Basic Nature Of Mankind In Plato's The Republic

Superior Essays
Through the reading of Plato, specifically his book by the name of The Republic he is able to identify the basic nature of mankind. In which he uses the character Socrates as a voice of reason who questions theories of the men surrounding him. Most of these theories focused on what it the true meaning of justice and why men act justly. Plato argues that men act justly because they fear punishment or for the sake of being rewarded. Whereas, some may argue that people are naturally good and act justly for the sake of being just. Those who argue for the good of mankind included James Madison when drafting The Federalist Papers. Madison believed that people were virtuous and naturally acted just; therefore, they would make up a good democracy. Plato felt that there could never be a true democracy because it would be ruled by unjust men and result in tyranny. A democracy has to represent the majority, which is …show more content…
It can be inferred that since ordinary men are more likely to become corrupt when gaining power because they do not know how to handle it. They would use the power mainly to help themselves, and we cannot assume that the leader will have the best interest of the majority. When Plato mentions that the ideal leader would be a philosopher it is because a leader needs to be someone who can see beyond human nature. They are able to expand their minds in order to think about the interests of the people. The only reason that they would become crooked is due to being mislead by what they see around them. Plato makes a valid point that most people only act justly when they know they can get something in return, rather it is positive or negative. The ordinary minds of men do not think to do good for people because it is the right thing to do. However, they are ultimately thinking of themselves which is why it can concluded that no one is naturally

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    They thought they knew what they did not know. Unlike them, Socrates could acknowledge his ignorance and “was conscious of knowing practically nothing,” (22d). This is what gave him an advantage of being wiser than everyone else. In the matter of his defence, these encounters are what encouraged people’s hatred towards him because people thought they were being challenged and interrogated by Socrates, failing to understand his sense of virtue as a philosopher in examining both himself and others. However, in “The Paradox of Socratic Ignorance in Plato’s Apology,” the authors point out that Socrates believes his conviction to be absolute because “he {was} certain that philosophizing with…

    • 1153 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Cave Vs Plato

    • 716 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Plato felt his teacher (Socrates) thought that Man should not trust his senses because they could be easily deceived (the prisoners believing only the shadows were real). Leading Man to make false assumptions about reality. Socrates prompts the reader to question their own beliefs regarding reality in collusion with his firm belief in introspection. Which he believed to be the only way of attaining true knowledge and not placing trust in our senses. I felt Socrates is very dominant in his assertions, smug even.…

    • 716 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In The Republic by Plato, the antagonist Socrates who was Plato’s teacher, states that philosophers are best fit to rule due to their knowledge and understanding of the world. This statement feels like it’s just a bias opinion since Plato is a philosopher among other of his interests, but throughout this work of his he proves why the philosopher deserves power in the ideal state. Although the philosopher king seems like a fine idea in theory, it is unrealistic and contains very few sound ideas in relation to the way the modern state is run. One reason that Plato believes philosophers deserve to be rulers is due to the knowledge and understanding they have of the world. In Book II, Plato states that citizens of his ideal state should specialize…

    • 843 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Plato, however, is not a fan of democracy and believes the ideology of every desire being as good as any other is a bad way to go through life. Since Plato believes that everything we do is for the “sake of something”, it is evident that he thinks the philosopher has the most selfless “sake” in ruling over the selfish…

    • 1360 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    According to Glaucon, another student of Socrates, we are not. “ No one is willingly just; men will be just only if constrained.” (P.56-d) Glaucon challenges the principles of Justice. His explanation of justice is powerful because it holds some truth. When we shun evil away is for the fear of punishment. When we help others is for a hope of a reward.…

    • 703 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Glaucon supports his theory out of his analogy of the Rings of Gyges where those who practiced justice only did so out of fear and as soon as the barrier was lifted, they started to commit bad deeds. Acting justly simply makes their lives more secure and convenient rather than their spirits aligning with reason. Glaucon concludes his argument by adding a statement by Adeimantus who claims that justice is praised only for its consequences, it holds a reputation with winning, such as within political campaigns or successful marriages. Ultimately, both philosophers challenge Socrates to prove whether or not justice can be justified as a good in…

    • 1319 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Wisdom In Plato's Apology

    • 1352 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Lastly, Socrates uses his views on human wisdom to explain how it would be ignorant of him to corrupt society; which as I mentioned before, is the reason for him being in court. He says this because the people in our society have the biggest influences on us. If you corrupt them then it would only have a negative effect on your life. No one willingly wants to negatively impact his or her…

    • 1352 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are two philosophers who are well-known for their theories about the improvement of society and debating man in his natural state. John Locke, and Thomas Hobbes, had very different opinions on people and on politics. John Locke believed that men were born free, are generally peaceful beings, and that they were capable of co-operative decision-making to guarantee keeping their natural rights to life, freedom, and especially property. Thomas Hobbes on the other hand believed that men were selfish, were often at war with each other, and that they needed an absolute supreme to maintain their natural rights, especially their right to life. Their philosophies are both mentally understanding, but in nature, they are hugely…

    • 724 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    (Plato, 22) Here Socrates prove his point by meaning, if all materials target for their only perfection, making them self-sufficient there will be no use of aspects, however, with the aspects it will find their greatest benefit. What Socrates meant, doctors and pilots they don’t do the best thing for them self as “Thrasymachus claimed about rulers” but for the sake of their people. To rephrase it, Socrates proves to Thrasymachus his understanding of ruler is wrong because rulers should worry about their people not themselves. Socrates continues to point out Thrasymachus idea about injustice is more profitable, and strong men have the courage to break the rules; they can take advantage of the weak and justice is differed. (Plato, 31) Further, Socrates confirms the group that Thrasymachus is wrong on three points; one, that the unjust man is superior to the just man with knowledge, second, the injustice is strength, and third injustice brings happiness.…

    • 1816 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Early on in Republic, it is clear that Socrates cares deeply about the idea of justice. However, he and his company cannot seem to agree on a proper definition of the word. They do, however, agree on various examples of what is not just. One such example is Socrates’ statement that “human beings who have been harmed necessarily become more unjust.” However, this statement implies that the only way to be just is to do what is best for society as a whole, rather than accounting for each individual’s idea of justice. This Socratic statement comes from Book 1 of The Republic, when Socrates is debating with Polemarchus about his definition of justice.…

    • 797 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays