Plato and Aristotle´s Philosophy of Perfecting Society

Plato was born into an aristocratic family and later became a disciple of Socrates, eventually witnessing the philosopher 's execution in 399BC, he feared for his safety and went travelling to Italy and Egypt. He returned to Athens after his travels and founded the first European university, the Academy. There, astronomy, biology, mathematics, politics and philosophy were taught, with Aristotle as the most famous student. He also compared the state and the individual, stating they both consisted of three parts: the desiring, the spirited and the rational. If they are all in harmony but ruled by the rational you have justice. He went further to construct many statements that have been quoted throughout history in reference to issues of the times, one being ‘ The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men’

The Republic is unquestionably a work that is deeply influenced by its time; Plato lived in a period of war and tyranny. Hence the Republic should be read as a reaction against this time of instability, and a plea for order and justice. However this essay is going to present that view that Plato’s city in reality would neither have been ordered or just. In theory Plato’s state or Kallipolis would be ordered, with a strictly regimented, though not hereditary class system. This is based on Plato’s ideas of the tripartite soul, which consists of appetite, spirit and reason. But in reality such a totalitarian system completely devoid of freedoms would have breed discontent and much like totalitarian regimes in recent history it is unlikely that harmony though between the classes could ever be kept. However, it is more complicated enquiry to judge if such a state would be just. Plato’s idea of justice is informed by his understanding that everything is part of a hierarchy; he sees nature in its truest form as a harmony, where every individual serves a purpose. Though there are some superficial similarities in his understanding of justice, he would see our dynamic, free, at times chaotic society, with lax attitudes towards hierarchies as unjust. It’s impossible to conceptualise a whole city willing to accept such restrictive proto fascist principles. Instead it’s more reasonable to believe that disharmony would be rife, and the city would soon fall into anarchy. Therefore

Aristotle and St. Augustine have both been influenced by Plato. Their philosophy on morality, politics, and the purpose of life has been platonically influenced. St. Augustine is the true heir of Plato because he has taken Plato’s ideal state, and revealed the implications of the lives that the citizens of the earthly city lead, in the City of God. Plato’s state is an ideal state, that would not function in reality. St. Augustine has taken Plato’s notions, and have furthered the implications of living a life that strives towards a common good. The consequences, whether negative or positive, cannot be seen in the earthly state, but can be seen in the City of God.

In The Republic, Plato attempts to deconstruct and solve a central question of government: who should rule. In tackling the quandary of justice, he considers the ideal polis or kallipolis, a collective unit of self-government, and the relationship between the structure of the Republic and its attainment. Plato pontificates that philosopher-kings should be the ultimate authority, they possess special knowledge, which is required to rule the kallipolis successfully and optimise the happiness of its citizens. Plato argues that “there will be no end to the troubles of states… humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in the world… and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands” (Plato, 212b-c). The kallipolis is a just city where political rule is predicated not on power, but knowledge. Nonetheless, Plato recognises that power plays an essential role in the function of the kallipolis and the modern state. Plato’s argument for the philosopher-kings’ rule is not realistic, however traces of the characteristics of his normative form of rule appear in the modern state. Nonetheless, it is necessary to highlight aspects of the modern state congruent to those of the kallipolis. The essay will conclude that, in terms of Plato’s argument, the philosopher-kings should govern; Plato advertises a republican political system, implemented through meritocracy.

As one of the most significant works in philosophy, The Republic has been one of the most historically and intellectually influential basis of many political theories and philosophical approaches since its first appearance. It is also crucial to mention that the book contains both Plato’s and Socrates’ arguments of life and the view of the Athenian Democracy in the ancient Greek world. Therefore, it can be confusing and complicated to decide to which philosopher the arguments belong. The main focus of the book is to find the definition and the whereabouts of order, justice and to establish a just state, as well as to prove that a just man is happier than the unjust man by providing examples. The true importance of The Republic lies in the fact that everything has meaning in it, not only the arguments, but also the people who act as metaphors for the different kind of roles, which they fulfill in the Athenian society, furthermore the way they speak symbolizes those roles and every one of them embodies a part of the soul and the city-state. Even though it is not obvious, Plato / Socrates criticizes the Athenian society and tries to establish a new, ideal one with the different people he meets and talks to in the book.

