The Allegory of the Cave by Plato is a work about how people perceive life and reality. Many people in todays environment have a distorted perception of reality. Platos work is important and vital because it underlines the significance of reconfiguring oneself in order to discover the truth. Using extensive metaphors, powerful connotative language, and an elegant questioning tone, he furthers this purpose. Through distinctive rhetoric, Plato highlights his unique perspective on reality.
First of all, Plato created the people in the cave captives in order to rhetorically appeal to the audiences emotions and arouse the sensations that already exist in them, which, of course, already produces an intimidating image in the readers mind. Furthermore, the inmates symbolize all of the people who are confined, allowing viewers to realize that they may interact with the inmates and make them unhappy at the fact that they are genuinely stuck. Platos shackles elicit feelings of rage and despair in the reader by conjuring up vivid and terrible pictures in the readers imagination. He uses extensive rhetoric to visualize the scenes of the prisoners inside the cave, mainly the metaphors.
Plato skillfully conveys rhetorical devices to support his point of view that individuals are frequently so oblivious to the knowledge that is freely offered to them that they lose out on the opportunity to acquire a new degree of understanding about reality. The Allegory of the Cave employs a number of metaphors to emphasize its point, as well as symbols to connect one notion to another. A cave with inmates confined within, for example, illustrates how our knowledge is cloaked in darkness, much like a cave in real life (Plato). He is caught in this misconception of the world, much as being in a dark, confined place precludes a person from perceiving the actual world.
The light was also used as a metaphor for a persons ability to perceive the truth. Finally, the philosopher is represented by the escaping prisoner. Philosophers are interested in learning more about the world, they are seeking anything outside the cave (Plato). Platos rhetorical methods, which finally lead to the successful representation of his vision, include metaphors and symbols, which are unquestionably crucial.
To express his argument, Plato also used the rhetorical method of rhetorical questions. Throughout the essay, the author asks rhetorical questions. In fact, there is at least one rhetorical question in practically every paragraph or section. &Do you not expect that he would felicitate himself on the change and pitied it? Plato asks hypothetical questions to illustrate his points (Plato). Socrates words have a peculiar tone when he speaks to Glaucon as if he doesnt know the truth himself. What he would say if& ; What if he were shown& and compelled by&? ; Dont you think he would be puzzled& (Plato) these are among other examples where Plato employs the rhetorical questions. Plato expects that the reader would conclude for himself that truth has a limit and that individuals only believe what they wish to believe.
Platos rhetorical inquiries are often descriptive, demonstrating how he strives to imbue readers with certain keywords or phrases as well as call attention to a specific topic or concept. Rhetorical questions are often basic, yet they are extremely effective in amplifying the writers views. It also adds to the overall informed tone without coming across as arrogant or nasty. This solemn tone complements Platos manufactured environment and enhances the effectiveness of his argument. The problem of mankind becoming so oblivious to truth is such a serious and ubiquitous issue that it cannot be described in a lighter tone.
Plato also tries to find out what kind of leadership the ideal society would have. According to Plato, the ideal state leader is a well-educated individual who cannot be corrupted. Only those who are wealthy, not in currency and gold, but in virtue and wisdom, shall rule over the state& that is the main implication of Platos leadership thought (Plato). Overall, at the end humanity should come to realization of the importance of thinking, reasoning and pushing the knowledge beyond its physical meanings.
Platos The Allegory of the Cave successfully conveys the concept that individuals are caught relying on their senses to establish impressions of the reality. Still, genuine knowledge and truth come from thinking beyond what the physical world delivers. One can discover what exists outside of the material world by using philosophical reasoning. Plato employed a variety of rhetorical strategies to elicit attention from his audience in order to make his arguments.
Work Cited
Plato, The Allegory of the Cave. Academic Reading and Writing: Foundational and Contemporary Studies, edited by Steve Ersinghaus, E-Book, 2nd Edition, 2020, pp. 98-103.
Although antiquity, Platos Myth of the Cave is extraordinarily relevant today and can be interpreted in relation to how modern man absorbs information. Thus, Platos myth is an allegory, revealing a series of eternal philosophical ideas. Among them is the existence of objective truth, which is independent of peoples opinions; the presence of constant deceptions that make a person stay away from this truth; and the need for qualitative changes to access the truth.
Current scenarios can be easily compared with the ideas of Plato, reflected in his myth of the cave. One example is the information broadcast by the media today. This process can be analyzed through the stages of Platos allegory. The starting point is deception when the reality represented by the sources of information is only a shadow of reality and is filled with subjective ideas. At this stage, people consume information without even questioning it. Plato explains why people are so easily succumbed to misinformation, which is sometimes an obvious deception. According to Lawhead (2014), the point is that when people have no reason to doubt something, they do not, and lies prevail. Thus, the majority absorbs information without giving it critical analysis.
Some manage to reach the second stage, liberation, through questioning, analysis, research, and study. People become restless and insecure at this stage as beliefs are undermined and shaken. To get through this state, it is necessary to continue to move forward and discover new knowledge. Then follows the most challenging stage of acceptance, which involves rejecting old beliefs and adopting new ones. Plato considered that the past determines how a person experiences the present (Lawhead, 2014). Therefore, the philosopher suggested that a radical change in the way of understanding things leads to confusion and discomfort.
Finally, there is the spread of new ideas, which is characterized by confusion, contempt, misunderstanding, and even hatred, as the fundamental dogmas that are generally accepted by society are questioned. Thus, the meaning of Platos myth lies in the fact that reality can only be comprehended after a person leaves the cave and remains there, despite the difficulties that arise. Remaining in a cave, or in the modern sense, tied to a screen, one sees a distortion of reality and remains limited by the controlling forces.
Reference
Lawhead, W. F. (2014). The voyage of discovery: A historical introduction to philosophy (4th ed.). Cengage Learning.
A startling image is shown to the reader after the Symposium. Aristophanes delivered the fourth speech of the evening out of turn because he may have exaggerated hiccups during Pausanias address1. With a creative speech, he narrates how humanity and love came to be. The well-known comedic dramatist from Athens is Aristophanes. He is most renowned for his satirical plays, such as Clouds (423 BCE) and Frogs, and his participation in the Symposium (405 BCE). His speech has a somber tone and tells the fabled story of the beginning of love.
While not much is revealed about Aristophaness biography, it is evident that he had a significant influence on people of his time. Aristophanes lived in approximately 446386 BCE and is considered the most prominent comic playwright of the Classical period2. Aristophanes is known for his relentless search for the Ridiculous, and he has set a high mark for several generations of comedians who performed after his demise3. His narrative, similar to Genesis as an origin myth, is characterized by the idea of holiness as a virtue. Only Agathon, Aristophanes, and Socrates remained in the Symposium, sitting next to each other and sharing a customary cup of wine. Socrates argues that a talented playwright must be a master of both genres to write plays that are both comedic and tragic. Aristophanes, a pivotal figure in the narrative, adopts the term.
Aristophanes hiccups eventually go away, and once Eryximachus speech is over, he speaks at the feast. Aristophanes creates the notion that the earliest humans were androgynousa combination of both male and femaleusing his comedic skills. They possessed two sets of ears, two faces facing opposite ways, four limbs and legs, and two distinct humiliating parts. The androgynous rushed, rolling like a wheel on all eight limbs as he was hurried4. Zeus commanded Apollo to divide each of the androgynes into two halves, a male and a female, because they had strength that was terrible even for the gods, and they resented him for his excesses.
