Category: Plato

Introduction/Thesis statement

One of the reasons why Platos Apology is being commonly referred to as such that represents a high discursive value is that in it, Plato succeed in outlining the method of a dialectical inquiry, originated by Socrates. This method is being concerned with cross-examining argumentative claims for the purpose of defining the extent of their logical legitimacy (Barrett, 2001). In this paper, I will aim to show how Socrates deployed the earlier mentioned method, while ensuring the soundness of his legal line of defense. I will also aim to explore the validity of a suggestion that, while pointing out that no one is wiser than Socrates, the Oracle of Delphi meant to say that people are being just as ignorant as the philosopher in question.

Analytical part

The reason why Socrates ended up facing the court at Athenes is that he was accused of doubting the divine powers of the citys gods  hence, corrupting the youth of this Greek city-polis. In other words, this accusation rested upon the assumption that Socrates considered himself an utterly wise individual, which in turn caused him to embrace a rather arrogant attitude towards the very notion of divinity (Howland, 2008). While addressing this particular claim, on the part of his accusers, Socrates pointed out to the fact that the Oracle of Delphi has indeed confirmed his presumed wisdom, Chaerephon& asked if there were anyone wiser than I. Now the Pythia (Oracle) replied that there was no one wiser (21a). Being a humble individual, Socrates could not quite agree with the Oracle. Therefore, in order to be able to substantiate his disagreement with the Oracle, in this respect, Socrates decided to prove that he could not possibly be considered the wisest man of all. In its turn, this had set him on the quest of finding individuals that he could expose being much more wiser than himself.

However, the more Socrates was socializing with the presumed wise men, the more it was becoming clear to him that they were not wise, at all. This is because the Socrates close examination of people, commonly believed to be wise, revealed them as such that were taking pride in being regarded all-knowing. Given the fact that the notions of wisdom and vanity are incompatible, it does not come as a particular surprise that Socrates eventually came to a conclusion that being famed for wiseness and being a wise man de facto, are two different things. In fact, Socrates realized that the extent of ones actual wisdom correlates with his or her fame for being wise in a counter-geometrical progression, Those who had the most reputation seemed to me to be almost the most deficient& and others who were of less repute seemed to be superior men (22a). Then, Socrates considered the possibility of finding wisdom among poets, as the individuals known for their ability to reflect upon the essence of the surrounding reality in a particularly insightful manner.

They, however, turned out being just as arrogant as the self-proclaimed wise philosophers, with whom Socrates conversed earlier, There was hardly a man present (among poets), one might say, who would not speak better than they about the poems they themselves had composed (22b). In its turn, this prompted Socrates to consider the possibility that the true wisdom should be sought among socially non-prominent peasants and manual laborers, as those who had no objective reasons to be endowed with the sense of vanity, in the first place. Nevertheless, it did not take Socrates to experience an utter frustration, in this respect, as well. This is because, even though that many of these people did prove themselves thoroughly knowledgeable in their professional fields, they wrongly thought that this was entitling them with the right to land their opinions, regarding the subject matters that remained well beyond the sphere of their competence.

As Socrates noted, The good artisans also seemed to me to have the same failing as the poets; because of practicing his art well, each one thought he was very wise in the other most important matters (22d). After having realized that there were indeed no thoroughly wise people, in the conventional sense of this word, Socrates came to a conclusion that, in order for just about anyone to be considered wise de facto, he or she may never cease stressing out its ignorance. Given the fact that, even before being brought to the court, Socrates continued to act in an intellectually honest and yet humble manner, while never skipping an opportunity to admit its lack of knowledge of how the universe actually works, it dawned upon this Greek philosopher that the Oracles words did in fact make a perfectly good sense.

Apparently, it was specifically Socratess willingness to acknowledge that, under no circumstances he could be deemed wise, which established objective preconditions for him to be considered as such  whatever ironic it may sound. Hence, Socratess interpretation of Oracles suggestion, The fact is, gentlemen, it is likely that the god is really wise and by his oracle means this: Human wisdom is of little or no value (23a). While pointing out that no one is wiser than Socrates, the Oracle wanted to say that, regardless of what happened to be the essence of peoples opinion of themselves, they are being equally ignorant in their judgements about the surrounding reality.

Therefore, contrary to what Socratess accusers were implying, there can be no rationale in believing that wise men are predetermined to strive to oppose gods. Quite on the contrary  because, as Socrates illustrated, the notion of wisdom is being synonymous with the notion of humbleness, wise individuals cannot be actively striving to deny the gods, by definition.

In the light of what account for the realities of a post-industrial living, Socratess view on wisdom may appear somewhat inconsistent. After all, these realities are being concerned with the process of scientists continuing to reveal the conceptual fallaciousness of the very notion of divinity, especially in regards to religion-based assumption that there must be a metaphysical purpose to peoples existence. As Dawkins (1976) noted, We are survival machines  robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes (p. 2). This, however, is far from being the case, because the same realities suggest the discursive legitimacy of how Socrates went about substantiating his vision of wisdom.

As it was mentioned earlier, Socrates believed that ones existential humbleness can be well considered an indication of the concerned individuals wisdom. Yet, contrary to what many people believe, the notion of humbleness does not necessarily presuppose ones endowment with fatalistic attitudes towards life. In order to be defined a humble (wise) individual, one must be willing to consider the possibility that his or her worldviews may not be thoroughly objective. What it means is that the humble (wise) peoples foremost psychological characteristic is their percepual open-mindedness and intellectual flexibility. And, it is specifically on the account of open-minded and intellectually flexible people, that the continuation of cultural and technological progress is possible.

The validity of Socratess line of reasoning, in regards to what can be considered the indication of ones wisdom, can also be explored within the context of what causes the system of education in Western countries to grow progressively inefficient. After all, it does not represent much of a secret that, in these countries, the majority of most successful graduates from schools, colleges and universities, consist of individuals, commonly referred to as nerds (Bishop et al., 2003). Even though that the term nerd has long ago been deemed politically incorrect, it nevertheless remains conceptually sound. Essentially, this term implies the concerned individuals inability to effectively address lifes basic challenges  despite the fact that he or she possess an extensive knowledge in the narrow field of its professional competence. As the realities of todays living indicate, it now represents a commonplace practice to refer to these people as being utterly wise  not the least because many of them wear glasses. Yet, if assessed through the lenses of Socratic dialectics, this practice appears thoroughly unsubstantiated. This because ones possession of an abstract knowledge should never be fetishized to an extent of representing a thing in itself.

What also makes the Socratess view on wisdom relevant, within the context of what appear to be the implications of currently predominant socio-political discourses, is the fact that it suggests that truly wise decisions must necessarily be simple. After all, simplicity has been traditionally regarded as an epitome of truthfulness. This is exactly the reason why Socrates began his defense-speech by making it clear to the audience that, while arguing his case, he would refrain from indulging in sophisticate rhetorics, I urgently beg and beseech you if you hear me making my defense with the same (simple) words with which I have been accustomed to speak both in the market place at the bankers tables (17c).

