Socrates begins by dividing up his city into three distinct classes of society. He states that in ideal city consists of producers, auxiliaries, and guardians. The producing class consists of farmers, craftsmen, artisans, and anyone else preforming a trade. The auxiliaries are the warriors of the city, which help keep the city in order. Last, the guardians are the rulers of the city. Each group must perform their function and only that function. They must not interfere in any other business to uphold the political justice that is formed in the city. At the end of Book IV in Plato’s Republic, Plato attempts to mirror the political justice with individual justice. He claims that each of these classes of society are analogous to a three part structure of the soul.
After considering the three distinct classes he has identified within the city, Socrates, attempts to link them to three distinct parts of the soul. "It is obvious that the same thing will not be willing to do or undergo opposites in the same part of itself, in relation to the same thing, at the same time"(436B). He uses an example of a person who is standing still but waving his arms. …show more content…
He aligns the three parts of the city to the three parts of the soul, but why does he only restrict it to only three forces? Could there be four or five parts of the soul? If he decided to have four parts of the city would he have even made this comparison? He does nothing to prove that there could be more parts of the city or the soul. He does a good job in developing an argument that aligns the two nicely but doesn’t give any possible parts to decline. Every suggestion that arises is eventually added to the equation. If he were to raise different ideas, they might as well fit in with the soul or city. Raising these possible objections or additional parts of the soul can lead to discovering more about the particular
After considering the three distinct classes he has identified within the city, Socrates, attempts to link them to three distinct parts of the soul. "It is obvious that the same thing will not be willing to do or undergo opposites in the same part of itself, in relation to the same thing, at the same time"(436B). He uses an example of a person who is standing still but waving his arms. …show more content…
He aligns the three parts of the city to the three parts of the soul, but why does he only restrict it to only three forces? Could there be four or five parts of the soul? If he decided to have four parts of the city would he have even made this comparison? He does nothing to prove that there could be more parts of the city or the soul. He does a good job in developing an argument that aligns the two nicely but doesn’t give any possible parts to decline. Every suggestion that arises is eventually added to the equation. If he were to raise different ideas, they might as well fit in with the soul or city. Raising these possible objections or additional parts of the soul can lead to discovering more about the particular