These pieces were dispersed over the entire planet. However, the memory of their once-inseparable bond sparked a constant yearning to seek one another out to recapture their previous wholeness. If the divided parts come together, they would not do anything apart from each other 5. Eros, according to Aristophanes, is the attempt of two human beings who have been cut in half to reunite and recapture the essence of their original nature. However, this is only feasible if the gods are revered since they have the power further to fragment us in the event of our evil.
Aristophanes cautions listeners not to mistake his remarks for pure humor before beginning on both sides. Of course, the comedians typical toolbox includes denying humorous purposes. Aristophanes speech has a certain sense of humor despite its horrifying images of numerous human bodily transformations. Nevertheless, considering his personality, the reader should heed Aristophanes cautions in this instance6. Especially about the tragic and philosophical explanation of human existence that lurks underneath their humorous surface. The importance of Aristophanes speech for conversation is underlined through various techniques. First, due to his destructive role in the Symposium, Aristophanes needs attention since it purposefully draws attention to the sequence of his utterances.
Eryximachus is placed in a triumvirate with Agathon and Socrates when Aristophanes is forced to step aside when it is his turn to speak due to hiccups. Aristophanes, Agathon, and Socrates continue to drink together at the dialogues conclusion, repeating the order of their utterances and urging that they be understood in connection to one another7. The many inappropriate comparisons Plato makes between Aristophanes and Socrates speeches serve to underline the importance of Aristophanes speech even more. Aristophanes portrays his persona as a supporter of Platos philosophy rather than an adversary. His character is a guy who wears a mask of humor and frivolous thinking to conceal the knowledge and fortitude of facing death and life.
Works Cited
Marren, Marina. Plato and Aristophanes: Comedy, Politics, and the Pursuit of a Just Life. Northwestern UP, 2021.
Plato. Symposium. Translated by Alexander Nehamas, Hackett Publishing, 1989.
Zavaliy, Andrei. Courage and Cowardice in Ancient Greece: From Homer to Aristotle. Springer, 2020.
Platos Phaedo is a great dialogue written during his middle period. It is written as a third-person account of a philosophical conversation between Socrates and his friends, on the day he died (Cooper ix). Socrates accepts that he has to die in order to attain the objectives of true philosophy (Cooper 94, Phaedo 63c). He asserts that the soul can only gain wisdom once the physical body is dead.
He also argues that learning is a recollection of the fact that ones soul exists even before his or her birth, and lives beyond death (Phaedo 67). In most parts of the dialogue, Socrates argues about opposites of things; that one thing originates from the opposite of the other (Phaedo 105d-107). In essence, Phaedo is an explanation of immortality of the soul, as put across by Plato.
It has four main issues or arguments which Socrates presents as a way of proving the immortality of the soul. These are; the Argument from Opposites (Cyclical Argument), the Theory of Recollection, the Argument from Affinity and the Argument from Form of Life (the Final Argument).
This paper solely focuses on the third argument-Argument from Affinity. It aims at criticizing Socrates idea of the immortality of the soul. The paper proceeds from the premise that philosophers are great thinkers, who should not merely mention ideas but provide proof of them as well.
The Argument from Affinity
This is the argument which presupposes that human physical body is material, visible and perishable. On the contrary, the soul is immaterial, invisible and immortal. Socrates laid down his arguments that people ought to be more concerned with the soul than the physical body since in the long run the body will die but the soul will outlive it (Phaedo 78b).
Indeed, many people especially the religious leaders lay a lot of emphasis on the soul. Therefore, we see relatives of the dead gathering together to pray for the soul of the deceased person. Religious leaders also pray for the body and the soul of the dead but lay a lot of emphasis on the soul. This is to say that Socrates philosophy still lingers in the minds of many people (Cooper 95).
However, Socrates ought to have used reason to lay his claims instead of just mentioning ideas and leaving them as assumptions. These assumptions are held by the religious leaders in claiming that those who live virtuous lives will go to heaven. This can be quite misleading, and the underlying question is, what will happen to those with a lot of vices and their souls after death?
Socrates ignored very important aspects of the human body while explaining the immortality of the soul. He did not factor disorders such as dementia and brain malfunctioning in his claims. He simply put the immortality of the soul as the last thing that comes out of human living (Phaedo 94b-e). This falls short of what a true philosopher should profess as well as the angles in which philosophers look at things.
Following his claims on the opposites of things, one can say that the soul is mortal. Socrates argued that something is formed from its opposite; the soul exists within the mortal body. Therefore, one would not be wrong to say that the mortal body can corrupt the immortal soul. What this means is that the soul is not immune from being tainted by the body (Phaedo 83d-e).
Tension arises when people are faced with different challenges, some of which make them to indulge in worldly desires. For instance, stealing can cause someones soul to be tainted and imprisoned in another body because stealing is wrong. The main challenge that people face now is how to disentangle themselves from this tension.
Socrates argued that if any person is virtuous then his or her soul is immortal and they should not fear death as it is an end to earthly suffering (Phaedo 118). Those who love truth remain honest, and have great value for wisdom will have their souls unperturbed and their eternal life will be full of goodness.
Socrates believed in this immortality up to the time of his death, and he gladly accepted to die. It is instructive to note that this argument can be summed up by saying that the human body dies and decays but the soul lives forever. However, he did not explain his claims clearly.
Application of the Affinity Argument in Contemporary Societies
This argument has been viewed by many people as a way of enhancing virtuous living. Not a day will pass without a religious leader emphasizing on the importance of the soul in eternal life.
Several individuals have lived by such teachings which owe their origin to Plato and Socrates, for several years. However, many people abide by these teachings simply because their leaders teach so, and not because they have in-depth understanding of them.
In conclusion, Socrates fell short of a philosophers manner of presenting ideas from different angles. Philosophers just dont state ideas without remarkable explanations.
This paper serves as an eye-opener to contemporary philosophers, especially those who base their arguments on Socrates teaching to be extremely careful when quoting him. As a philosopher, one should not just issues mere utterances without adequate supporting facts and ideas viewed from different angles.
Art is almost spiritual activity for the development and implementation of aesthetic values. Art is the kernel of aesthetic culture, which, in turn, includes the aesthetic value, aesthetic needs and abilities (aesthetic perception, aesthetic taste and aesthetic ideal), work on their development and implementation, aesthetic education. Aesthetic aspects are present in the activities of the scientists, social and transformative action in everyday life, in sports, etc. Art is a specialized aesthetic activity. It exists for the realization of aesthetic values, enhances the aesthetic experience. Art was concentrates the aesthetic attitude to the world. An understanding of the essence of art is inseparable from the understanding the world of human nature and views on society. Depending on understanding the essence of art defines its function and origin. An understanding of art as imitative reality, its reflection arises in antiquity and remained popular until the XX century.
Discussion
For Plato art is imitation of the world sensual things. The kingdom of ideas may become the subject of contemplation of a thinker; an artist creates a shadow of shadows. Therefore, artistic product deceptively hinders learning the truth, though infectiously for Aristotle art is also based on imitative ability. Imitation is, in fact, cognitive ability. Art as imitative work also includes the moments of pleasure, which are based on the recognition of joy. Art deals with the possible that could happen .
