, the elderly father ends up learning from the philosophers, which ends up corrupting others’ lives. Aristophanes’ reflection on philosophers and intellects is that the gods are just keeping everyone from being even worse than we already are. Throughout both Plato’s works and Aristophanes’ Clouds, we see that Socrates denied the capability of most men of philosophy. We see that in the Clouds, Socrates would not be able to qualify as a philosopher in Plato’s The Republic, and vice versa.

In the Republic, we see the criticism of unchecked democracy especially in correlation to excessive freedom which they deemed is linked to anarchy. Plato also expresses in his dialogue about how corrupt democracy is due to it is lacking in leaders who have not only proper skills but morals. In the Republic, he states that “Democracy depends on chance and must be mixed with competent leadership.” I solely agree with this statement as especially in today’s world we cannot have a leader who lacks empathy with no morals who cannot foresee right from wrong. If that were the case, we might as well have a robot as a leader to make our choices. This ties into Plato’s further analysis in which he expresses that politics need expert rulers who are not coincidentally but are molded and selected for the position. These rulers are guided by the common good and benefit so that their city reflects that and not a crippling society.