Plato and His Search for Justice (original) (raw)
Related papers
Plato's Theory of the Justice in the Ideal State: Function and class.
There are numerous interpretations of Plato's theory of justice as it relates to the ideal state, deeply intertwined with his political philosophy. This complexity makes understanding his interlocking ideas challenging, as he seeks to construct a theory of the ideal state. Plato's philosophy of justice, particularly in its political dimension, emphasizes integration as a fundamental factor in grasping his theory. This paper aims to elucidate the original concept of justice in Plato's state by delving into the roots of the Republic, analyzing its historical context. Plato's predictions reflect values and truths connected to politics and philosophy, emphasizing integration as essential to understanding his theory of justice, which lies at the core of his philosophy. This essay compares the relationship between the functions and class structure of the state. Plato classifies human nature into three components: reason, courage, and appetite, which correspond to three major classes in the state. The ruling class, educated in philosophy, governs the state. The military class, characterized by courage and strength, defends the state, while the professional class manages the everyday affairs of governance. Plato's theory posits functional specialization across all classes as fundamental to his ideal state. In essence, while Plato's imagined city may lack historical existence, it holds significant relevance in the realm of speculative human thought. Keywords: Justice. State. Function. Class. Rulers. Guardians. Producers.
Plato and the History of Political Ideas: Justice
Forthcoming, 2023
Plato is not the author of the first political writings that have come down to us. Even in classical Greece he was preceded by such authors as Herodotus and Isocrates. Nevertheless, he can be considered the “father” of political philosophy, in that he tries to apply a higher standard—justice—to the experience and the political theory of statesmen and citizens, previously presented by rhetoricians and sophists as morally indifferent. Today it seems evident to us that justice should be the principle used in organizing a political society and that, if a society is too unjust, then it should be reformed through political means: either peacefully through legislation, or even through a violent revolution which turns everything upside down. From Plato we have inherited the idea that justice is something we should aspire to. The central theme of classical philosophy is the development of a doctrine of “the best regime,” which in essence means the most just regime. There is, however, a chasm between ancient and modern political doctrines. The “best regime”, for the ancients, doesn’t seem to be an ideal to be achieved, but rather a sort of “mental experience” which reveals the limits of what can be expected in political life. The goal of this experience is, according to Cicero, to make apparent the principles of political life, and not to give birth to an actual, real city. According to this interpretation, the most beautiful city, Calpollis—which Socrates proposes in the Republic and which raises countless objections from his interlocutors—isn’t a likely scenario, and perhaps not even a possible one. Socrates’ companions, among them Plato’s elder brothers, even ask themselves whether such a city would be desirable. The most famous of Plato’s dialogues should, therefore, be interpreted more like a comedy, rather than a sort of intellectual debate which seeks to find principles for an actual society. Pascal stated that the work wasn’t to be seen as a serious one, but rather a sort of demonstration through a reduction to the absurd. For the ancients, the best regime might not be contrary to nature, but it is extremely unlikely to be achieved. Justice is a virtue of the soul, but the systematic implementation of this standard in the city will always reveal itself to be paradoxical, in light of the ridiculous consequences that would result, such as the abolition of the family and of private property, the purging of the main Hellenic cultural works, the abolition of poetry, and a government by “philosophers”, who can’t even find their way around the public square (meaning that they lack practical experience). Even if their projects were implemented, they would meet so much resistance that it would be necessary to ban all persons older than ten years from the city. The conclusion seems to be that it is not possible to formulate a theory of justice which stipulates the best political institutions and the best laws, without relying to a great extent on the virtue of the citizenry. This perspective strikes us as alien, and it is almost incomprehensible that Plato wouldn’t at least try to put the conjectures of his characters into practice. The traditional view of the Republic in the twentieth century, on the contrary, is that Plato seriously proposes a reign by philosophers, equality between men and women in the military and in public life, shared property, and a communist totalitarian state, or at least a kind of kibbutz avant la lettre, which takes children from the family to ensure social equality. It is said, moreover, that in Plato’s opinion, philosophers should be the counselors of princes, prepared to manipulate the crowds with noble lies. To understand Plato’s political teachings, we are required to read his works as dialogues, in their dramatic context, detecting irony, and without assuming that Plato agrees with what Socrates says to his interlocutors. Whichever way we interpret him, it is undeniable that no political theory since Plato has been able to dispense with the notions of justice and of an “ideal” political regime, one “in accordance with our prayers”—and it was Plato who placed these notions at the heart of political philosophy.
Plato argues in the Republic that in both the city and the soul, justice is the well-functioning of their parts. There are now plenty of books about the well-functioning of organizations, cities, and one’s psyche, but their authors do not call it “justice”. One such book, published in French in 2017 (under the title Foutez-vous la paix!, by Fabrice Midal), goes even further and claims that to reach inner peace and psychic well-functioning we have to stop reasoning completely. Anyway, why does Plato insist that justice is, in both city and soul, the well-functioning of their parts? This is the main question I shall address in my essay.
The Relationship between Justice, Democracy and Peace in Plato’s Republic
Center for Human Rights Studies, 2009
Without doubt, Plato’s Republic is one of the most influential works in the history of philosophy, specially, in philosophy of politics. Although we find all branches of philosophical studies –from ontology and epistemology to psychology and education—discussed in this work, “justice” is central issue in it. On the other hand, of the kinds of governments discussed by Plato in 8th book of Republic, democracy is introduced as one the bad ones. For him, democracy, evolved from oligarchy, is not only a result of war and discontent, but also turns finally to its opposite, tyranny, through a wrong management of liberty and equality. Plato’s opposition to democracy –indeed only to a certain kind of it– shows that there is no necessary correlation between justice and peace on the one hand and democracy on the other hand. In this paper, having sated Plato’s view on justice, peace and democracy we will show what he regards as pre-conditions to reach justice and peace.