Unfortunately, even today many people do not quite realize that simplicity is the foremost key to ensuring the soundness of a particular line of argumentation, which is why they tend associate the sophistically sounding but essentially meaningless rhetorics with wisdom (Lai, 1998). If it was not the case, there would not be now the hordes of social scientists and experts in public relations in Western countries, whose professional careers solely depend on their ability to come up with pretentiously sophisticate but utterly unintelligible speeches. It is needless to mention, of course, that this situation can hardly be considered thoroughly appropriate.

Conclusion

I believe that the earlier provided line of argumentation, in regards to what should be considered the actual meaning of the Oracles suggestion, and also in regards to what accounts for the Socrate speechs discursive relevance, is being fully consistent with the papers initial thesis. Apparently, even though that this speech has failed in preventing Socrates from being sentenced to death, it nevertheless succeeded marvelously in providing the representatives of next generations with an in-depth insight, as to what the notion of wisdom actually stands for.

References

Barrett, J. (2001). Platos Apology: Philosophy, rhetoric, and the world of myth. The Classical World, 95 (1), 3-30.

Bishop, J. et al. (2003). Nerds and freaks: A theory of student culture and norms. Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 6 (2), 141-213.

Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Howland, J. (2008). Platos Apology as tragedy. The Review of Politics, 70 (4), 519-546.

Lai, M. (1998). The intellectuals deaf-mute, or (how) can we speak beyond postcoloniality? Cultural Critique, 9, 31-58.

Plato. (1966). Plato in twelve volumes, vol. 1. Translated by H. North Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann Ltd.

Introduction

The role of government and the nature of people have been discussed for centuries. This paper will analyze three famous works of political philosophy that operate under the idea of a social contract.

Platos Republic

Plato proposed his work Republic in approximately 380 BCE. It quickly became a highly influential text of political philosophy. The text is presented as a Socratic dialogue spread over ten books. Plato covers a wide variety of ideas from justice, to government, and even what is an appropriate story for children. The first five books are the most relevant to this paper due to their focus on the utopian state that Plato proposes. Socrates talks about a fevered state. He presents a luxurious city with a new kind of government that focuses on a class system where a guardian class is responsible for the protection and leadership of the state (Plato 37). These guardians would need to be strictly educated from their birth to be virtuous and physically fit (Plato 68). In Platos opinion, because the guardian class would be the judge of the people, there would be no need for laws, and this would make it easier to run the city. Plato believed that people would feel just when they fulfill their appropriate roles while giving what they owe to the city. Plato says, our aim in founding the State was not the disproportionate happiness of any one class, but the greatest happiness of the whole (98).

Unfortunately, I cannot see this as a viable form of government due to a multitude of reasons. Although laws can be unjust, redundant, and even malicious, they can provide a base standard of justice. Leaving everything to the judgment of the guardian class and philosopher-king is bound to provide uneven judgments because the personality and life experiences of every judge would be different. I believe Plato did not see this as a possible scenario due to his perception of education being the main decision-making factor. Overall he provides both progressive and bizarre ideas. Plato argues for the same level of education being applied to both sexes in the guardian class, which is very progressive. On the other hand, separating children from their parents in that same class just does not seem like a just action, even with his arguments. Life in this society could be fulfilling, but it is so foreign that it is hard to imagine how it would work in reality.

Hobbes Leviathan

Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes was first published in 1951. It proposes a similar state united by a social contract. Named after a great sea beast of the Bible, it describes a commonwealth ruled by a sovereign power with the absolute authority granted to ensure the protection of the state. People of such a state would make up the body of the creature, with the sovereign serving as the head (Hobbes 138). Hobbes described human nature to be in a state of war of every man against every man (79), and that this state is so horrific that people have to unite in a commonwealth like a leviathan to get away from it.

There is a variety of similarities between Platos Republic and Hobbes Leviathan. Both of them argue that a governmental system is required to keep people safe from their destructive desires. However, their perceptions of human nature are different from one another and lead to different roles assigned to different people. Plato can be described as being optimistic about the nature of people, almost to a fault. On the other hand, Hobbes has the opposite view. This situation results in two similar, but inherently different political philosophies. Both Plato and Hobbes talk about the importance of hierarchy. Platos idea of morally superior philosopher kinds can be argued to be similar to the Leviathans sovereign idea. But unlike Plato, Hobbes finds that people make their decisions according to their individual perceptions, which make it impossible to call any truth universal. This belief leads Hobbes to believe that the government has no superior morality and therefore, should not be trying to pass moral or spiritual understanding. He completely separates government and morality. The only role of his state is to maintain the rights of its citizens and prevent their bodily harm. Surprisingly, Hobbes writes this about equality yet when all is reckoned together, the difference between man and man is not so considerable (76). He sees no difference between the physically or mentally strong and the weak. This could be seen as another reason for the differences in their states. Hobbes state does not provide moral enforcement but instead focuses on law enforcement. People in his state would live a hard life in exchange for protection.

Lockes Two Treatises of Government

John Locke proposes another state of government based on the idea of the social contract in his essays Two Treatises of Government, which was published in 1689. The first treatise was written in opposition to patriarchalism, and the second outlines his personal political beliefs and how a state can be created based on them. The most important notion that Locke proposes concerns his theory of natural law and rights. He does not share the pessimistic views of human nature that Hobbes had, and instead, sees people as social creatures who have the right to live and be protected justly and impartially. Locke writes that people honor their obligations and keep their promises when they are in the state of nature (Locke 60). As examples, he cites the American frontier, Rome, Venice, and Soldania (Locke 111). He believes that in such a state, people live in peace due to it being socially acceptable for the people to punish those who have done wrong against them (Locke 149). His idea of a social contract revolves around giving up this right to retribution in return for impartial justice backed by a powerful force. In this contract, people would retain the right to life and liberty while gaining the right to just and impartial protection of their property (Locke 141).

John Lockes ideas cannot be farther from the ones outlined by Hobbes. While he is not completely optimistic about the nature of people as Plato was, Locke has a much more positive outlook on this issue. Locke writes, every man being, as has been showed, naturally free, and nothing being able to put him into subjection to any earthly power, but only his own consent (Locke 157). Unlike Hobbes, Locke finds people to be free by nature, with certain rights that should be protected. In contrast, Hobbes saw that people in his state should give up all of their rights in exchange for protection. Although in some way they do have similarities. For example, they both find that the main role of the state is to ensure justice. This belief is not unlike the idea of Platos Republic. However, Hobbes believed that the government decides what is just, and Locke talks about the inherent rights of people. Living in his state would not differ too much from our current world.