The notion of catharsis development belongs to Aristotle; catharsis is the purifying the human soul from lowland passions through contemplation a special form of cognition. Art necessarily includes an element of fun, teaches, expanding educational horizons. This vision of art was very popular in antiquity and in later time. According to Plutarch, the transition from ignorance to knowing difficult, like a sharp shift from darkness to light. Art should be a lower rank in cognition. The main goal of art is upbringing of mind.
Catharsis impact of art expresses its own aesthetic essence. Art purifies our soul, enlightens, altering our emotions through compassion and fear , as Aristotle wrote. The paradox of artistic and aesthetic emotions stimulates the search of activities relevant to these emotions. Art in its aesthetic- catharsis functions enlightens clears emotions by increasing their subject. Art draws the rights to self, showing fake tears in this drama. Crying the death of any tragic hero, the audience actually feels the opportunities posed by their own death; the aesthetic experience is generalized symbol. It affects our cognitive ability as a whole and not conducive to learning specific phenomena, it will intensify our inner life, but not form separate behavioral skills. Aesthetic emotions have signals awakening in us the capacity for creativity, thirst meaningful, free life.
Plato is not so much interested in the process of creating art, but the problem of its impact on people.
As a consequence of the above situation arises that the art is the main factor in society ideal state (the forms of which were developed by Plato) for two reasons:
Art should fill the entire leisure of free-born and accompany them in all serious cases so that they spent all their lives in the Sacrifice, celebrations and dance ( Laws ), so that each of them whether man or woman would have lived, and played the greatest game ( Laws ).
Art, for Plato, should on the one hand, to form the soul of every free-born certain, drawn to the legislator, telling them good things ( State ) and through the rhythm of accustomed to the tact in order to join the gymnastics with music. Gymnastics, like art, must play a decisive role in the upbringing of free-born. On the other hand (as a consequence of the first), art must continually, throughout the life of citizens, created to support the spiritual mood.
It was thus on the establishment and maintenance of art means some very peculiar state of the drugs, not the individual, and a public layer.
Taking into consideration the enormous role the arts Plato gave in his ideal state, and extremely pessimistic assessment of what the philosopher gave to the real state of the modern period of the artistic life, it is not difficult to imagine the overall magnitude of restraining activities envisaged author of State and laws in order to turn art into an instrument of justice. The more profound divide between Platos presentation on real art and the actual state of the art in Platos times, the more victims required from art in order to fill the depth.
Art should close, tie some consistency in the whole state ideology, under which law and political virtue entirely coincide with the Beauty and personal happiness of individual. It must provide universal, covering all the individual communication with the outside world form, putting which the individual takes inside to this ideology, and through which the philosopher-legislator could determine in advance the entire system of external manifestations of each individual, bringing it in line with their laws .
In Poetics by Aristotle there is a briefly described 3 exemplary ways in poetry (verbal art), which are the characteristics of epic, lyric poetry, and drama. To imitate in the same and the same could be talking about the event as something separate from themselves, or so that remains to imitate itself, without altering their person or persons representing all depicted as the actions and activities , Imitative products differ on means, on the subject, mode, plus special emotions. Cleaning passion (catharsis) is a goal of tragedy; to help the poet through the analysis of images to find the right path to that goal is the task of Plato.
Manufacturing activity creates new things, which do not exist in nature. Art in our sense of the word is to imitate nature. When Aristotle said in Metaphysics that through the art of having those things, the form which is in the soul (VII, 7, pp. 121), he was referring to productive activities. But it remains unclear origins of artificial things. Probably they lay in the passive intellect along with the forms of nature, achieved through passive effects on intelligence from both sides (of the representations and from the active mind) or they are creations of the soul so we never know. But the overall response is still possible to assume: forms of artificial things this means for implementing the goals and meet the needs that arise in real life of people. As for the art in our sense of the word, it is all easier. The forms of art, works of art are not as something entirely new and unprecedented forms in nature. This imitation of life forms is both natural and artificial. Therefore, for Aristotle, denying the absolute creative arts, in the creation of new forms, art is imitation, mimesis.
So, unlike technology the art is imitative. Aristotle said so in Poetics : The writing epic, tragedy, as well as comedies and dithyramb, as well as most of aulectics with cypharistics all this is generally nothing more than an imitation (Aristotle, Poetics, p112).
Many interesting things are written about mimesis. But usually it is not taken into account that mimesis, according to Aristotle, must be understood in the context of his teachings of the form and matter, date and potentialism. As a misunderstanding because of critical manufacturing practices of people unable to understand the origins of artificial things (since eternal forms, but forms of artificial things are created by man), Aristotle interpreted the fine arts not as creative as well as imitation. But mimesis is not copying. The artist is free to choose subjects, ways and means of imitation.
Poetry is widely understood as the art of words in general. The forms of epic, tragedy, comedy, dithyramb, auletics (playing the flute), cypharistics enjoyed by such means exemplary, as rhythm, word, harmony, or all together or one of them. Prose uses only words without rhythm and harmony. In the remaining part of Poetics mainly tragedy is discussed.
Art can represent the people, improving them, degrading or retaining such as they are. This is a tragedy, comedy and drama. Generally speaking poets task is not to say that it, but that might be, as possible because of the probability or necessity. That is why poetry differs from history, so poetry is more philosophic and serious than history, poetry is concentrated on the general, history on the particular. In this judgment Aristotle art, at least in poetry, comes as science. Yet overall there is nothing common in the art and science, in the first case is typical-figurative, and the second concepts. Aristotle felt this.
So, mimesis is imitation, but imitation relatively freely because of the diversity of funds, and ways of emulation, but also because of a synthesis of art, not a single portrayed, but overall, not what it was, and what could be. And download a substantial being portrayed in the unit, and in concrete action, but only retained in the unit that serves substantially. Here freedom exemplary is manifested, and activism. This idea is built on the example of Aristotle tragedy.
In Poetics there is a well-known definition of tragedy by Aristotle: The tragedy is important imitation of action and finished with a [certain] amount, [produced] speech, heard in different ways, in its various parts, [produced] in action, not in narration , And commits through compassion and fear such passions cleansing (VI, in 1449, with. 120). In doing so, he explains that heard speech speech, having rhythm, harmony and tune that in some parts of this tragedy hearing takes place only meters (special cases rhythms), while in others and even tunes. These and musical part means exemplary; spectacle means the way; stories, characters, the idea is to be followed. At the same time legends are the imitation of action, the combination of events; nature is that compels us to call actors such, this propensity of people; thought is what the speakers indicate that something concrete or, conversely, are more or less the total judgment. Aristotle sees the most important thing in tragedy not in the nature of people, and in legends, in action, in connection events. Can tragedy be without characters, but the tragedy is impossible without action the beginning and as if the soul of tragedy is legends, and [only] in second place characters (VI, and 1450, pp. 122).
The activity of Mimesis in the tragedy is in the selection of depicted action to ensure that the tragedy was integrity, and this philosopher defines the volume of the tragedy highlights the need for unity of action, indicated the dynamics of the tragic actions.
