(An Argument against three points in Plato’s The Republic)
“What should young people do with their lives today? Many things, obviously. But the most daring thing is to create stable communities in which the terrible disease of loneliness can be cured.” (Vonnegut) Plato explains the perfect city and their perfect kind. He follows the idea of Vonnegut’s stable community and uses many different ideas to explain how to create this perfect city. Some of his best points, the ones that I agree with the most, are that a philosopher should be king, people should be divided into classes through education, and that everyone should have their place and job. Sadly, not everyone can be perfectly right all of the time. It is difficult to for one man or even one woman to convey all of his ideas in a way that will please everyone. There are some points …show more content…
Plato explains that the afterlife is made up of people who die and those who live justly can choose what to do in their next life. I think that the afterlife is more like a beautiful place to spend eternity with your loved ones. Plato also say that children should be educated, tested, and then placed in classes. I believe that all children should be allowed to be placed into classes but that they should also be able to prove that they can be better, and that they can move into an upper class. Plato finally points out that when you decline in social status, you can ascend. I think that this is stupid. Everyone makes mistakes and no one should be eternally punished for those simple mistakes. Though Plato is one of the most brilliant minds that has ever lived, even he made some mistakes, at least in certain people’s eyes. As Gandhi said, “Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make