Conclusion

Ideas about the nature of people have been changing throughout history. Sometimes they are forged by the philosophers upbringing or the state of the world. These ideas form their beliefs of how the world should be run. I hope that the future will bring a new system of the state that would be appropriate for the modern world.

Works Cited

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Simon and Schuster, 2013.

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. John Wiley & Sons, 2014.

Plato. The Republic. My Ebook Publishing House, 2016.

Introduction

In the Apology, Socrates had to refute two groups of accusations brought against him by his accusers. First, he was accused of making constant inquiries into the earth and sky because of his immense curiosity. Secondly, he was accused of corrupting the youth of Athens and worshipping other gods other than gods commissioned by the state (Apology 18b-18c). The accusations were grouped into two classes. These included the old accusations and the new accusations. According to Socrates, the old accusations resulted from peoples hatred because of his immense wisdom. The new accusations were brought against him by Meletus. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates meant to be condemned. I will use his belief in other gods other than those commissioned by the state and his corruption of youth to make my argument. First, I will discuss Socrates belief in other supernatural gods, and then discuss how he corrupted the youths of Athens with his impiety, showing how they validate my arguments.

Socrates Accusations by Meletus

Socrates was sentenced to death after being found guilty on several charges (Brickhouse and Smith, 1989, p.62). The main accusations that played a significant role in Socrates death sentence were the accusations of impiety and corrupting the young people of Athens. Meletus accused Socrates of two wrongs. First, corrupting the young people of Athens with his impiety. Secondly, believing in other supernatural gods other than the gods commissioned by the state of Athens (Apology 24b-24c).

Socrates Impiety And Corruption Of Athenian Youths

The main accusation brought against Socrates by Meletus was that Socrates did not believe in the state gods, but other supernatural beings (Brickhouse and Smith, 1989, p.64). Meletus was not consistent in advancing this accusation against Socrates throughout the trial. However, that did not prevent the jury form convicting Socrates. The charges were severe because impiety was a serious crime in the state of Athens

The state of Athens had adopted a law that was used in prosecuting people who did not believe in the state gods or people who taught about other gods that were not recognized by the state (Russon and Fagan, 2009, p.69). When the jury decided to prosecute Socrates with a death sentence, they were referring to a law that was established during the commencement of the Peloponnesian War. The state of Athens treated victims of impiety with harshness because of two main reasons. First, impiety resulted in disasters that were a sign of the gods dissatisfaction with the actions of the people. Secondly, impiety resulted in immorality, which attracted severe punishment form the gods (Grube, 2002, p.73). Athenians considered immorality as a direct result of impiety (Apology 19c). For example, in the play Clouds, Socrates stated that:

What gods do you intend to swear by? To start with, the gods hold no currency with us. (Apology 19c).

This statement was proof enough that Socrates did not give adequate reverence to the Athenian gods. Since Athenians believed that impiety resulted in immorality, it was legally right for an Athenian citizen to be punished for impiety.

From the Apology, it was evident that Socrates was impious because he did not believe in the Athenian gods (Grube, 2002, p.76). He did not refer to any Athenian god in his entire defense. However, he only referred to other gods that he claimed were guiding him. Socrates references to gods in the Apology were general and did not refer to any specific Athenian god (Grube, 2002, p.77). There was no direct defense from Socrates on charges of impiety. Outside the Apology, Socrates impiety was evident in the Euthyphro. He stated that he found great difficulty in comprehending the different narratives of Athenian gods (Grube, 2002, p.78). After finding the impiety of Socrates, it then became easier to determine how he was corrupting the youth of Athens. In the Euthyphro, Socrates challenged the Athenian youths understanding of piety. He did not agree with their great reverence for the Athenian elders and the social structure that governed their lives at the time. Socrates defense against the charge of corrupting the youth was superficial. In his defense, Socrates stated that:

If I make one of my associates wicked I run the risk of being harmed by him (Apology 25e).

However, this statement was not convincing and did not reveal Socrates innocence. It revealed that Socrates was aware that, through his teachings, he was corrupting the youth. He failed to put that into consideration because he had other motives. Socrates stated that:

If I corrupt some young men and have corrupted others, then surely some of them who have grown older and realized that I gave them bad advice when they were young should now themselves come up here to accuse me and avenge themselves (Apology 33d).

Socrates claim was ironical because Plato stated that dialectical training corrupted the youth significantly. According to Plato, people who underwent dialectical training were full of lawlessness (Brickhouse and Smith, 2002, p.49). In the Apology, Socrates admitted that he taught people about various issues that were considered controversial (Apology 3a). It was evident from Platos description of the effect of dialectical training that Socrates corrupted the youths by his teachings. He was not sincere in his defense, which revealed his arrogance and disrespect. His impiety went against the Athenian way of life and warranted execution. His responses in the Apology revealed that he expected the punishment that he received.

Socrates Belief In Other Gods

In the Apology, Meletus accused Socrates of failure to believe in the Athenian gods and introducing other supernatural gods (Helm, 1997, p.56). In his defense, Socrates claimed that the charges were motivated by slander and hatred by his accusers. He claimed that:

These people are ambitious, violent, and numerous; they are continually and convincingly talking about me; they have been filling your ears for a long time with vehement slanders against me (Russon and Fagan, 2009, p.78).

Meletus accused Socrates of believing in other gods other than those of the city. This accusation resulted from Socrates claim of receiving guidance from another divine god other than the gods of the state. Socrates argued that his bad reputation did not result from being an atheist or from corrupting the youth of the city but from his immense wisdom. Socrates narrated a story of an Oracle that had told one of his friends that he (Socrates) was the wisest person in Athens (Helm, 1997, p.57). That motivated Socrates to question the wisdom of Athenian men who were considered wise. He questioned theologians, poets and politicians in search for someone who was wiser than he was.

He found out that the people who thought of themselves wise were the most ignorant, and those who thought of themselves ignorant were the most knowledgeable (Russon and Fagan, 2009, p.83). Socrates believed in god, which was the main reason why he withstood great suffering. In addition, he believed in existence of other gods other than those commissioned by the state, and believed that he was a messenger that God had chosen. Socrates claimed that since he believed in a divine being that guided him, that was enough proof that he believed in supernatural beings. This was contrary to Meletus claim that Socrates did not believe in any gods. In his defense, Socrates claimed that it was impossible for anyone to believe in human things without believing in human beings. In addition, he claimed that it was impossible for anyone to believe in divine matters without believing in divine beings. Therefore, according to Meletus accusations, Socrates believed in supernatural beings even though not those commissioned by the Athenian state.

