Plato’s account of philosophy Essay Example

Plato’s account of philosophy Paper Plato was born in Athens, in c. 427 B.C.E. During this period, Athens was involved in a long drawn, resource intensive and disastrous war with Sparta, also known as the   Peloponnesian War. The scion of an aristocratic ancestry, Plato came from a distinguished family. He was the son of Ariston descending from Codrus, one of the early kings of Athens and Perictione, descending from Solon, the prominent reformer of the Athenian constitution, both of Athenian aristocratic ancestry.. Plato spent the greater part of his life in Athens, with occasional visits to Sicily and Southern Italy and as per one account, he also traveled to Egypt. Details regarding the early part of his life is not known, but he was certainly privileged enough to get the finest education Athens had to offer to people of noble lineage. Plato was a disciple of Socrates, whom he considered the most learned man of his times. Plato’s association with Socrates was a turning point in his life, as it had a profound and lasting influence on the course of his life, philosophy and thinking. The compelling power of his arguments and methods impressed Plato and he became a close associate of Socrates. Socrates was amongst the most influential scholar of his times and he was a pioneer who concerned himself with the study of exclusively moral and political issues unlike his contemporaries who were more preoccupied with cosmology and ontology.Considering his distinguished origins and the association with Socrates, he was naturally destined to take an active role in political life. Plato aspired to assume a significant position in the political landscape of Athens, but he found his attempts being consistently thwarted. The frustration is expressed by him in the autobiographical Seventh Letter, wherein he conveys his inability to assimilate himself with any of the political parties or the successively corrupt regimes of his time, all of which contributed to the downfall of Athens(324b-326a).Socratesâ⠂¬â„¢ execution on an unjust charge of impiety had been overwhelmingly voted for(approved) by a democratic   court with a large majority in 399. This led Plato to the conclusion that all existing governments were flawed and ruinous; and would continue to be so, unless the rulers themselves became philosophers or unless the philosophers themselves gained political power.It was perhaps because of this opinion that he retreated to his Academy and to Sicily for implementing his ideas. Plato utilized his extensive knowledge and wisdom to the pursuit of politics and the writing of tragedy and other forms of poetry. He thrice visited Syracuse with the purpose of imparting a philosophical attitude and line of thought to the tyrannical rulers, but his effort proved futile. The brief attempt at imparting practical wisdom having failed, he retreated to Athens. His Academy was the institution of learning for subjects as diverse as Mathematics, rhetoric, astronomy, dialectics, and other subjec ts, all identified as crucial for the intellectual and philosophical development of students. The Academy proved to be a valuable base for successive generations of Platonic philosophers until its final closure in C.E. 529. Some of Plato’s pupils later became leaders, mentors, and constitutional advisers in Greek city-states, the most distinguished amongst them being Aristotle. Plato died in c. 347 B.C.E.The focus of this research paper is to conduct a brief study on the philosophical outlook of Plato to incorporate an analysis of his best works and to illustrate the significant contribution made by him in the field of philosophy.Philosophical Tools    Plato is more well known for his writings like the Republic, the Statesman, the Laws and a few shorter dialogues which are considered to be strictly political treatises,   and hence it can be stated that Plato was an accomplished political philosopher of his times. Compared to Socrates, Plato was much more systematic as a t hinker and meticulous in his ways. He established his own school of philosophy, the Academy; which became a major source of learning for the successive generation of scholars in Athens. Unlike Socrates, Plato extended his areas of concern to include the study of metaphysics and epistemology, as he endeavored to discover the ultimate constituents of reality.The introduction of the process of conceptual analysis was initiated by Plato for the first time in the history of Philosophy, as a means to clarify a concept or its meaning. In contrast to most other philosophers of his time, Plato considered conceptual analysis as a preliminary step and not as an end in itself. He considered critical evaluation of beliefs, the deciding of which one of the incompatible ideas is correct and which one is wrong as the second step and more important step. Plato considered decision making about the political order on the same pedestal of importance as the choice between peace and war. This belief was based on the conviction that the public is not the best suited or mature enough to arrive at the correct decision, as it is capable of wisdom only in hindsight, mostly after the occurrence of disastrous experiences. In his political philosophy, the clarification of concepts is thus a preliminary step in evaluating beliefs, and right beliefs in turn lead to an answer to the question of the best political order. This gradual progression from the stages of conceptual analysis, followed by