Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Miscellaneous plato plato Plato's profound early writing on politics, ethics and education discussed in the Republic are the foundations of today's governments, nations and discourses. At least that is what I am told. Plato's ideology and reasoning are not always the most believable and desirable, it makes me wonder which part of today's government practices must give due to the Republic (to be discovered in Gov 101). While it is easy to be disgusted with Plato's idealism and philosophy, which seems to deter any type of an acceptable nightlife, it does leave the reader with a desire to keep trudging through endless mounds of self-indulged prose to discover Plato's reasoning. One such view, that I've been asked to dissect, is Plato's idea of justice. Before I read the Republic justice always seemed like such a simple thing, what is right, however now it's more than that. I shall examine Plato's description of a discussion between Socrates and Thrasymachus on justice in order to understand some of Plato's views. Thrasymachus defines justice as "nothing other than the advantage of the stronger" (Book I, 338c). This bold ignorant statement causes Socrates to spring in and draws Thrasymachus into a debate on what true justice entails. Thrasymachus expands his statement with the example of tyranny; the tyrant, the strongest, is able to enforce all their wants on the citizens, the weaker. Therefore the tyrant will always get what he desires, justice for himself, and injustice for the weaker. Socrates envisions justice as something more than the advantage of the stronger and pulls Thrasymachus into a lengthy argument on the subject. Socrates' arguments usually involve a large amount of word twisting and manipulating Thrasymachus' original statement to mean something never intended. But this strategy works well for Socrates, so he sticks with it. In this, Socrates discusses the natural errors every human is liable to make. Thrasymachus, of course, agrees that every human makes errors, and that yes, every tyrant is human, therefore they are inclined to make errors, and yes, they may by error make unjust laws that the citizens follow. Therefore these citizens in order to be just, must follow laws that are unjust to the tyrant which is than not the advantage of the stronger. This reasoning does not settle well with me, I believe the only thing Plato proves through this line of logic is that justice is not always the advantage of the strong, because sometimes people make mistakes, but when everything is going well and there are no mistakes, then yes, justice is the advantage of the stronger. As Thrasymachus asks "Do you think I'd call someone who is in error stronger at the very moment he errs" (Book I 340c). He makes the point that when a ruler makes a mistake he ceases to be a ruler at that moment, therefor he is not the strongest and not just. Thrasymachus has himself fallen prey to the use of Socrates' tricky line of logic, but unfortunately it just gives one more idea for Socrates to run with. Following the idea of what one is, by their career, Socrates leads Thrasymachus through a line of questioning that leads to the idea that one's craft is, is their career. A doctor's craft is healing the sick, therefore his career is to heal the weak, so what he does is to the advantage of the sick. A ruler's craft is to rule the weak, his career is to rule the weak, so what he does is advantage to the weak, not to himself. I find this to be one of Socrates' strongest arguments. To be a great ruler, the ruler must want to create a great city, where those being ruled are happy and feel they have justice. As Socrates puts it, "no one in any position of rule, insofar as he is a ruler, seeks or orders what is advantageous to himself, but what is advantageous to his subjects; the ones of whom he is himself the craftsman." So who is in advantage here, the strong or the weak? It would seem to be the weak, because the strong are creating laws and conditions to the advantage of the weak. In my opinion, at this point, Thrasymachus should throw in the towel and realize that his argument is impossible to win, but alas he does no such thing, he instead makes one last attempt to curve justice in his direction. Thrasymachus makes a decent point when he compares the ruler, to a shepherd. A shepherd does not care about the welfare of his sheep, but rather cares to use the sheep to his own well. He explains "that justice is really the good of another, the advantage of the stronger and the ruler, and harmful to the one who obeys and serves" (Book I 343c). Here, Socrates is able to use Thrasymachus' previous statements to prove he is wrong. A shepherd's job is to look over the sheep, not to sell them and the same is true for a ruler, he is there to rule; or as Socrates explains it, "every kind of rule, insofar as it rules, doesn't seek anything other than what is best for the things it rules and cares for," (Book I 345d). A ruler receives a wage to rule, therefore he is ruling for the people, and receiving a wage for him, each craft has a different function, but they all have the same wage earning function. It is this final argument that closes the book for me. I see Socrates argument as making the most sense, a man seeking justice only for himself would not rule, because he could get that same justice through lying and cheating. But only a man who seeks justice for the citizens can be a true ruler, and that man must be stronger than those he rules, in order to be a true ruler; "a true ruler doesn't by nature seek his own advantage but that of the subjects" (Book I 347d). So the stronger does not always receive more justice than the weaker, the concern should lie with the weak. This is the conclusion that must be drawn if one is to agree and follow Socrates' discourse on craftsmen and their jobs. I think Plato's dialogue between Thrasymachus and Socrates allows the reader to dismiss the idea that justice is the advantage of the stronger, but I still do not believe he clearly describes what justice is by the end of Book I. As the reader, I know what justice is not, but still what is justice? I am lead to believe that justice is everyone following their own craft and doing what they know to be right. Therefore those who rule, will be the best rulers; those who sew, will be the best sewers, and so on. But unfortunately it does not give any picture of justice, instead it shows the road that will lead to justice. One of the most controversial debates in philosophy has been over the nature of being. In the Pre-Socratic era the dispute