He considered himself as a blessing among the people of Athens that was sent by the gods (Helm, 1997, p.58). To illustrate that he was a blessing from the gods, he compared himself to a Gadfly. He claimed that just as a Gadfly prevented a horse from becoming sluggish, so did his teachings prevent the people of Athens from becoming corrupt, intolerant and sluggish. Socrates service to the city of Athens had resulted from his response to the commands of the citys gods. However, his belief in other gods resulted in accusations against him. Socrates expressed his belief in other gods and showed little respect to the gods that Athenians believed in. Socrates claimed that Meletus had little understanding of his worship practices, and that was the main reason why he brought the charges against him. The main reason why Socrates advanced his inquiry into the wisdom of the people of Athens was that he believed that god was using him to deliver important messages to the Athenian people (Helm, 1997, p.61).

Conclusion

Socrates was sentenced to death after being found guilty on several charges. The main accusations that played a significant role in Socrates death sentence were the accusations of impiety and corrupting the young people of Athens. Meletus accused Socrates of corrupting the young people of Athens with his impiety and believing in other supernatural gods other than those commissioned by the state of Athens. The state of Athens treated victims of impiety with harshness because of two main reasons. First, impiety resulted in punishment from the gods who brought disasters to the people.

Secondly, impiety resulted in immorality, which attracted punishment form the gods. Athenians considered immorality as a direct result of impiety. Socrates believed in god, which was the main reason why he withstood great suffering. In addition, he believed in existence of other gods other than those commissioned by the state and believed that he was a messenger that gods had chosen. There was no direct defense from Socrates on charges of impiety. His impiety went against the Athenian way of life and warranted execution. His responses in the apology revealed that he expected the punishment that he received. Socrates was found guilty and was sentenced to death.

References

Brickhouse, T., and Smith, N. (1989). Socrates on Trial. London: Oxford University Press.

Brickhouse, T., and Smith, D. (2002). The Trial and Execution of Socrates: Sources and Controversies. London: Oxford University Press.

Grube, G. (2002). Five dialogues: Euthyphro, apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo. New York: Hacket Publishing.

Helm, J. (1997). Plato : Apology. New York: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers.

Plato. (1901). The apology. New York: United Holdings Group.

Russon, J., and Fagan, P. (2009). Reexamining Socrates in the Apology. New York: Northwestern University Press.

Introduction

The world of a man is full of attitudinal features towards every single matter and creates in him many inner flashes of somehow versatile nature. The ancient, particularly antique, philosophers and simply wise men intended everyone to mind their traits of character and to nurture the good sides of it. It is not accidental actually that all evil in the world comes from a man. That is why one should refer to ancient philosophy in order to consult the righteousness in actions. Platos theory of natural depravity can help in resolving of this issue. The concept of the theory states that inexplicable manifestations of ominous attitude towards anybody or anything are caused naturally. The question remains to be answered whether it is a sort of fiction or a real occurrence in a mans life?

Main body

First, Plato thought that a man is a symbiosis of tripartite spirit, soul and body (The nature of Man 1) displaying the development of him concerned with three directions. It is necessary to mention that this thought was not new for the ancient people. Even in times of ancient Jews and peoples which surrounded them the core accent consisted in the purity of spirit, soul and body, but most of all they emphasized the concept of spiritual life minding that in this sphere lay the roots of the entire life of a man.

Is a depravity factually concerns every human being? The historical cut shows the examples of people in various epochs and in various countries with evil intentions which helped them. Some of them are Genghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, Hitler, Stalin, and even Roman Popes who provoked one fo the most bloody venture in the history of mankind known as Crusades.

Plato saw the facts of peoples depravity as a natural phenomenon of a mans psychological coloring counting up the surroundings in which he was developed or people with which he communicated. Plato said in one of his treatise: man was born with natural depravity and was basically an untrained animal who needed societys help to structure, educate and fulfill his needs. (The nature of Man 2)

Indeed this statement points out the notion of a mans nature. Thus, looking at what Plato said and at the experience of mankind one can see the possibility of a man to strive at the evil side of him, unless a human being rejects the norms and rules of social life. Moreover, a man being a biosocial creature cannot fully go without the society where he can get the main principles and ideas for life. The commissions of crime which can be distinguished nowadays by their levels in different countries is not surprising. On the other hand, the lower level of them testifies the better development of a definite society as of the humane side of it. Though, the features of evil attitude in human beings can definitely be suppressed by good inclinations.

To conclude, the history of mankind displays the bilateral attitudes of a man: good and evil. The thing is that according to Platos theory of natural depravity in human beings agrees with the natural intentions of such traits in peoples characters. Evaluating all pros and cons the only way of resolving this inner danger in everyone is nurturing in the state, society, community the good policy maintaining the factors of mass culture and morality being the standpoints to prevent inexplicable evil in human beings.

Works cited

Reinhold, Roy A. The Nature of Man. 2005. Web.

Platos conception of beauty and his theory of art in the book Platos Symposium not only gives the reader some insights into the theory of art when Diotima discusses forms of beauty, but it focuses on diverse perspectives of beauty. The book has both philosophical and literary merit, unlike Platos previous works which examine the theory of forms with a lesser force than the symposium. In this book, the reader is taken through Platos rejection of romanticized sexual love because of his value for wisdom and beauty(Strauss 118). According to Plato in the symposium, the most valuable philosophical pursuit is the search for wisdom and that is why he values philosophy more than other art like comedy which is typified by Aristophanes, and tragedy which is exemplified by Socrates.

The author plans his dialogue in this text that epitomizes the social life in Athens to highlight the fact that philosophy is close to daily life activities. Philosophy expresses the highest levels of the love and desires that drive the daily activities of a human being. The beauty of life lies in philosophy because it helps people to see things clearly and to appreciate the various art forms that nature has bestowed upon us. He suggests that our attraction to beautiful things and all forms of captivating arts including music and films are driven by a philosophy that provides an overt direction to what people desire.

One of the speakers in this text is called Diotima and she asserts that love is the pursuance of beauty in a gradual incline from specific to general. This gradual exposition helps people to understand all types of beauty. She asserts that even the most ignorant soul is attracted to beauty at a certain level and most people dont realize that what makes a person beautiful is what other people perceive to be an idea of a higher form of beauty. This means that people are usually attracted to the beauty in a person and not the person themselves. However; if our love is focused, we will be satisfied by beautiful people and also seek beauty in more generalized forms like in well-ordered political systems, social and economic structures. Higher levels of beauty work in more generalized forms and according to the author of this text, grasping all forms of beauty helps people to grasp the basic reality. This reality concept holds that personal experience is a shadowy world, far removed from the ideal and permanent forms of art found in the world. This theory of art is also present in Platos earlier works including Phaedo and The Republic and the conclusion that can be made from all these readings is that the easiest way of understanding art forms is through the love of beauty.