With the help of four reasons (or principles) Aristotle establishes a distinction between natural and cultural things. Things (substance) which have all four reasons , including acting of course, are natural. The standard example is a grain grown under normal conditions in the plant, which it intended to become. This happens without human intervention in acting, and in the cause of the landing process of growth. On the other hand, things that require changes to its human intervention, in terms of acting, and ultimate causes are cultural things. The standard example is the lump of clay, which form into the vase.
Cultural things are connected with human creative activity. It may be of two types. We can talk about creating what is missing in nature, but that is beneficial to human welfare, for example, the production of tools. You can also talk about the imitation of nature, creating copies of existing in it. An example is a painting depicting a running dog that is a work of art, which gives us pleasure, without being useful. Both of these types of activities included in the Greek concept of art are tehne (techne). But only last fits the current understanding of art.
Art, according to Aristotle, is characterized by two points. It is to create a copy, to emulate. And it gives us pleasure in itself, regardless of the usefulness. The essence of art is that it is a copy, which in itself is a pleasure.
Understanding the art as a backup (imitation) comes from Plato. But as Aristotle otherwise interprets the teachings he treats imitation (and learning) differently than Plato. For Aristotle forms exist in certain things. Consequently, for him sensual things are more of equal status in relation to the forms than to Plato. Thus, the art of sensual things as copying represents great value for Aristotle than for Plato. At the same time, Aristotle has a more democratic point of view on the understanding that is necessary for governance and life. As a result, Aristotle gives positive (in cognitive and political senses) assessment of different types of art.
Compared to Plato Aristotle has a great analytical and differentiated inclinations. For example, he distinguishes between theory (metaphysics, mathematics and natural philosophy), practice(ethics and politics) and poetics. These activities vary. Each of them is largely self-determined on the basis of its own preconditions.
Understanding of the art as copying related to the submission that people are naturally willing to learn and enjoys learning and sensual perception. (The word aesthetics comes from the Greek word aisthenesthai, meaning to perceive with feelings ). Simulating real teaches us to perceive things in special way. For example, we may see a new party known to us or to experience in a new way we have already seen. Or learn something that has already been seen and experienced.
So, Aristotle connects aesthetics and ethics. For him, art has a moral responsibility. It may facilitate or clean. The most important function of art is catharsis that is elevating and facilitating clearance.
The good life is the harmonious implementation of the inherent abilities of us, resulting in, we are virtuous. We must update our balanced potency. Precisely because of this, we must avoid extremes, stemming from the excessive development of some of our qualities at the expense of other emerging or when leaving abroad as our innate abilities and capabilities, both inside and outside the limits of natural resources. (The environmental consequences of such positions are fairly obvious. Exponential growth here would be a major example of the destructive madness). Proceeding from this position, Aristotle attributes the arts function restore spiritual balance. Acquainted with the creation of art (for example, musical or dramatic work), we can restore a harmony and peace and, ultimately, to ennoble our mind (spirit).
According to Aristotle, tragedy compassion and fear clears the emotions. And they are caused precisely by the fractures. Compassion can be felt by viewer only to undeserved suffering hero, therefore, changes in the tragedy and turn in the fate of the hero must not occur from misery to happiness and not because of depravity tragic person, but because of the big mistake . Only in this way, Aristotle thinks, the action could cause fear in the souls of the audience (trembling) and compassion only by equating himself with the hero. Therefore, the tragedy gives viewers the pleasure is the pleasure of compassion and fear through imitation of them (XIV, in 1453, with. 133).
This is a tragedy effect catharsis. Unfortunately, Aristotle does not show this in details, though promises, but no explanation came before us. Aristotelian tragic catharsis has generated a lot of hypotheses. Most likely that the tragic effect, forcing the audience to experience fears and compassion, shake their souls and frees them from hidden internal stresses.
In conclusion it would be appropriate to generalize all the theories about the attitude to art as to the form of imitation.
Aristotle (mimesis and catharsis): All of the art and literature are imitative. The art does not deal with reality but with the things that could happen. The essence of the arts is knowledge of the truth, and it is possible to learn the truth through mimesis. Lying in arts is permissible, if it contributes to image.
Plato: The imitative art is far from reality. It is only slightly refers to any belongings, and then it goes only ghostly display. Imitation stands at the third place of the essence . Plato denied the cognitive knowledge of meaning of poetry and believed that it relaxes human soul. Has a great impact of the psychic of every human and has a great public value.
In Platos idealization of objective art it is possible to see the existence of two worlds the world materialistic, the world ideas. Pillars of Creation are the eternal ideas. Each material object before encountered, was the eternal idea. Being materialized, the idea loses the eternity and becomes one of the physical structures surrounding the world. The task of the true knowledge is to see ideal essence for individual items. It is through the internal world. Artists and poets, imitating material objects, create their works being speculative, and heartless.
Conclusion
Any work, according to Plato, evades of the truth achievements and does not deserve the right to exist. Creative arts lead away from the moral existence. Aristotle believed that realizing the world through the creative works, people are not rejected, and are approaching to the truth.
References
Aristotle, Poetics, Penguin Classics (1997).
Plato, The Republic, W. W. Norton & Company (1996).
To begin with, Plato is a globally known ancient Greek philosopher who made a significant contribution to modern Western philosophy and liberal arts. As a rationalist and idealist, he believed in the divine world of ideas or forms that were quite above human understanding, and the thinker argued that we gain eternal knowledge only by reasoning. Additionally, his various ponderous dialogues are of great importance for philosophical studies because Plato has unique and rather profound ideas that have influenced the school of thought for the past centuries. In this essay, it is essential to explore the philosophers ideas about the theory of forms and his personal perception of them.
Main body
In his philosophical dialogues, the thinker divides the divine, unchangeable world of forms and the world of material, physical objects that was constantly changing and existed only as a shadow of the ideas. Piyong (2013) writes that Plato comes up with the idea that stability and perfection can only be applied to the metaphysical world of knowledge, whereas peoples opinions and concepts of things are not everlasting. Plato describes the phenomenon of forms as archetypes of everything the material world has to offer. Moreover, ideas can be applied to material things via three aspects: cause, participation, and imitation (Piyong, 2013). This means that the supreme world of unalterable forms can influence peoples opinions, be involved in their making, or ideas are simply imitated by people without actually reflecting their meaning.
Conclusion
To sum up, Plato comes to the conclusion that the world of never-changing, constant ideas cannot be fully comprehended due to the narrowness of human conception. Nevertheless, through reasoning and logic, people can find the truth within themselves because our godly souls are the closest to understanding the reality of perfect forms.
References
Piyong, L. I. U. (2013). On Platos Theory of Forms. Canadian Social Science, 9(4), 206-208.
For millennia, Platos famous dialogue Phaedo (in which Socrates strives to convince his disciples that ones soul is immortal) never ceased being referred to as such that represents a high philosophical value. There is nothing incidental about it the close examination of Socrates arguments, in this regard, will reveal them being logically sound and consistent with peoples unconscious desire to have their lives extended into eternity. The author of this paper will outline all four of the philosophers lines of reasoning that a persons soul is immortal while promoting the idea that it specifically the second one, concerned with ones possession of an a priori knowledge of what even the most abstract notions stand for, which should be deemed the most convincing. The rationale behind this suggestion is that, as it will be shown later in the paper, there is indeed a good reason to believe that this particular argument correlates well with what appears to be the practical implications of the most recent discoveries in the field of quantum physics.
