Plato's notion of Justice and how it's self-contradicting
For centuries, thinkers and philosophers have struggled with the most intriguing questions of life and epistemology, arriving at the roots and definitions of all knowledge and attempting to make sense of them. The Greek philosopher Plato lies among the most important and creative thinkers of the world, setting forth most of the crucial problems and concepts of Western philosophy, psychology, politics and logic. His influence and finding have remained profound from ancient to modern times, especially when it comes to the philosophy and politics. The world today is ruled by politics; wars and conflicts, both civil and international, are essentially a consequence of different governments and leading groups having distinct ideas of how to run and govern a group, be it a city, commune, or country. These different ideas can and do lead to conflicts and contradictions between various parties and leaders, and it all comes down to one crucial yet abstract concept: the idea of justice. The meaning and implications of justice constitute perhaps one of the greatest problems of ancient and modern philosophy, while at the same time signifies the key to preventing the downfall of a ruler and/or an empire/city. In his book The Republic , t
Plato seems to contradict his own points when he explains his mode of choosing a ruler in two ways. First, in defining justice as "not meddling in others' affairs," he goes against his idea of an all-powerful ruler or philosopher kings, whose one job is to keep everything in order and under control, and in doing this he must necessarily be minding the business of others. Plato also contradicts himself when he says that a good ruler is one who does not want to rule; yet is it not unjust to deny that person of what his true interest is, only because he is fit and able to be a philosopher king? Even though the notion of freedom is not included in Plato's formal definition of justice, it makes sense that freedom would be a big part of it. (His neglect of this idea when he constructs his City can be seen later on in how he assigns jobs to the people.) After analyzing justice as it resides in man, and comparing it to the senses within an individual, Plato ultimately defines justice as "minding one's own business" and not meddling with the affairs of others. Plato sets forth the example of a money lender; as long as he does his job, that of lending out money, everything works well. If this money lender decides to abuse his power as such and make extra profit from his doings, such as using his power and influence to create more income for himself in other ways that are not implied in his money lender profession, then things start to breakdown; Plato's ideal system begins to break down. The actions of this money lender would lead him to covet more and more money and property, therefore disrupting the natural order of things, the predesignated roles of each citizen, and bringing down the social hierarchy, thus creating chaos. However, what exactly does Plato mean by not meddling with other peoples' business? His idea of "minding one's own business" can be easily refuted on the surface; what about when it comes to helping, or interest, or connections? If a man were to help his fellow citizen, say a craftsman aided a friend in growing his corn beacuse the friend was sick, would that be considered unjust? Now there is yet another contradiction in Plato's definition of justice and his method of ruling. Plato firmly believes that a ruler cannot rule unless he does not want to, lacks the desire to do so. He sets forth another metaphor, called the Allegory of the Boat. Here, he describes how if a boat is to be led by someone, it must be someone who does not actively desire to do so. A ship must be steered, and this requires specialized craft knowledge and experience. A ship's pilot's art is gained only by years of study and experience, and the steering decisions should be made in the hands of a person who posesses this art; according to Plato, it should not be a matter of majority rule, or democracy. To apply the principle of majority rule on a boat is to invite chaos and disaster. However, it is likely that this person who is best equipped to steer the boat would be too busy studying the tides, winds and stars to participate in the struggle for power. Hence, this person would not be considered a 'candidate' in the political game, he would not be actively pursuing a leadership position. He would remain an outsider and would therefore be regarded as useless by all others. When talking to Adeimantus, Socrates says that philosophers are considered to be useless in democratically-ruled cities just as an expert boat pilot would be considered useless on a democratically-ruled ship. It is the nature of a philospher to pursue knowledge; "philosophy" is defined as "love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline... based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods." A philosopher thus dedicates his life to the pursuit of knowledge; nowhere does it say that he also rules and governs a city. Yet Plato points out that philosophers are precisely those who spend their lives learning of the Fo
Some topics in this essay:
According Plato,
Forms Justice,
City Plato's,
Ideal City,
Guardians City,
,
Allegory Cave,
Allegory Boat,
Justice Plato's,
Form Justice,
one's own,
one's own business,
philosopher king,
own business,
minding one's own,
minding one's,
definition justice,
allegory cave,
plato believes,
plato's definition,
money lender,
according plato,
justice minding one's,
considered useless democratically-ruled,
philosopher king rule,
Join now to see the rest of the essay!
Approximate Word count = 4188
Approximate Pages = 17 (250 words per page double spaced)
|