Morus (English translation, originally in Portuguese), 2008
This work intends to present Plato’s Republic as an ancient source of the utopian tradition,not only for its project to found a just city in speech, but also for its project to justify the legitimacy of this literary/philosophical genre mostly through considerations about the possibility of this political form. The thread to guide us is the platonic usage of the concept of dunamis (power) and its cognate adjective (dunaton) through two central axes: i) The argument that what is being drawn with this speech that founds cities – which despite of the anachronism we will call utopian – is a structure of political power based on the human power to prevent mistakes through knowledge. If this is not a really infallible power, this does not undermine revoke the capacity of speech to unveil the consequences that would follow from this hypothesis. ii) It is stated in the text that the just city there built does not exist, did not exist and will not exist, but lies like a model for anyone who would take it as a reference for one’s own actions. This point indicates a carving of the ordinary sense of “possible”, which no longer refers to the practical effectiveness of a whole system, but now denotes a properly metaphysical reference that can be accomplished in different degrees. In the intersection of these two lines of inquiry lies the definition of the genre of philosophy, understood as a speech that longs for immunity from the making of mistakes even if aware of its impossibility. In this scenario, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Republic inaugurates a discursive project defined as philosophy which will function like a pattern for the utopian genre that will be developed later on. Key words: Republic, Plato, dunamis, dunaton
Do we Know what justice is? Method in Plato's Republic.
This is an uncorrected pre-publication version of one chapter of my Book "Knowledge and Truth in Plato". Please use the published version and cite by the page numbers in that book.
In this paper I challenge the widespread idea that Plato (or Socrates) proposes a definition of justice in the Republic. I consider what it would be for a term like "justice" to be univocal across the two different domains that Plato considers, the state and the soul, and argue that he does not think that there needs to be a common definition. I explore how Socrates can deliver knowledge of what justice is, by describing an imaginary city in action, without ever giving or receiving anything like a definition. And I consider and reject two famous challenges that have supposed that there is something wrong with Plato's method and with the analogical reasoning it employs.
Peter Lang International Academic Publishers, 2021
Contents 1 Introduction / 2 The Timaeus on dignity: the Demiurge’s speech / 3 Justice as a virtue / 4 The content of just actions / 5 Justice of the law and justice of the state / 6 Equality / 7 Some key issues in Plato’s conception of justice / 7.1 What is more excellent—justice of the soul or justice of action? / 7.2 Which activity is best and what is its best object? / 7.2. Just actions over contemplation / 7.2. The Timaeus and Plato’s teaching on justice / 7.2. The elderly Cephalus on justice: foreword as epilogue / 7.3 The sharing of wives: testing the interpretation on a ‘hard case’ / 8 Conclusions (1) Review essay: Maria Roeske, To Plato for a Teaching on Justice and Dignity, “L’Ircocervo” 20 (2021) n. 2, p. 284-295 (ISSN 1722-392X): https://lircocervo.it/?p=4228 (2) Review: Szymon Mazurkiewicz, Review: Marek Piechowiak, Plato's Conception of Justice and the Question of Human Dignity, „Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie“ Vol. 106, September 2020, Issue 3, pp 477-481. https://elibrary.steiner-verlag.de/article/99.105010/arsp202003047701
Democratic Justice According to Plato
2024
This paper examines Plato's concept of democratic justice as presented in The Republic. It explores how Plato identifies various forms of government in ancient Greece—timarchy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny—and describes a degenerative sequence that arises as these systems move away from aristocracy. The discussion highlights how Plato critiques the vices and political deterioration of his time, proposing justice as a central value that governs both the state and the individual. By analyzing dialogues between key characters, the paper underscores Plato’s view that justice in a democratic regime is closely linked to the well-being and happiness of the polis, while injustice leads to societal decay. The paper also connects Plato’s ideas to later philosophical developments, such as Kant’s tripartite concept of freedom, justice, and power, and Habermas’s notion of the public sphere. These connections demonstrate how Platonic justice has influenced contemporary democratic thought, emphasizing the importance of preserving equality and preventing tyranny within a legal and ethical framework.
Plato’s Conception of Punitive Justice
Universality of Punishment, 2015
The analysis demonstrates that for Plato the principal aim of punishment is not the defence of values acknowledged by the legal system nor the well being of the state, but the good of the individual – his personal development, which is, first of all, moral development. This development consists of the attainment of the greatest – situated on the level of existence – excellence of the subject, which is the virtue of justice, an inner unity based on inner regularity, order, harmony and straightness. Attainment of the virtue of justice is likewise the attainment of happiness. In principle, punishment ought to be adapted and proportionate not to the act committed, but to the state of the subject, the state of his soul. It should be appropriate medicine, returning health to the soul, restoring inner order, harmony and straightness. The elements of a retributive concept of punishment become salient above all in the case of the most hardened criminals, who are internally so spoiled that no amelioration is possible, no punishment can be a suitable, sufficient medicine. Yet, the punishment is deserved, proportional to the degree of depravity of the offender, and thus possesses a deterrent value. Moreover, the suffering of the offender, since it is beneficial for others, contributes to his inner unity and his goodness. The preceding analysis concerning Plato’s conception of punishment clearly shows that the aim of punishment is not the good of the state, nor the abstractly conceived order of justice. The aims of punishment are not located beyond the individual (the individual soul). Therefore, in this conception of punishment there are no elements of thinking typical of that in the spirit of totalitarianism. The law and the state serve the good of the individual. This is an important argument on behalf of the postulate of a non-totalitarian interpretation of the Republic and the others dialogs of Plato.