a critical assessment of beliefs, to the best political order is demonstrated in the writings of his book ‘The Republic’.The most notable and outstanding example of Plato’s mature philosophies   appears in The Republic, which is an extended argument for the most fundamental about the   conduct of human life. Plato utilizes dialogue with a fictional character ‘Socrates’ and proceeds to examine the nature and value of justice and other virtues as they occur   in da y to day life, both from the perspective of human society and in the personality of a human being. This discussion thereafter leads to an in depth assessment of the various aspects of human nature, the attainment of knowledge, the ability to distinguish between substance and appearance and the basic edifice of morality. Due to the diverse range of issues it addresses, the book can be read from several different perspectives: as a political treatise, or a book on the conduct of life, as a study of society and the relation of society with that of a person, an exhaustive study on the   basic metaphysical and epistemological issues or as a pedagogical handbook.Justice as Defined in The republic  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The first section of the Republic is a discussion on the nature of justice and the aim of the discussion is to arrive at the genuine definition of the subject, through a process which involves the proposal, criticism, and rejection of several inadequate attempts at defining just ice. Since Justice is the most fundamental ethical and political concepts, it incorporates individual virtue, the order of society, and individual rights which may contradict the interests of the society. Four definitions of justice are propounded; all of them are discussed elaborately and then discarded as not being wholly consistent with the basic premises, and due to   the associated variable factors.   Thus the first section of the book ends on a negative note with all the participants in agreement that the concept of justice is not as easily defiened as it seemed due to the inconsistencies involved in popular opinions of justice. the e This negative outcome can be seen as a linguistic and philosophical therapy.The reportive definitions of justice as understood by us from its use in daily life serves to provide a partial understanding of its meaning, but the holistic definition continues to be elusive in the absence of true communications between people and a conceptual clar ity on beliefs. A definition that is merely arbitrary or either too narrow or too broad, based on a false belief about justice, does not give the possibility of communication. Platonic dialogues are expressions of the ultimate communication that can take place between humans; and true communication is likely to take place only if individuals can share meanings of the words they use. Communication based on false beliefs, such as statements of ideology, is still possible, but seems limited, dividing people into factions, and, as history teaches us, can finally lead only to confusion. Therefore, in the Republic, as well as in other Platonic dialogues, there is a relationship between conceptual analysis and critical evaluation of beliefs. The focus of the second part of Book I is no longer clarification of concepts, but evaluation of beliefs.In Platonic dialogues, rather than telling them what they have to think, Socrates is often getting his interlocutors to tell him what they think. I n the fifth and fourth century B.C.E., the sophists were paid teachers of rhetoric and other practical skills, mostly non-Athenians, offering courses of instruction and claiming to be best qualified to prepare young men for success in public life. Plato describes the sophists as itinerant individuals, known for their rhetorical abilities, who reject religious beliefs and traditional morality, and he contrasts them with Socrates, who as a teacher would refuse to accept payment and instead of teaching skills would commit himself to a disinterested inquiry into what is true. One of the participants in the discussions, Thrasymachus presents a skeptical and negativist definition of justice which states that justice is not a universally applicable moral value but a notion utilized as a tool by the dominant group in the society; and that since it comes in handy for the dominant group to suppress a vast majority of people, it is their exclusive interest and that it is has different connotat ions for the different sections of the society. Although this definition is brushed aside by Plato in the book, it is a statement that     has taxed whole generations of thinkers to struggle with and the debate still continues.emphasis of The Republic is vastly on the topic of the creation of an ideal state run by philosophers and its subsequent decline, the basic theme of the book is Justice. It is obvious that Plato does not intend his interpretation of the ideal political order to be practically implemented (592a-b), instead his motive is to convey the thesis that   justice if understood to stand for goodness and virtue could form the foundation of a good political order. Plato contends that if the concept of Justice is correctly appreciated and exercised, it would be for the collective good of the society as a whole and the benefits would not be restricted to any particular faction. It provides the state with a sense of purpose and unity and consequently its well being. It provides the city with a sense of unity, and thus, is a basic condition for its health. â€Å"Injustice causes civil war, hatred, and fighting, while justice brings friendship and a sense of common purpose† (351d).A clear understanding of Plato’s perception of Justice and Social Order can be arrived at if Plato’s philosophy and thoughts are compared with the pre-philosophical insights of Solon, his maternal grandfather. Solon had been responsible for the complete restructuring of the social order of Athens at a time when Athens was poised for a rapid decline. The political and social stability of Athens had been badly shaken by the serious differences that had cropped up between the rich and the poor, the lenders and the serfs. Solon had impartially gone about the task of social and economic reforms and had brought Athens back from the brink of political and social and political collapse. Considering the fact that education at that time was imparted at home, it is probable that Plato had been deeply influenced by Solon. Solon’s reforms provided the Greeks with a model of political leadership based on the principles of fairness, equality and justice. Solon digressed from the accepted arithmetical interpretation and implementation of justice by approaching the issue holistically and relying upon fairness based upon difference.To a remarkable extent, Plato’s thoughts, writings, ideas of political order, leadership, and justice can be seen to be influenced by Solon. For Plato,   the starting point for the inquiry about the best political order is the fact of social diversity and conflicting interests, which involve the danger of civil strife. The political community consists of different parts or social classes, such as the noble, the rich, and the poor, each representing different values, interests, and claims to rule. This gives rise to the controversy of who should rule the community, and what is the best political system. In both the Republic and the Laws, Plato asserts not only that factionalism and civil war are the greatest dangers to the city, more dangerous even than war against external enemies, but also that peace obtained by the victory of one part and the destruction of its rivals is not to be preferred to social peace obtained through the friendship and cooperation of all the city’s parts (Republic 462a-b, Laws 628a-b). The best political order for Plato is that which promotes social peace in the environment of cooperation and friendship among different social groups, each benefiting from and each adding to the common good. The best form of government, which he advances in the Republic, is a philosophical aristocracy or monarchy, but that which he proposes in his last dialogue the Laws is a traditional polity: the mixed or composite constitution that reconciles different partisan interests and includes aristocratic, oligarchic, and democratic elements.Philosopher Rulers   Ã‚   . De spite the fact that the fundamental components of democracy are equality and freedom, Plato does not consider democracy to be the best form of government. In the Republic, he is severely critical of unchecked democracy because of certain features   (557a-564a) like excessive freedom, which can potentially lead to anarchy. Similarly, he felt that the concept of equality can also be abused by power hungry people, motivated by personal gain rather than public good. Plato felt that democracy was thus highly corruptible as it provided easy access to demagogues, potential dictators, and can thus lead to tyranny. Although, this reasoning is not applicable to modern democracies, it could be seen to be highly applicable to the democratic setup existing at that point of time in Greece. Democracy depends on chance and must be mixed with competent leadership (501b).Without able and virtuous leaders, such as Solon or Pericles, who come and go by chance, it is not a good form of government. Pla to argues that since governing a state involves judicious decision making and wisdom, the people who are selected to rule should not be in a position to do so by accident of circumstances, they should be trained and prepared in the course of extensive training. Making political decisions requires good judgment. Politics needs competence, at least in the form of today’s civil servants. In spite of the idealism with which he is usually associated, Plato is not politically naive. He does not idealize, but is deeply pessimistic about human beings. Most people, corrupted as they are, are for him fundamentally irrational, driven by their appetites, egoistic passions, and informed by false beliefs. If they choose to be just and obey laws, it is only because they lack the power to act criminally and are afraid of punishment (Republic, 359a). Nevertheless, human beings are not vicious by nature. They are social animals, incapable of living alone (369a-b). Living in communities and exc hanging products of their labor is natural for them, so that they have capacities for rationality and goodness. Plato, as later Rousseau, believes that once political society is properly ordered, it can contribute to the restoration of morals. A good political order, good education and upbringing can produce â€Å"good natures; and [these] useful natures, who are in turn well educated, grow up even better than their predecessors† (424a). Hence, there are in Plato such elements of the idealistic or liberal world view as the belief in education and progress, and a hope for a better future. The quality of human life can be improved if people learn to be