Four Arguments
Opposites Argument
The philosophers first argument is reflective of his understanding of the dialectical nature of the relationship between causes and effects. According to Socrates, all the opposites in the world cannot exist without each other, for they derive out of each other while defining each others essence. Without the notion of greater , we would not have the notion of lesser , without the notion of heat it would be impossible to explain what the notion of cold stands for, etc. Life constantly breeds death, and, consequently, death must give birth to live. The philosopher uses this observation as such that proves the transmigration of souls: The living come from the dead& no less than the dead from the living and, if that is so, it seems to be a sufficient proof that the souls of the dead must be somewhere whence they can come back again (Phaedo, p. 63). Thus, according to the philosopher, the fact that the unity of the opposites accounts for the most fundamental principle of the universes functioning, is alone suggestive of the existence of a spiritual realm, in which peoples souls lead their afterlife .
Recollection Argument
All individuals, suggests Socrates, are endowed with some kind of intrinsic knowledge, which they seem to possess since the time of their birth, and which can be recalled while they interact with the surrounding realitys physical emanations. The philosopher exemplifies the process with respect to how people instantly recall their loved ones, after having glanced at some physical items that used to belong to the former. Therefore, our whole lives are nothing but the process of a continual recollection of our long-lost essence, as individuals. Hence, the phenomenon of deja vu, as described by Socrates: When a man sees or hears or in some other way perceives one thing and not only knows that thing but also thinks of another thing of which the knowledge is not the same but different (Phaedo, p. 64). In its turn, this implies that we have existed prior to ending up incarnated in our present physical bodies. According to Socrates, ones soul is nothing but a thing-in-itself , much like the ideas of beauty, ugliness, tallness, hungriness, perfection, etc. This serves as yet another indication of the souls indestructibility.
Affinity Argument
As it is argued by Socrates, each physical object has both the constantly changing, unsteady side to it and the ideational (intrinsic) one, not affected by any changes. The philosopher sees the latter as an abstract idea that defines the spatial nature of this objects observable extrapolations. The first of the mentioned sides is perceived by ones bodily senses, and the second by the rational part of his or her soul. According to Socrates, this can be viewed as yet another proof of the souls immortality: When the soul investigates by itself it passes into the realm of what is pure, ever existing, immortal and unchanging, and being akin to this, it always stays with it (Phaedo, p. 70). The philosopher reasons that if it is possible to preserve ones body after the persons death by mean of embalmment, then it should also be possible for his or her soul to live on into posterity, especially if the individual has been leading a morally virtuous lifestyle throughout the entirety of its earthly existence.
Form Argument
According to Socrates, it is namely the realm of abstract ideas (forms) that defines the quality of their materialized emanations and not the other way around. To prove that it is indeed the case, the philosopher points to the fact that whereas it is possible for us to comprehend the meaning of just about any abstract notion, we cannot grasp the discursive significance of a physical object as a thing-in-itself , not reflective of any theoretical conceptualization of what this object really is.
This again can be seen as suggestive of the fact that the material dimension derives from the spiritual one and that it is specifically the latter that defines the fluctuating dynamics within the surrounding physical reality. To substantiate this idea even further, Socrates uses fire as an example. The notion of fire relates to the notion of heat, but never to the notion of coldness. The same can be said about the soul since the notion of soul is synonymous with the notion of life, ones soul cannot have anything to do with death, by definition. Consequently, this implies that a persons soul exists forever, unlike what happened to be the case with his or her body: If the deathless is indestructible, then the soul, if it is deathless, would also be indestructible& the soul is most certainly deathless and indestructible and our souls will really dwell in the underworld (Phaedo, p. 92). When assessed from the casuistic perspective, such a point of view will indeed appear to make much sense.
Discussion
As it was pointed out earlier, there is much cause-effect integrity to just about every of Socrates four arguments. Therefore, it would prove a rather impossible feat ascertaining that the philosopher clearly favored one of them above the rest. Nevertheless, it appears that it was namely the Form Argument that contributed the most towards lessening the fear of death in Socrates. The reason for this is that there is a strong moralistic undertone to it, and as we are well aware, he firmly believed that once in the afterworld , ones soul will be held accountable for its earthly deeds. Nevertheless, as far as the authors opinion is concerned, the most convincing of all four Socrates arguments is the second one (Recollection Argument). The reason for this is that, as was implied earlier, this argument is consistent with what many contemporary physicists suspect to be the operational quintessence of the surrounding physical reality. The rationale behind this suggestion can be articulated as follows.
In 1927, Werner Heisenberg formulated his famous Uncertainty Principle, which is fundamentally impossible for an outside observer to be aware of the elementary particles location and speed at the same time, as the very act of observation changes the spatial coordinates of this article. The Principles foremost discursive implication is that for as long as it remains unobserved, just about every atom can be simultaneously found in many different locations something that presupposes the virtual existence of what can be named as the realm of unmaterialized possibilities , which determines the developmental vector of the physical realitys observable extrapolations. In other words, when we focus our attention on just about anything, we bring this anything to life there is no reality outside of what our attention is focused on at a particular second.
It is understood, of course, that this suggestion goes to support the validity of Socrates assumption that there is a higher reality out there, made of purely abstract ideas unmaterialized possibilities . It will be logical to assume that these virtual possibilities are, in fact, the source of non-experiential (intuitive) knowledge of things in an individual. As the philosopher argued: Either we were born with the knowledge of it (abstract idea), and all of us know it throughout life, or those who later, we say, are learning, are only recollecting, and learning would be recollection (Phaedo, p. 66). Both Heisenbergs principle and Socrates insistence that the spiritual reality is superior to the physical one help to explain why people often experience the elusive sensation of having been at a particular location earlier while visiting it for the first time in their life something that is being commonly discussed in terms of a deja vu.
It may be the case that the universe is nothing but an extremely realistic three-dimensional hologram of something two-dimensional, which can be a digitally written computer program. That is, we all may be living inside a computer game of some sort the suggestion that substantiates the legitimacy of Socrates belief in the souls immortality from the materialistic perspective. In a computer game, it is always a matter of time before a particular character in the quest of killing as many evil aliens as possible dies. This, however, does not presuppose this characters factual death all that needs to be done to bring him or her back to life is for the player to restart the game.
If a parallel can be drawn between ones life and a computer game, both the deja vu phenomenon and Socrates Recollection Argument will indeed make much sense people get to relive their lives over and over. Therefore, it is thoroughly explainable why many of them are unconsciously aware of what is going to happen to them in the future. What has been mentioned earlier also explains where ones intuitive knowledge of things is contained it resides in the realm of unmaterialized possibilities , which can also be conceptualized as a software algorithm, used for designing a computer game. Thus, Socrates belief in the souls immortality appears to be fully compatible with what the ongoing scientific progress teaches us about the universe and its operational principles.