In the Republic, Plato places Socrates as the main ‘character’ to express his philosophical views on the world. Plato lived in Athens and as such his criticism of democracy can mainly be applied to Athenian democracy and is fundamentally different from the democratic systems we have nowadays. In order to understand Plato’s position on democracy, the essay will use the Republic as main source to point the wrongs of democracy according to Plato. This essay will detail in four parts the elements that support Plato’s points against democracy. These points will be given in context to Plato’s time and will be both based on the historical context of his life. The first part will explore Plato’s sense of justice and what justice should be. Using his perspective on virtue and justice, this part will explain how Plato perceived a just world and as such this part will demonstrate how democracy is not compatible with his views on justice. The second part will explain how Plato defends the idea that philosophers should rule as an alternative, not only to democracy, but most ruling systems. This part aims to provide information on what Plato thought was wrong with democracy by

The purpose of this essay is to discuss whether politics should be focused on morality with reference to the political thinkers, Aristotle and Plato. Aristotle and Plato have two fundamentally differing views on politics and how it links to morality. Morality to Aristotle and Plato will be analysed through their version of how politics utensils morality to carry out legislation or create a universal manner carried out by the citizens. To achieve this, this essay will examine the following points, Human nature and human soul. This essay will argue how the human nature and human soul differ on its viewpoint of justice and morality and how it should be implemented into political matters.

We have two great philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. These are great men, whose ideas have not been forgotten over years. Although their thoughts of politics were similar, we find some discrepancies in their teachings. The ideas stem from Socrates to Plato to Aristotle. Plato based moral knowledge on abstract reason, while Aristotle grounded it on experience and tried to apply it more to concrete living. Both ways of life are well respected by many people today.

Plato’s and his view of the government was that people in the public needed a “Theorist king (portrays them as those who love the sight of truth and honesty”) According to Plato, a statement made will overall downturn from an elite

Plato had typical views of ethics for an ancient Greek. Aristotle shared these views he was more specific about

     The best way to create a strong society has been discussed in depth by each of these men at great length. Plato believed that philosophers should be the ones to lead since they were those who

Comparing the political theories of any two great philosophers is a complex task. Plato and Aristotle are two such philosophers who had ideas of how to improve existing societies during their individual lifetimes. While both Plato and Aristotle were great thinkers, perhaps it is necessary first to examine the ideas of each before showing how one has laid the groundwork and developed certain themes for the other.

Democracy is often referred to as the rule of the many, but Aristotle called this definition incomplete. In his book “Politics”, he explained that in a city if the majorities are aristocrats and if they have political authority, then it is an aristocracy not a democracy. He therefore defined democracy as when “free people have authority and Oligarchy as when the wealthy have it” (1290b). Plato viewed Democracy as a flawed system with too much inefficiency that would make any implementation of a true democracy not worth it. While Aristotle viewed democracy as a system that could work if it is limited to certain restrictions and if it is the regime that best fits the culture of the people to be governed. In this essay it will be argued that Plato’s view on democracy as a flawed system is more prevalent or more compelling if the current political arena around the world is observed.

Two of Aristotle’s most famous works, Nicomachean Ethics and Politics, offer an outline of his perfect society and how Athens could ascend to his ideals. According to Aristotle, the strive for the most good society starts with individuals and then collectively builds up to the Chief Aim through active participation in politics. He explains that an Athenian earns his freedom and citizenship by subduing his animal instincts and passions. Instead of succumbing to these urges,

Plato’s view of division of labour is divided into three types of peoples’ task in life which are workers as farmers, military type and guardians. Actually, the ruling task of Plato’s Republic is the guardian’s responsible who had achieved the greatest wisdom or knowledge of good. Due to that, Plato claims that “philosopher must become kings or those now who called kings must genuinely and adequately philosophise’’ (Nussbaum1998, p.18). However, people argue about the reasons that the philosopher should rule the city, while the philosophers prefer to gain knowledge instead of power, thus they don’t seek this authority. Therefore, the argument should alter to why the philosophers are the best ruler to govern people. Indeed, Plato states