rational and understand that their real interests lie in harmonious cooperation with one another, and not in war or partisan strife. However, unlike Rousseau, Plato does not see the best social and political order in a democratic republic. If philosophers are those who can distinguish between true and false beliefs, who love know ledge and are motivated by the common good, and finally if they are not only master-theoreticians, but also the master-practitioners who can heal the ills of their society, then they, and not democratically elected representatives, must be chosen as leaders and educators of the political community and guide it to proper ends. Plato assumes that a city in which the rulers do not govern out of desire for private gain, but are least motivated by personal ambition, is governed in the way which is the finest and freest from civil strife (520d). Philosophers will rule not only because they will be best prepared for this, but also because if they do not, the city will no longer be well governed and may fall prey to economic decline, factionalism, and civil war. They will approach ruling not as something really enjoyable, but as something necessary (347c-d).Other Works  Ã‚   In a few dialogues, such as Phaedo, the Republic, Phaedrus, Timaeus, and the Laws, Plato introduces his doctrine of the immortality of the soul. His ultimate answer to the question â€Å"Who am I?† is not an â€Å"egoistic animal† or an â€Å"independent variable,† as the twentieth century behavioral researcher blatantly might say, but an â€Å"immortal soul, corrupted by vice and purified by virtue, of whom the body is only an instrument† (129a-130c). Expert political knowledge for him should include not only knowledge of things out there, but also knowledge of oneself. This is because whoever is ignorant of himself will also be ignorant of others and of political things, and, therefore, will never be an expert politician (133e). Those who are ignorant will go wrong, moving from one misery to another (134a). For them history will be a tough teacher, but as long they do not recognize themselves and practice virtue, they will learn nothing. Plato’s good society is impossible without transcendence, without a link to the perfect being who is God, the true measure of all things. It is also impossible without an ongoing philosophical reflection on whom we truly are. Therefore, democracy would not be a good form of government for him unless, as it is proposed in the Laws, the element of freedom is mixed with the element of wisdom, which includes ultimate knowledge of the self. Unmixed and unchecked democracy, marked by the general permissiveness that spurs vices, makes people impious, and lets them forget about their true self, is only be the second worst in the rank of flawed regimes after tyranny headed by a vicious individual. This does not mean that Plato would support a theocratic government based on shallow religiosity and religious hypocrisy. There is no evidence for this. Freedom of speech, forming opinions and expressing them, which may be denied in theocracy, is a true value for Plato, along with wisdom. It is the basic requirement for philosophy. In shallow religiosity, like in atheism, there is ignorance and no knowledge of the self either. In Book II of the Republic, Plato criticizes the popular religious beliefs of the Athenians, who under the influence of Homer and Hesiod attribute vices to the gods and heroes (377d-383c). He tries to show that God is the perfect being, the purest and brightest, always the same, immortal and true, to whom we should look in order to know ourselves and become pure and virtuous (585b-e). God, and not human beings, is the measure of political order (Laws, 716c).Criticism  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Objections against the government of philosopher-rulers can be made. Firstly, because of the restrictions concerning family and private property, Plato is often accused of totalitarianism. However, Plato’s political vision differs from a totalitarian state in a number of important aspects. Especially in the Laws he makes clear that freedom is one of the main values of society (701d). Other values for which Plato stands include justice, friendship, wisdom, courage, and mode ration, and not factionalism or terror that can be associated with a totalitarian state. The restrictions which he proposes are placed on the governors, rather than on the governed. Secondly, one can argue that there may obviously be a danger in the self-professed claim to rule of the philosophers. Individuals may imagine themselves to be best qualified to govern a country, but in fact they may lose contact with political realities and not be good leaders at all.Conclusion  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Plato’s achievement as a political philosopher may be seen in that he believed that there could be a body of knowledge whose attainment would make it possible to heal political problems, such as factionalism and the corruption of morals, which can bring a city to a decline. The doctrine of the harmony of interests, fairness as the basis of the best political order, the mixed constitution, the rule of law, the distinction between good and deviated forms of government, practical wisdom as the quality of good leadership, and the importance of virtue and transcendence for politics are the political ideas that can rightly be associated with Plato. They have profoundly influenced subsequent political thinkers.