Nevertheless, the fact that Socrates second argument for the souls immortality indeed appears to be well-substantiated, does not mean that the philosophers line of reasoning, in this regard, should be deemed to represent an undisputed truth-value. One of the arguments apparent weaknesses is that, even if we assume that a persons soul can survive being detached from his or her body, this does not necessarily mean that the former is 100% indestructible. After all, what has been said earlier implies that the soul is, in essence, information. In turn, information is a material category the very process of preserving just about any type of information involves a physical matter in one way or another. For example, typographic ink enables the preservation of information on the page of a book. The sequence of digits is used for writing computer software, with these digits being made of the electrically charged and fully material elementary particles (electrons). If ones soul is a computer program, embodied multiple times through the game, it will exist only for as long as it remains materially codified in some way. If this ceases to be the case, the immortal soul will dissipate into the surrounding entropy with no trace.
Another weakness of Socrates Recollection Argument is that, despite being logically sound, it is principally non-falsifiable and consequently non-scientific. After all, this argument does not contain any suggestions that could be proven either true or false in conjunction with ones experiential insights, concerning the subject matter in question. In plain words, there have been no confirmed cases of people coming back from the dead to tell us whether there an afterlife or not. The semi-mythical figure of Jesus and the cinematographic account of zombies stalking people in the dark, do not count. What this means is that, even though many individuals will indeed be likely to find Socrates second argument emotionally comforting, there can be very little practical value to it. The best indication of this statements validity is the fact that, unlike Socrates, most mentally adequate people do not welcome death as the actual key to discovering a higher truth about their own existence.
Moreover, the term soul conveys essentially the same message as does the notion of individuality . The formation of a persons individuality, however, cannot be discussed outside of what accounted for the affecting circumstances at the time, on the one hand, and this individuals biological instincts, on the other. To exist means to act as an intelligent animal and Socrates conceptualization of the soul denies even a slight possibility for the latter to be concerned with sexual mating, securing access to nutrients, and aspiring to impose its dominance on others.
Conclusion
As it was suggested in the introduction, there is a certain rationale in singling out Socrates second argument in defense of the souls immortality as the most powerful of all four. After all, it is namely this specific argument that stands out perfectly compatible with the theory of holographic universe , which draws heavily from the recent breakthroughs in physics. There are a few conceptual drawbacks to this argument, but it still addresses the issue well. Thus, it will be appropriate to conclude this paper by confirming the sheer depth of Socrates philosophical insights all in full accordance with the papers initial thesis.
Reference
Phaedo. Centre for the Study of Culture and Society, 2008, Web.
Various issues concerning Socrates life have been debated constantly over the years. However, the fact that Socrates was an ancient philosopher who resided in Athens is not in doubt. Socrates was a common fixture in the streets of Athens between 470 and 399 BC.
The mysteries surrounding Socrates life are often compounded by the fact that he never wrote any biographical works of literature. Most of the philosophers teachings have been introduced to the modern readers through proxies such as Plato, Aristophanes, and Xenophon.
The people who have written about Socrates are mostly his close acquaintances as well as his former disciples. When Socrates was executed in Athens, several literary works that focused on Socrates the man and Socrates the Philosopher surfaced.
The compounded interest in Socrates life prompted two authors to try to explain their understanding of this man. Plato, a renowned philosopher and a former student of Socrates philosophy wrote several works on the life and teachings of the philosopher.
Furthermore, Aristophanes a renowned playwright and comedian wrote several accounts of how he perceived Socrates.
The depictions of the two authors do not coincide or give a clear picture of the man that Socrates was. Platos depiction contains several philosophical undertones and depicts Socrates as a man of deep thought and enviable temperament.
On the other hand, Aristophanes paints the picture of a laughable Socrates who thinks highly of himself and disregards the ordinary life. The most vivid characterization of Socrates by Plato is contained in The Apology , a philosophical account that was written shortly after the execution of Socrates.
Aristophanes comical characterization of Socrates can be found in The Clouds a play that depicted the philosopher as a man who resides in the clouds where his students look up to him from below.
The different characterizations given to Socrates by Plato the philosopher and Aristophanes the comedian can be combined to create a complex and a multisided portrait of Socrates. This paper will explore the characterizations of Socrates by Aristophanes and Plato in respect to their existing literary works.
While comparing the characterization of Socrates by the two authors, it is important to note that they both personally associated with the philosopher at different times of his life.
For instance, there was an age difference of about twenty years between Plato and Aristophanes. Consequently, Aristophanes characterizations of Socrates began when the philosopher was about forty-years-old. On the other hand, Plato was in his twenties when Socrates was executed.
The philosophical stance that is assumed by Plato in his depiction of Socrates is informed by the fact that as a young man, he looked up to the philosopher as an old man and a teacher. Aristophanes most likely associated with Socrates when the latter was beginning to gain public recognition within Athens.
Socrates was an object of ridicule during his prime. For instance, the old men within Athens constantly accused Socrates of corrupting the young men within the town by introducing them to heretic teachings. Plato was a voluntary follower of Socrates and he admired the Socratic method of thinking.
Available literature indicates that Plato abandoned a lucrative career as a playwright to pursue Socrates brand of philosophy. Aristophanes was a playwright who sought to align his works with popular opinions.
Therefore, Aristophanes characterization of Socrates was most likely due to public demand. The intentions behind the actions of the two authors are a source of insight into how different demographics in Athens viewed Socrates.
In The Apology by Plato, the characterization of Socrates is tied to the fact that the setting of the book was Socrates execution. Therefore, Platos characterization of Socrates is shrouded by the fact that he was sympathetic with his teachers plight. Nevertheless, Plato was physically present during Socrates trial and execution.
Platos characterization of Socrates during the trial is complicated by several facts. First, Platos authorship has always been in defense of Socrates. For instance, The Apology was supposedly authored shortly after Socrates was executed. In The Apology , the author is writing about Socrates when he is defending himself in front of a jury.
Socrates had been charged by the Athenian court after Meletus claimed that the philosopher disregarded the citys gods and corrupted the young men with his wayward teachings. Plato was one of the young men that Socrates was supposed to have corrupted.
Consequently, it is difficult to ascertain if Platos worldview was actually corrupted by Socrates. Nevertheless, it is apparent that Plato looked up to Socrates as a teacher and mentor. Platos characterization of Socrates as outlined in The Apology paints the picture of a falsely accused citizen who remains true to his teachings until the end.
Platos ability to report accurately about Socrates execution is only redeemed by the fact that he later became a philosopher of repute. Aristophanes characterization of Plato is never subject to a direct connection between the two personalities. Aristophanes knew Plato from possible acquaintances and public observations.
Socrates was a constant fixture in the public arena. In the public arenas, Socrates had both admirers and critics. It is clear that Aristophanes characterization of the philosopher was meant to please the critics.
Socrates is a philosopher of repute as he is portrayed by Platos literature and Aristotle the self-serving cynic is the idea created by Aristophanes in his plays. Both of these characterizations are a product of people who knew Socrates from various perspectives.
Both Plato and Aristophanes characterizations of Socrates focus on several aspects of the philosophers interactions. However, Aristophanes characterization of Socrates is centered on how the philosopher interacted with his students. In his play Phrontisterion , Aristophanes depicts Socrates as the principal of a school.
When translated, Phrontisterion means school of false logic. In this play, Socrates character promises to teach his students how to win arguments of any kind. Aristophanes adds a comical element to Socrates characterization by depicting a philosopher who is teaching while he is placed in a basket and is elevated in front of his students.