The Platonic dialogue in The Symposium epitomizes the progression that Diotima describes as pursuance of beauty in highly refined and generalized forms and each speech in the symposium takes the reader closer to the comprehension of the real nature of love. One of the interlocutors in this platonic dialogue called Phaedrus describes a simple zeal for the value of love while the second interlocutor called Pausanias makes a clever distinction between good and bad forms of love. Eryximachus, the third interlocutor in this dialogue goes out of the way to encompass other fields of inquiry while Aristophanes focuses on the urgency of love. Agathon uses refined art of rhetoric to describe love while Socrates downplays the assertions made by all these interlocutors. It is important to note that most of these interlocutors represent various art forms including comedy and tragedy but Socrates trumps these art forms in this dialogue to assert the fact that philosophy is more important to the well-being of a person than all the other artistic disciplines.

The Symposium test that was originally written in Greek has some direct puns that increase our understanding of the connection between love, desire, and philosophy but unfortunately, translation of these puns water down their effects (Hunter 89). Eros is a Greek word used in this dialogue to mean love and is the basis of the word erotic that describes sexual desire and Socrates is therefore coyly explaining how Diotima taught everything that is erotic in the life and this coyness is enhanced when the reader discovers that Diotima of Mantinea was a legendary prostitute in Athenian tales. This implies that Socrates was seeking sexual favors from Diotima but instead of granting him his sexual desires, Diotima teaches him about beauty and wisdom and this further reinforces that the search for wisdom refines a soul. This makes Diotima be the model of beauty in this platonic dialogue and this is the beauty that every lover seeks. The Symposium is full of high levels of explicit homoerotic content but this does not mean that the characters are homo or bisexual because the Athenian society did not consider sexual preferences as defining traits of a person. The series of speeches that praise the concept of love and beauty mirror Diotimas explanation of some mysterious circumstances where she claims that truth reveals itself in a careful ascent and this is reinforced by Socratic speeches in this platonic dialogue. These speeches create a staggered approach towards the truth and in The Symposium; it is evident that Socrates loves wisdom and beauty though he does not have both wisdom and beauty. That is why he represents love in the book which is described by Diotima as the spirit that mediates between men and the gods (Dolby 44). Plato in The Symposium asserts that love looks for happiness, beauty, and wisdom, just like Socrates and this means that all those who follow him will fulfill their lifelong desires because they will pursue wisdom. Acquisition of wisdom is typified by Diotima and not Socrates who argues that love encompasses all forms of desires though most people restrict it to the desire that exists between two people.

While Plato appreciates the role of various art forms that create beauty in society, he emphasizes that these art forms may not be as important as philosophical ideals such as wisdom. He, therefore, asserts that pursuance of wisdom is vital in human life because the acquisition of wisdom will by default help human beings to enjoy all the beauty in the world created by the various forms of art including comedy, tragedy, and medicine. According to Plato, pursuance of the beauty of art in the absence of wisdom is an exercise in futility because wisdom enables people to decipher the philosophical ideas behind the beauty of art. Simply put, Plato makes a relevant point that the beauty of life lies in philosophy because it helps people to see things clearly and to appreciate the various art forms that nature has bestowed upon the people of this world. Plato suggests that people are drawn to everything that is beautiful and all captivating forms including music and films are driven by a philosophy that provides an overt direction towards what people desire. Plato emphatically points out that more beauty exists in more generalized forms and grasping the general forms of beauty helps people to grasp the fundamental reality that personal experience is a shadowy world that is far removed from the ideal and permanent forms of art found in the world. The symposium has the same levels of artistic and philosophical meat, unlike his previous works that were plain philosophical and had no place for the art and beauty of this world. The artistic force of the symposium is enhanced by the close examination of the theory of art and the lively, entertaining dialogues between the different interlocutors who are sharp and witty. The symposium is therefore the most liberal and the most though-provoking work that Plato has ever written.

Though the book ends up upholding philosophy over the arts, its attitude towards the theory of the arts and beauty makes the book a very terrific read. The beauty of the book is enhanced by mysterious myths given by Aristophanes and the drunken antics exhibited by Alcibiades which are very entertaining. The book also gives insights into elements of sexual attraction and courtship in ancient Greece, which are presented in a clear manner that focuses on their dynamism.

Works Cited

Dolby, Andrew. Rediscovering Homer. London: Norton, 2006.
Hunter, Richard. Platos Symposium. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Strauss, Leo. Platos Symposium. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.

In general, Platos The Allegory of the Cave and LeGuins The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas address the same theme  the truth and how it may affect peoples reality. In Platos dialogue, the prisoner who escapes the cave sees the reality and cannot perceive shadows shown in the cave in the same way as before. Similarly, the citizens of Omelas cannot stay in the city anymore after they know about the source of its happiness and harmony.

From a personal perspective, people should have a right to know the truth. Moreover, they should know it regardless of all challenges, struggles, additional circumstances, and conditions. In other words, the truth may be painful or knowledge may be connected with difficulties in life  the prisoner escaped from the cave cannot tolerate sunlight, and people in Omelas were shocked knowing about the child. However, staying unaware may lead to others suffering and apathy. That is why I believe that we should not stay in the cave or Omelas as in these cases, we support violence and injustice, stay indifferent to pain in favor of our wellbeing, or allow people to manipulate and control us.

It goes without saying that the majority of people fear the unknown cause staying unaware or without knowledge is frequently comfortable and safe while exposing oneself to the truth may be even dangerous. For instance, Plato supposes that people in the cave will not listen to an escaped person and may try to kill him thinking he has lost the truth instead of finding it. However, this fear should not affect our passion for knowledge, education, and truth. In addition, external forces or unpredictable events encourage or forces us to experience new things that lead us to the truth. Although the decision to perceive reality should be cognitive, these forces are necessary as well as people, like people in the cave, frequently do not want to explore the world.

Philosophers have always tried to bring out the truth about human nature as well as providing details of the psychological evolution of humanity. In their works, they expound on the essence of various aspects of human behavior. Most philosophers employ symbolism to create the general image of the aspect/behavior in question. A renowned Greek philosopher, Plato, did one such works-The Parable of the Cave. The parable elucidates the cause as well as the effect of limited knowledge to a society.

The parable is in the form of a conversation between Socrates and Glaucon, Platos brother. The conversation begins with Socrates asking Glaucon to imagine an underground cave inhabited by humans. The people, who have spent their life from childhood in the cave, have their necks and legs chained thus unable to move. There is a fire blazing in a distance above and behind the prisoners with a raised wall erected between the prisoners and the fire over which some marionette players show their puppets.

The prisoners are only able to see the shadow of the puppets on the wall of the cave-their only way of being acquainted to the outside world. All the prisoners do is to name the objects they see their shadows on the wall. Ones ability to judge the object remains as the only way to measure an individuals intellect. Consequently, the prisoners world revolves around the confines of the cave.

