Philosopher Plato And His Major Arguments In Psychology (Essay Sample)

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Philosopher Plato
Introduction and Background
The philosopher Plato was born in the year 428 B.C.E (1Irwin 13). He is one of the ancient Greek philosophers. He was a student of Socrates and teacher of Aristotle. His philosophical writings were based on the issues of beauty, justice, and equality. He also made discussions on political philosophy, aesthetics, cosmology, theology, philosophy, and epistemology. Much of his life has been established by many through his writings because of some of his controversial thoughts. His father, Ariston was a descendant of the Kings of Messenia and Athens and his mother is related to Greek statesman, Solon of the 6th-century B.C.E (1Irwin 27). Plato, like other young boys of his age, was probably educated by the finest educators of Athens. It is thought that his curriculum probably involved the doctrines of Pythagoras, Cratylus, and Parmenides which were the basis for his study and development of epistemology, which studies knowledge and metaphysics which studies nature(1Irwin 188). By his own works, Plato is known as the innovator of the dialectic and dialogue forms of philosophy. In the same way, is recognized as the founder of the political philosophy practiced in most of the Western countries. Based on his views on Republic and the laws, it provided the basis for the treatment of different sets of political arguments from a philosophical perspective (Plato, Seth Benardete, and Allan Bloom 127). This discussion analyses one of his major argument that philosophers should be the republic rulers. The paper examines the validity and compelling aspect of the argument.
The Argument
Plato’s argument can be well elaborated through his general view of what it means by being democratic. Most states today embrace democracy as their mode of ruling where the citizens of a country are given priority to contribute to the matters affecting the politics of the country (Plato, Benardete, and Bloom 88). Debate on democracy has continued to be a significant topic since his time. The contentious issue being on the definition of democracy where some argue that it is the idea of majority rule while others stating that, especially those of the ‘Mdisonian view,' democracy is the protection of the minority. However, Plato argues that democracy refers to the rule by the people, whom he refers to as ‘the demos’ or ‘the mob.' According to Plato, political decisions should be made by experts (Plato, Benardete, and Bloom 1020). Skills and good judgment should drive this; otherwise, the Republic would lose direction. Mostly, besides emphasizing the idea of specialization as being basic for running the Republic, Plato clearly cites the lack of utilizing the philosopher’s knowledge in running the Republic which is useless as the world would probably lose them and their unutilized knowledge (Plato, Seth Benardete, and Allan Bloom 421). His argument also emphasizes on the possible dangers of equality and liberty as well as the existence of the unnatural democracy. His observation on specialization is a review of justice that he argues it should be structurally established since embracing justice in politics emanates from a structured city, justice for individuals in the city which is attained when the individuals themselves are just, and each plays a role that one is naturally destined to perform. Similarly, Plato indicates that the ruling philosophers should have the skills to rule which mainly include the ability to differentiate between what is good and bad as well as differentiating friends from foes (Kraut 215). In this case, he states that having philosophers as the rulers of The Republic would create a just society since they are wise and sovereign. Being just requires one to learn and understand as it is similar to knowledge, which brings goodness, a typical character of the philosopher kings; hence they should be rulers.
Criticizing the Argument
The argument presented by Plato on having philosopher rule where the Republic aligns directly with his definition of democracy, the rule of the demos. Further, his argument could be appreciated based on the fact that he explains that philosophers can understand the immutable and eternal, unlike the ordinary people who are blinded since they lack the actual knowledge about the reality. At the same time, ordinary people are relatively imperfect for the stand of their knowledge. On the contrary, the argument fails to exhibit persuasiveness or reality concerning the modern politics and the current republic based on the following reasons.
Most states currently define democracy as the government of the people, led by people and for people. This implies that states at present are not only supporting the democratic representation model under which the selection of leaders is done by individuals where the majority elect those they prefer at the governmental level but also are embracing politics from a plural perspective (2Irwin 201). Here, it can be observed theoretically that modern states are no longer being ruled by the elites or by the Plato philosophers. However, the modern ruling of the Republic is placed on a neutral and open field from which individual groups meet to make discussions and formulate policies that largely focus on economic challenges. The major aspect is that the interest groups that come together must have the knowledge that could facilitate the desired changes (2Irwin 213). Furt...