Aristophanes characterization of Socrates does not ascertain or nullify the validity of the philosophers teachings. The playwright only focuses on the fact that the philosopher thinks highly of himself and he has no significant regard for his students.
Platos characterization of Socrates shows the philosopher interacting with his students on a more complex level. For example, Platos publications contain various instances where Socrates is posing questions to his students. Unlike in Aristophanes characterizations, the dialogues between Socrates and his students are not one sided.
In addition, Plato characterizes Socrates as a man who is worthy of respect. However, Aristophanes is of the view that Socrates did anything to get glory for himself including teaching while he is hoisted on a basket and looking up to the heavens.
The two authors characterizations are multifaceted although they depict the same aspect of Socrates life. The comedian does not concentrate on the deeper meanings of Socrates actions while Plato the philosopher depicts Socrates as a teacher who is worthy of respect.
The presence of ulterior motives is a real concern when evaluating the different characterizations that are given to Socrates by both Aristophanes and Plato. For Plato, his outmost devotion and admiration towards Socrates might have been the reason behind the positive characterization of the philosopher.
Platos most influential characterization of Socrates is The Apology . In The Apology , Plato appears to be penning a tribute to his teacher and mentor. Therefore, it is likely that there are several inconsistencies in Platos characterization of Socrates.
For instance, in The Apology , Plato never attempts to portray Socrates defense. Plato only concentrates on Socrates dialogues when the latter is pleading for his innocence. Furthermore, Socrates never attempts to prove his innocence to the jury according to Plato.
Of interest is the fact that Plato attempts to characterize Socrates as a man who never abandons his beliefs even in the face of death. Overall, Platos characterization of Socrates intended to portray the philosopher as having willpower that is stronger than that of most people.
Further investigation into Platos depiction of Socrates indicates that the former might have exaggerated some of the characteristics that he assigns to his mentor. For instance, when Plato is depicting how Socrates died after taking hemlock, his depictions defy scientific evidence.
According to credible scientific evidence, taking the poison hemlock makes an individual to develop a slurred speech, nausea, convulsions, and numbness. However, Plato depicted Socrates death as peaceful and dignified but this would be scientifically impossible. Aristophanes depiction of Socrates could also have hidden agendas.
Aristophanes comical depiction of Socrates is in line with the playwrights brand of comedy. Aristophanes might have intended to please the audience with his blatant disregard of philosophy and philosophers. Socrates belonged to a select class of philosophers who had threatened the Greek institutions with their inquisitive methods of thinking.
Aristophanes characterizes Socrates as ungodly and offensive but this characterization might be signifying the playwrights views about all Greek philosophers of the time. Consequently, the characterizations of Socrates by both Aristophanes and Plato indicate that the philosopher was understood by the two authors differently.
Aristophanes and the ordinary folks viewed Socrates as an unnecessarily addition in the Athenian society. On the other hand, Plato works very hard to indicate how Socrates rose above the wishes and desires of the ordinary citizens.
The characterizations of Socrates by Plato and Aristophanes paint a complex and multi-sided portrait of the philosopher. On one side, Aristophanes uses his comical stance to appeal to his theatre crowds by presenting Socrates as a buffoon and a know it all character.
On the hand, Plato presents his readers with the character of a man who would not be moved under any circumstances. Nevertheless, both authors validate their modes of characterizations using their own contexts. There is also cause for concern that the characterization of Socrates is subject to the authors ulterior motives.
Plato was not only a great philosopher but also one of the first political theorists in written history, applying his philosophical outlook to the problems of state and society. One of his most famous works, Republic, outlines the authors approach to the organization of government. While developing the model of a perfect ruler and an ideal state, the philosopher finds faults with all types of government present in Ancient Greece, be they timocracies, oligarchies, democracies, or tyrannies (Plato VIII).
In particular, he criticizes democracy for threatening hierarchical power structures and promoting anarchy. Platos proposed alternative is the rule of a philosopher-king a wise person able to see the essence of justice and, consequently, have the precise knowledge rather than a mere opinion of what is right. However, the perfect state he envisages is not fault-free either and demonstrates notable philosophical downsides. Platos idea of wise rulers who can discern justice proves unconvincing, because his definition of justice is self-enclosed, and the philosopher-kings rule is ultimately as unstable as he democratic one.
Before pointing out the shortcomings of Platos ideal state as a preferable alternative to democracy, it is necessary to cover, however briefly, the philosophers criticism of the latter. According to Plato, the main downside of a democratic rule is that it promotes anarchy by gradually undermining any authority and hierarchy. As he puts it, democracy breeds subjects who are like rulers and rulers who are like subjects (Plato VIII).
This adverse impact on the existing power structures not only manifests in public politics but in every aspect of social life, including private households, According to the philosopher, in a democratic society, fathers lose their parental authority over their offspring ,and children have no respect or reference for their parents (Plato VIII). One step at a time, anarchy finds its way into every social group, every family, and every household, until the denial of authority poisons the society as a whole. This gradual destruction of established power structures and hierarchical relationships is one of the critical arguments against democracy as a form of political organization offered by Plato.
Yet one should be aware that Platos vision of a perfect state and society is just as prone to destroy the power structures already in existence in his contemporary society. It is not even necessary to interpret the Republic for a historical perspective and utilize the millennia of accumulated philosophical knowledge to note this fact. Even Socrates own companions in the treatise point out that his ideas directly threaten the existing social order. One of them comments that, upon hearing of Socrates radical ideas, numerous persons, and very respectable persons too, would grab any weapon that happens to be nearby and attack him on sight (Plato V).
The implications of this observation are clear: the numerous and respectable people in question would fear that Socrates political ideas undermine their power. Therefore, Platos idea of a perfect state as narrated by Socrates in the Republic threatens hierarchies and power structures to a no lesser degree than democracy.
Consequently, the only reason to prefer a philosopher-kings rule to democracy is that the former destroys unjust hierarchies to promote the just ones, while the latter does not. Yet Platos treatment of justice as a concept deserves due criticism because his portrayal of those who can and cannot see it creates a potential for logical blunders. According to the philosopher, the ability to see the absolute and eternal, including justice, only manifests in a limited number of wise persons (Plato V).
Those who see the mere impressions of things rather than their true forms and operate personal opinions rather than infallible knowledge are simply blind when compared to those who have mastered philosophy (Plato VI). Only a philosopher may discern true justice, and others, as exemplified by Socrates remark to Glaucon, are not& able to follow this superior understanding (Plato VII). While this distinction is entirely in line with Platos approach to ontology, its implementation in practice undermines the argument in favor of the wise philosopher-kings.
Separation of people into two categories philosophers who can see the actual forms of things, including that of justice, and common folk who lack this ability seems to create a logical fallacy. While this distinction supposedly gives philosophers a claim to power, it also undermines Platos argument if one takes a closer look at it. If no ordinary person may comprehend true justice as mentioned above, ordinary people are not& able to follow philosophers reasoning even if they try a philosophers opinion becomes the only point of reference for them (Plato VII). While Plato himself would claim that forms exist objectively, it makes no difference for those who cannot see them anyway.