As the parable unfolds, one of the prisoners manages to get out of the cave. Since he was only familiar with the little light in the cave, the bright light of the outside world stands as a great challenge. However, he conquers all the challenges he faced in the outside world and manages to interact with the various elements of nature in the real world. Eventually he gathers the truth and he decides to share it with the prisoners in the cave. However, the prisoners greatly oppose the new truth about the world.

The parable obtains its meaning from the symbols that Plato employed. Among the symbols that Plato used are the puppets. A puppeteer manipulates a puppet in a way that it imitates events and activities that occur under different circumstances. The shadows of the puppets that appear on the wall of the cave are similarly imitations of the puppets thus of events that occur in reality. The shadows constitute the main source of ideas, from which the prisoners obtain their intellect. They greatly influence the thinking capabilities of the prisoners.

Therefore, their definition of the world depends entirely on their experiences as well as observations within the confines of the cave. Owing to this, we can say that the puppets represent or rather signify the various norms and beliefs that different societies hold.

Most people live as prisoners of these belief systems without questioning the integrity as well as the intentions of the people who came up with them. The puppeteer represents the members of a society who knowingly manipulate the beliefs of others. Just like the prisoners in the cave, many people may never get to see the puppeteers whose works make them to unknowingly live with limited knowledge of the truth.

The puppets may also signify the limited truth that people get from their environments. It is clear from the parable that the puppets were the main cause of the shadows on the wall. Additionally, the prisoners had their hands and necks tied rendering them helpless.

They could not move or even turn to have a view of the rest of the world except that within the cave. Their imprisonment shows that someone or a group of people did not want them to have access to any other source of information and knowledge other than the one they got from the puppets.

For Socrates to tailor such a scenario, he must have had in mind that the people who had taken the prisoners into captivity were entirely responsible for the propagation of the shadows on the wall, which was the sole source of information to the prisoners. They did not want them to access much information thus designed the kind of information that their prisoners would access which acted as the major source of their knowledge. The freed prisoner comes to understand the limitations of the information that prisoners in the cave rely on.

He gets exposure to the truth and learns that they were living in falsehood since all they had ever known and believed in were imitations of the real world. We can liken the people who had taken the prisoners into captivity to people especially some political leaders as well as religious leaders who deliberately try to convince their subjects/the public of what they know is charade. For some reason, such leaders use all means within their disposition to manipulate the minds of their followers to earn their loyalty.

Another significant symbol that Plato employed in the parable is fire. The fire is the source of the light that leads to the propagation of the shadows on the wall. The fire signifies the natural power of the human mind-the source of mans inner knowledge, which is universal.

According to Socrates, several factors govern ones ability to perceive things in the natural mindset. For instance, his/her distance from the truth. This explains why Plato brings out the distinction between the lives of the prisoners in the dark cave and those off their counterparts in the outside world. For one to gain the full potential of his/her mind, he/she has to shun all forms of mediocrity-the chains that bind the prisoners legs and necks.

It was only after one of the prisoners gained his freedom and got to see the fire that he was able to see the objects that had cast the shadows on the wall of the cave-the reality. The difference of the intensity of the light as depicted in the parable depends on an individuals distance from the fire/source of light. As the prisoner gets out of the cave the brightness of the light increases and he is able to get a different perception of the world.

Though he faced many challenges, he chose to believe in the reality of the world outside the cave thus was accustomed to the real truth. This closely relates to Father Augustines ideological content of his Catholic theology and faith. He urged people to seek not to understand that they may believe but should believe to understand.

When Socrates says that, they seem less real than shadows he means that what the prisoners had as their source of knowledge was far from the truth. The basis of their knowledge was unimaginable in a normal setting. When the freed prisoner comes to the outside world, the fire frightens him just because it is so intense.

This signifies the fear that people have in facing the reality. The prisoner was only familiar with a dark world, a world with limited knowledge. When he faces the source of the truth which he least expected, he gets afraid of the things he should go through to adjust to the new world. The source of the truth in most societies is education. It comes with different challenges, which frightens many people as in the case of the freed prisoners initial encounter with fire-the fear of the unknown.

Perhaps, none of the great philosophers and thinkers of the ancient period have had as great an influence on modern political thought as Plato. Schooled by Socrates in the art of dialecticism, Platos works use dichotomy to explore various problems of human affairs. This essay uses the translation of Platos Statesman as provided by Joseph Bright Kemp published by Forgotten books.com. In the Statesman, Plato addresses the all-important question of political leadership and this essay analyses Platos concept of what constitutes ideal political leadership and what qualities a statesman should possess.

The main thesis of Platos Statesman revolved around the ideals of political leadership and what sort of qualities should a statesman possess. Plato believed that to rule required special qualities, the quantification of which required a full inquiry. The questions that Plato asks are eternal and have contemporary value. The central query of whether a statesman should be a person well versed in sciences or liberal arts is a question as valid today.

Undoubtedly, political leadership that encompasses statesmanship cannot rely purely on science and not have a grounding in liberal arts. A technocrat can possibly build efficient roadways, and railways, but may not understand the social construct of his populace and may ultimately fail to provide the requisite leadership because of a lack of knowledge of liberal arts. History is full of examples of such leaders who despite their marked successes ultimately caused more damage to their countries because of their failure to appreciate or understand liberal arts.

Stalin is one such example, under whose tyrannical rule the Soviet Union rose to great military strength but developed a society fearful of its leader who, in the end, has been credited with the deaths of over 20 million Russians through purges, forced migrations, and imprisonments.

Obviously, such leaders had never read Plato. Plato extols the virtues of a statesman stating that it is not the power of the statesman that is important but his knowledge. Thus statesmanship is not just a science but an art and a statesmans art may be called either the art of managing a herd, or the art of collective management (Plato and Kemp 11). These are wise words indeed as, which can well be used in the modern world.

To further explain his treatise Plato uses the tool of dichotomy. Plato argues that to discover the real leader of men, there is a need to carry out subdivisions or use the analytical process of separating the herdsman from the herds. To do that art of management of men required further subdivision based on the principle of voluntary and compulsory (Plato and Kemp 37). Yet, to separate the leader from the led requires further refinement of the dialectical process.

Here Plato uses the example of the art of weaving (Plato and Kemp 41) as an art of entwining the warp and the woof. Just as weaving is a complex process, so is the art of statesmanship. Using the analogy of weaving Plato explains the cooperative and causal elements of governance and also the seven classes (Plato and Kemp 59) of human endeavor that the statesman would have to look at.

Plato then turns to the practical problems of governance and lawmaking and here Plato proves his realistic qualities as opposed to his idealism when he says that There can be no doubt that legislation is in a manner the business of a king, and yet the best thing of all is not that the law should rule but that a man should rule (Plato and Kemp 68). Plato reasons that this is essential because the law does not perfectly comprehend what is noblest and most just (Plato and Kemp 68).