focused on whether change was constant while our human perceptions made static separations so that we could make sense of our environment, or if being exists omnipresently and that our perceptions of diversity in matter are false. Plato tries to solve this dilemma with his theory of an objective reality in a realm different from that which we experience. Aristotle agrees with Socrates except that he believes an object’s true essence cannot exist separated from the object itself. I presume that we can exist with our own identity and inhere to a greater whole simultaneously, however my rationalism does not extend beyond people. Nonetheless, these philosophers all had valid conclusions and their theories compliment each other. “War is king”1 said Heraclitus. He believes that reality is not composed of a number of things, but is a process of continual creation and destruction. An accurate metaphor for his rationale is a river. It’s location remains basically the same. One can walk away from it, and return with the confidence that it will still be there. However, the exact water that flows through it is never the same. One can’t tell the difference between the water in the river now and the water in the river earlier and yet this transience of matter does not detract from the identity of the river. Heraclitus would say that all of what we experience is like the river, forever changing in a process of erosion and creation. Heraclitus’ successor, Parmenides, believes that Being must exist virtually in the mind. Because nothing cannot be thought without thinking of it as something, there cannot be “nothing”2, all that can exist is Being. If there is only Being it must be indestructible, uncreated, and eternal. If one agrees that Being is , then there can’t be any place where being is not. According Parmenides’ purely logical view, all perception of vacuous space is an illusion. Plato tried to solve this dilemma of ontology with his theory of the forms. “You have before your mind these two orders of things, the visible and the intelligible,”3 he says, which can be compared to opinion and knowledge respectively. In The Republic he uses a line analogy to explain the connection between what we perceive and what really exists. Dividing a line in four unequal parts gives us the four stages of understanding with a state of being on one side of the line corresponding to a state of understanding on the other side of the line. The lowest state of understanding is that of “conjecture” with its object as “images” such as reflections, shadows, or any second hand experience. The next stage is that of “belief” which has as its object as a specific thing, i.e. a rock. Because this type of understanding is grounded in the uncertainties of sense perception, “belief” inheres to the visible realm or opinion. To progress from opinion to knowledge, a specific thing must be grasped as theory. This third stage is called “understanding” by Plato, with its object as “concepts”. Plato believes that theories are themselves images of “forms”, which Plato considers to be the purest principles of reality. In this last stage of understanding the “forms” correspond with “pure reason” which comes almost as a divine insight because it has nothing to do with what we experience. Plato’s visible realm is similar to Heraclitus’ view of reality while the intelligible realm is similar to Parmenides’ view of reality. By posing that all objects are poor reflections of their “forms” and thus never perfect, Plato thought he had resolved the debate of transience and stability. Plato’s student, Aristotle, had one major disagreement with his teacher though. He believed that a distinction should be drawn between objects, or matter, and their forms, but that these qualities could only be separated rationally4. Aristotle defines form as the essence of an object, without which it could no longer be identified as that object. An object’s matter consists of the qualities that make it unique to that object. He considered matter “the principle of individuation”5. For example, the form of one drop of water is consistent with the form of any drop of water, which is arguably at least to be liquid. Two different drops of water, however, have different matter, which is why they are clearly separate objects. Aristotle also interprets matter and form as potentiality and actuality. He illustrates with an acorn that the acorn’s matter contains the potential of becoming an oak tree, while the oak tree is the actualized matter of the acorn. An object’s form, then, is its operating cause6. All objects are continually actualized as a final product of change, and potentialized as a process leading to an outcome. I would agree with Plato’s argument in his book Phaedo, that the “existence of the soul before birth cannot be separated from the existence of the essence [of humans]”7. In other words, the form of myself is my soul and my actions and intentions are rooted in it. I believe that we all have souls and that while my ego may be entirely unique from anyone else’s, there is something very much the same in my soul as in others’. Our souls are like drops of water, easily identifiable when separated, but when united, none is different from the other. Consistent with Parmenides’ deduction, I do not need to go to someone else to know who they are. I can look within myself because we are the same (at least in some spiritual respects). I believe that my soul takes on many forms, and so, like Heraclitus’ view, the body of my soul is constantly changing, never the same as before, never the same as it will be. Perhaps it is an operating cause like Aristotle’s potentiality and actuality. The truth is, at least virtually, there is a difference between my soul and my body, and so Plato is right too. But that is the extent to which their philosophies make sense to me. To me it does not matter whether a rock is really a rock, if the true rock exists in some distant plane, or even if it is part of my being. My own spiritual exploration is limited to the nature of my interactions with other people and to the earth. So long as its not about people, Heraclitus and Parmenides can argue over inertia all they want, and Plato and Aristotle can wrestle out the definition of form. The nature of being is a philosophical debate which will continue as long as there are people to think about it. I am aware of my own identity, and I am also aware that my connection with everyone on this earth is so intricate and inextricable, that it is like we are all one. Bibliography: Word Count: 2311
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.