If they adopt his reasoning, then, from their perspective, justice is what a philosopher defines as such. Yet, on the other hand, Plato has already defined a philosopher as a person who understands justice. This creates a self-enclosed definition: justice is what a philosopher declares just, and a philosopher is a person able to see justice. Hence, Platos case for philosopher-kings is based on a logical fallacy and, as such, is not an example of persuasive philosophical reasoning.
One may object that, even though Platos case for the rule of philosopher-kings rests on a faulty logical premise, his imagined ideal state has other comparative advantages, such as stability. Indeed, maintaining balance and preventing unrest is the utmost concern in Platos political philosophy and likely the main function of the guardians of the state as he portrays them. In one instance, he notes that the rulers should be true saviors and not the destroyers of the state (Plato IV).
Saving rather than destroying the state implies maintaining its stable continued existence and, according to Plato, a wise philosopher-king who values knowledge more than power would create a perfectly stable society (Prior 125). Thus, one may argue that, while Platos ideal state is not superior to other forms of political organization from a strictly logical perspective, it still has comparative advantages in purely practical terms. Even if the argument for philosopher-kings is logically unsatisfactory, their rule would still be a preferable alternative if it could offer stability unachievable in democracies.
However, Plato undermines this potential objection himself in his discussion of the different types of government. He does that when discussing how a timocracy a type of state guided by honor and governed by military leaders arises from an aristocracy, of the imaginary government of the best and wisest. He states outright that even the perfect constitution as envisaged in the Republic will not last forever, but will in time be dissolved (Plato VIII). According to him, it would happen when the ruling philosopher-king proves unable to raise decent successor due to a miscalculation of the proper time for breeding the guardians Arruzza 115)
. Thus, even the idealized wise ruler, as represented in Platos treatise, is not immune to mistakes, and, more importantly, these mistakes inevitably bring the end of Platos perfect government. As a result, the rule of the wise comes to an inglorious end with the same assuredness as the very democracy Plato criticizes for its instability and propensity for civil unrest. Considering this, one may hardly agree that it offers greater stability to the citizens of the state.
As one can see, Platos case for the rule of philosopher-kings as a preferable alternative to democracy is mostly unconvincing. The Greek philosopher identifies the main fault of democracy as undermining power structures, but his companions quickly note that the impact of his ideas is precisely the same. To explain the difference, Plato points out that a philosopher-king would destroy unjust hierarchies and promote the just ones, unlike the democratic leaders who lack the knowledge of true justice. Yet this strict separation of people into two categories based on their supposed ability to see forms eventually leads Plato to craft a self-enclosed definition of justice.
Since self-enclosed definitions are logically wrong, Platos argument for the rule of philosopher-kings appears unconvincing. One can still argue for the reign of philosopher-kings based on stability it is supposed to provide, but Plato undermines this counter-argument himself by noting that his imagined government is also prone to decay. Thus, the Republic offers no decisive argument in favor of Platos ideal political order.
Works Cited
Arruzza, Cinzia. A Wolf in the City: Tyranny and the Tyrant in Platos Republic. Oxford UP, 2019.
Plato. The Republic. Translated by Benjamin Jovett. Project Gutenberg. Web.
Prior, William J. Virtue and Knowledge: An Introduction to Ancient Greek Ethics. Routledge, 2017.
In the course of history, various philosophers have attempted to define justice and distinguish its major components. This paper is aimed at examining the ideas expressed by Thrasymachus. He is one of the characters included in The Republic by Plato. He poses a significant challenge to Socrates, who tries to elaborate his views on the ideal state. Overall, in Thrasymachus opinion, justice serves the interests of those people who occupy the positions of authority; furthermore, this set of rules does not benefit those people who follow them.
It is necessary to elaborate his arguments in greater detail and explain why his views exemplify moral skepticism. Additionally, this paper will include the evaluation of Thrasymachus opinions. On the whole, these ideas cannot be fully accepted because there are examples showing that community members can make the rulers consider the interests of various stakeholders.
Furthermore, Thrasymachus interpretation of justice can undermine the efficiency of the state and deprive the elites of their credibility. This is the main thesis that should be discussed more closely.
On the whole, Thrasymachus argues that justice can be viewed as the norms that are imposed on those people who are disempowered. Moreover, he believes that it serves the advantage of the stronger and the ruler (Plato 19). It primarily benefits those groups who were able to assume the positions of authority due to some reasons.
Additionally, he completely dismisses the idea that individuals who are not included in the elite group are able to derive any benefits from being just. These are the core arguments that Thrasymachus advances. One should also demonstrate how this philosopher perceives the ethical norms established in the community.
Thrasymachus views exemplify moral skepticism because he challenges the assumption according to which morality is supposed to benefit every member of the society or at least the majority. More likely, it is driven by the needs and priorities of the rulers. Therefore, there is practically no reason for acting in an ethical way.
In particular, a person may comply with the established norms only to avoid the punishment that can be imposed on him/her. This view on morality and justice contradicts the modern views on this issue. For example, one can speak about the ideas premised on the social contract theories. They imply that community members are able to reach an agreement and identify a set of rules that can benefit different stakeholders (Williams, 84).
Additionally, one can also mention the Rawlsian model, which is known as the veil of ignorance. According to it, legislators should introduce norms that can maximize the welfare of different community members and eliminate risks to which they can be exposed. Thrasymachus rejects these models. Thus, one should examine the strengths and weaknesses of his assumptions.
Certainly, Thrasymachus ideas cannot be completely dismissed since community members differ in their ability to influence the decisions of policy-makers. Some of them can influence the ruling elites with the help of their financial resources. In this case, one can speak about the impact of lobbying activities. Additionally, the interests of stakeholders do not necessarily coincide.
In fact, these people can enter into conflicts with one another. The key problem is that sometimes, some social groups can be discriminated against on the basis of their race, ethnicity, or religion. Apart from that, one can certainly refer to the totalitarian and autocratic regimes that do not explain the benefits of the norms that they impose on citizens. These examples can be used to justify the opinions expressed by Thrasymachus.
Nevertheless, there are many cases that contradict these assumptions. In particular, one should mention that in the most advanced countries, the ruling elites are made accountable to the community. Moreover, they can be viewed as administrators, rather than rulers. Additionally, it is possible to mention the counter-argument advanced by Socrates, who notes that Thrasymachus perception of justice can undermine the efficiency of the state. As a result, ruling elites can eventually lose their credibility as well as power.
Thus, even if ruling classes are driven only by their selfish interests, they have to consider the needs of the community in order to retain their legitimacy as well as the loyalty of other people. This is one of the paradoxes that should be recognized, and Thrasymachus does not speak about this problem. These are the main limitations of this skeptical view on justice and morality.
On the whole, these examples illustrate the main peculiarities of moral skepticism. Such thinkers, as Thrasymachus, are highly critical of justice since it allegedly benefits only a limited number of people who can be viewed as the ruling classes. Yet, modern societies have reached the stage of development when the elites are required to consider the interests of different stakeholders in order to retain their legitimacy.
Admittedly, the concerns expressed by Thrasymachus bear some relevance to the modern-day communities. In particular, these critical views are useful for questioning the motives of policy-makers. Nevertheless, in many cases, this skepticism is not fully justified because it does not explain the actions of the elites.
Works Cited
Plato. The Republic, New York: Hackett Publishing, 1992. Print.
Williams, D. Rousseaus Social Contract: An Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Print.