These are real problems that afflict human societies the world over. There are many instances where despite knowing that a crime has been committed, the criminal goes scot-free under the due processes of law. At such times, leaders may, at times have to take actions outside the jurisdiction of law based on universal values of just actions. That such instances happen are a fact and here Plato is trying to say that a statesman must understand that there are many shades of grey that govern human affairs.

A perfectly simple can never be applied to a state of things which is reverse of the simple (Plato and Kemp 69). This statement applies perfectly to the present state of geo-politics where nothing is simple as it looks. Hence Platos aphorisms have contemporary relevance. A discourse is needed to discover the true statesman and such discourse can be achieved through a dialectical process that ultimately aims the improvement of us and others. In this dialectic, it becomes important to discuss the forms of government such as royalty, aristocracy, and democracy (Plato and Kemp 64). Whatever be the form of government, it can only be called a true government if the governors actually possess the science, and are not mere pretenders whether they rule according to law or without law&. (Plato and Kemp 67).

This observation is just as true in the modern world where there are many leaders, who do not deserve to lead and there are many who govern beyond the pale of the law. Here Plato is trying to explain the dichotomy of democracies, of those that observe laws and those that neglect the laws. This is an important statement as in the contemporary world; there are democracies that deliver (US, UK, France to name a few) and democracies that are defunct (Pakistan, Bangladesh to name some).

Plato also observes that democracy is the form in which to live is best (Plato and Kemp 83), a sentiment that is echoed by most communities in the world (if not their leaders). In the discourse, Plato offers some wise words on the relevance of both arts and science. The science of generalship is as important as is the art of advice for employing that science (Plato and Kemp 87).

Irrespective of the form of government, the statesman has to possess certain qualities. His chief characteristic is that he must possess the requisite knowledge. So great must be his knowledge, that he alone has the grasp of science, which is superior to law and written enactments. These sciences include those of generalship and law as also liberal arts such as a flawless gift of persuasion and oratory. A real statesman can never succeed if he does not possess these precepts of knowledge and attributes.

All qualities and values of human affairs are woven into the complex fabric of human affairs and it is the statesman who with his superior knowledge and qualities can weave the societal cloth and deliver just governance. Therefore statesmanship is both a science and an art. Therefore the web of political action requires a leader who is both courageous and careful (Plato and Kemp 100) who can manage all crises of human affairs in their correct perspective. A statesman would be one who can bind the freemen and slaves in the political fabric of his lands and bring forth happiness. Notwithstanding the prose, using words such as freemen and slaves, which was the political condition of his times, the main objective of the statesman, to provide for the happiness of his subjects holds true to date.

In conclusion, it can be said that the Statesman offers many useful pointers of governance and leadership which still have their relevance in the modern world. The author of this essay opines that Platos Statesman has certain relevance even today if read in context to the modern times and considering the conditions of the society during Platos time. Platos thesis that to be a statesman requires special attributes holds good even today. While Platos treatment of the subject using dialectics may not appeal to modern logical positivists and his allusions to a statesman being a sort of all-powerful philosopher-king may seem incongruent, the central tenet is just as relevant.

The challenges of the statesmanship of having to provide decisions both within and outside the pale of the law, of recognizing the relevance of shades of grey in human affairs, and of having to be both courageous and careful are all qualities and attributes which define a good leader or a good statesman in the modern world. One can criticize the dialectics of comparing men with beasts and bipeds with quadrupeds as being superfluous verbosity for developing an argument, it would be, in the opinion of the writer be quite relevant for the development of a philosophical argument in Platos time.

Works Cited

Plato and Joseph Bright Kemp. Statesman. Charlestone: Forgotten Books, 1952.

In light of the current political climate, do you feel that Plato is right that people who go into public office for motives of financial gain (or power gain) actually destroy the republic? Why or why not? Comment, by using current candidates (of either party,) if possible.

Personal involvement among the public offices have serious and complex consequences to a Republican Government. Persuading, inducing or influencing a public officer is considered as a great offense. The current political culture had changed. Instead of classical Republicanism the fair and comfortable Commercial Republicanism is replaced. Public involvement in Government affirms became a curse in many countries. Bribery, use of public offices for personal gain and money are the major aspects of current political corruption. People who go in to public offices create problems for the entire system of a public office. People usually approach public offices for gaining something not in an acceptable manner. So they accept the above mentioned ways such as bribing, influencing and giving money. All these involvements are harmful for a structured community. This may be considered as an ethical offence and it has harmful implications for the peoples observation of good governances.

People use public officers for their private need caused in the total destruction of political or administrative system of a country. In the light of the current political or social system one can see that Platos comments about the involvement of the people in the public sector to destroy the republic is absolutely right. In the field of political corruption a public officer seeks illegitimate personal gain with the help of patronage, graft, extortion and bribery. Peoples involvement in conflict of interest is harmful to the electoral affluence of elected officials. After the result of these involvements the state suffered with poor quality of service and misuse of state funds Medias published a number of stories about severe crime. It is very common in third world countries criminals escape with the help of politicians and other officials. It may be a great challenge for the credibility of an administrative system. In their joint effort Arnold J. Heidenheimer, Michael Johnston defines corruption. They say: Yet the prevailing definitions of political corruption by recent political scientists have firmly consistently defined corruption in terms of transactions between the private and public sectors such that collective goods are illegitimately converted into private regarding payoffs.(Page-6)- (Political corruption: concepts & contexts By Arnold J. Heidenheimer, Michael Johnston).

Public officers are public servants that mean a person or a group of persons who has been chosen to become a public servant. Today political parties concentrate power not public. So Bureaucracy is the best weapon for several people, especially politicians. Another major problem is that growing terrorism. Number of people approach the officers for getting passports, identity cards, licenses and other personal needs. It is more harmful for third world countries like Pakistan, Nepal, African and Latin American countries. Excessive people involvement in public offices leads the nation in to social and political anarchism. Personal involvement of people in the field of judiciary creates some constitutional problems. Corrupted officers and judges are the preventive factors in the Judiciary. Result of peoples engagement: an officer forced to do or help a particular person or a group of persons for their private goals. School construction, property taxes, public pension plans, investing in infra structure, and investing in the defense sector are common areas of corruption. So all these areas are the significant parts of a Republican government and any kind of external influence will affect the smooth functioning of an administrative system. External influences from the part of the people weaken the Administrative system.

If you analyze the current political situation of Middle East countries one can easily find the absence of an effective administrative system or a Republican government. The Middle East Muslim nations like Iraq, Iran, Taliban, and many Afro Asian countries have been suffering from external involvements. External involvement of people will lead a nation in to social polarization. Religious groups, social pressure groups and other organizations misuse the facilities. Misusing of government property and confidential information are the after result of these kinds of people involvements. Outside employment of government officials are also a serious problem. An officer who involved in outside employment has the responsibility to satisfy the demands of a person or pressure groups. Excessive people involvement affects the public private partnerships and the process of privatization. An interesting fact is that the problem of peoples involvement is highly affect in democratic countries. In a democratic country modern political leaders have more power and political influence towards the administrative system. To conclude, the public officials of a country serve the nation like the nerve system of the human body. So examining the current political system, a person forced to support Platos view about the involvement of people in public affaires is harmful for the smooth functioning of an administrative system.

Since art is fiction, it does not accurately explain truth (Socrates quest), and therefore is not only not helpful, but immoral. In our modern art forms, do think that TV, movies, music, etc. deceive people about reality or inform them? Think about how you view life, history, science, etc. How much of it is based on facts, or how much is based on images that you may have seen in a movie, read in a novel, or heard condensed into sound bites by a reporter with an agenda? Discuss.

For many years, critics are parted with the question, whether art is an imitation that deceives the people from reality or not. There were discussions at the time of Socrates, regarding the topic and Socrates opinioned that art is an imitation of an action through which an artist is attempting to deceive the spectator. When one links Socrates theory of imitation with the modern art forms, one can view that imitation is deceiving the people from the reality.

As it a controversial factor, it would be better for one to have a look on the view points of the great thinkers on the topic. Great thinkers like, Plato and Aristotle have attributed different meanings to art and imitation. Plato has viewed mimesis on ethical and political; context and Plato, in his book, Republic comments, art is imitation, and thats bad. Generally it has been agreed upon the fact that art is the imitation of an object or action. To analyze the key factors of mimesis one has to look on the historical and the etymological background of the term. Only after understanding the real meaning of the term, mimesis would it be possible to interpret whether art deceive people or not. The theory of imitation of Plato views art as a means to deceive people. By joining with the principle of Plato one can assume that the whole aim of the art is to deceive. The presentation of an art form can be regarded successive, when the spectator mistook reality. As art is a powerful medium, it is capable of influencing the people, and it may corrupt the single minded society. Different studies and analysis have been proved the reality that art is capable of attracting the lesser men who are bewitched by its magnificent power. Majority of the studies verify that art has the ability to deceive the viewer into immoral acts, and is overly concerned with sensual pleasures.

Theoreticians like Plato are of the opinion that art is merely an imitation of life and the imitation is after all useless. Their possibility for the bad contents of life should appear again that may make it even dangerous. It may be one looking into the mirror for his reflection and is unable to find out the real need of the society. The continuous viewing of television effectively produces the same reflection and the watchers may forget of the real world and the surroundings.

It is often seen that artists are nonchalant in the portrayal of truth when reproducing actions or scenes. They do not give much importance to reality as they mention stories or images and evaluate whether they are good or bad. Artists regard their art successful only when spectator mistook reality. It is the same sentiment that is generally found in the modern television viewers and in the media portrayals especially in their increasing trend to scrawny celebrities. One see that it not the reality but a destructive lie to dazzle the spectator. As art is focused on the sensual pleasures of the viewer, it is often visible that art ignores the mind, intellect, and reason. If a person values only the sensual pleasures by completely dissuading reason and other baser instincts, it is inferred that he is disregarding what makes human being human. Though the modern television viewers claim that the different movies that express violence are capable of arousing a kind of passion against violence, in practical sense one is sure that these kinds of films or programs will be exerting only its negative impact on the viewers. A close evaluation reveals that an ordinary viewer is unable recognize the real dangers that are hiding in art.

To conclude, one can infer that art very often hide the reality from the viewer and forces him to misinterpret what is real.

Introduction

Many historians believe that Greek philosophy has formed the Western world. The most outstanding philosophers of that time had a considerable impact on the political, economic, cultural and social life of Greece. Nowadays, their works became the handbooks of the governor who strictly followed the concepts. Nowadays, these works still are still unsurpassed masterpieces of literature. One of the founders of Greek ancient thought was Plato whose works became the handbooks of many modern philosophers and scientists.

Main body

A brief biography of Plato

Plato was born in Athens, in 428 B. C (Copleston, Frederick 2003 p. 127). He was brought in the home of his stepfather being of aristocratic origin that greatly influenced his further political outlooks. Plato received a diligent cultural education and his life went on in the period of prosperity of Athenian culture. His teacher became Socrates whose philosophic outlook he supported. Plato travelled a lot and visited many countries such as Italy, Sicily, Egypt and he was forty when returned home. While travelling he studied the political systems of the countries. On his return from the journey, Plato founded his own Academy in 388 that was considered as the first European University. (Copleston, Frederick 2003 p. 129). The studies included a wide range of disciplines and the philosophy was one of them. Mathematics gained the high status among the Greeks and had an apparent practical application. In the Academy, Plato conducted lectures that, unfortunately, were not officially published and were partially preserved in his pupils notes. Platos pupil was Aristotle who inherited and developed the teachers ideas.

Platos philosophy

Plato wrote many philosophical dialogues where he expressed his ideas on political and cultural life of Greece. In his dialogues written in the form of conversation, his teacher Socrates was main participant of the dialogues (Benn, Alfred William 2008 p. 214). His most famous works were closely connected with ethics, politics, metaphysics, as well as human life. In his dialogues Plato argued that material world was unreal world and only part of could relate to reality. In other words, the philosopher regarded the material objects and events as shadows. In ethical learning, he discussed the problem of father and son as he viewed everything from the parental angle. Thus, he compared his considered his relationships with Socrates as relationships of father and son.

The most outstanding works of the philosopher

Republic and Law are considered to the most significant works in philosophers life since Plato paid much attention to the state and governmental system. (Pappas, Nickolas 2003 p. 3). Like Socrates, Plato classified the society into the three groups namely, Rulers of Philosopher Kings, Warriors or Guardians, and Workers. The most privileged class was the class of philosopher who possessed exclusive virtues as wisdom, intelligence, and rationality. Due to the fact that Plato had aristocratic roots, he rejected the principles of democracy in his ideal city. In addition, he insists that it is better to be governed by a tyrant rather to accept democracy. Consequently, his Platos imaginary city differed from Socrates one who believed that the actual city should be inhabited by artisans, merchants, and farmers.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Plato, known as the greatest mind in the Greece mythology, played an important role in shaping of Greeces ancient thought. His power of thought and writing permits us to refer him as to the founder of all sciences. He was also a co-founder of such science as politics where he was first to classify the types of political systems.

Works Cited

Benn, Alfred William Greek philosophers. Charleston: BiblioBazaar, 2008.

Copleston, Frederick A history of philosophy. Great Britain: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003.

Pappas, Nickolas Routledge philosophy guidebook to Plato and the Republic. London: Routledge, 2003.