Paper Example on Plato: A Student of Socrates & Teacher of Aristotle

Plato was a philosopher from Athens in Ancient Greek. He was a student of Socrates then became an instructor of Aristotle. In his texts, Plato investigated different themes, such as justice and equality. Plato's works comprised of dialogues in aesthetics, theology, cosmology and epistemology. At an early age, Plato was intrigued by Socrates teachings that he became a close acquaintance and hence devoted his existence to be of a noble character. However, after the execution of Socrates, Plato travelled in the Mediterranean region for approximately 12 years learning Mathematics with the Pythagoreans in Italy then later geometry, astronomy and religion in Egypt. It was such a time that Plato started his broad writing (Baker, 2013)

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Plato's first writings include; The Apology of Socrates, Protagoras, Euthyphro, Hippias Major and Ion in which Plato attempts to communicate Socrates philosophy and knowledge. He then starts to write in his voice his thoughts on ideals such as justice, wisdom and courage of a person and a society. An example of such writing is The Republic. Later in life, he studies the function of art, which includes dancing, drama, music, ethics, plus morality.

After this, he became a founder of an institute of knowledge called The Academy and headed until his demise. The institution was later closed by a Roman Emperor who believed the establishment was a danger to Christianity and encouraged paganism. The curriculum taught at the school was astronomy, mathematics and philosophy. Plato's primary objective when setting up the school was it to become a place where prospect leaders would ascertain the way to form a proper and improved administration in the Greek states.

The impact Plato had on Philosophy, and human nature was a lasting one. It was not only in Greece that his impacted lasted but in the whole world. Plato's attitude on the significance of mathematics in the learning sector has demonstrated to be vital in understanding the universe. Also, his effort on using reason to foster a just and unbiased culture solely concentrated on the parity of people is the basis of contemporary fairness.

Plato remained unsatisfied with the deteriorating circumstances in Athens. The democracy in Athens was on the brink of destruction. According to Plato, it was the cause of the death of Socrates. Plato attacked the individualism through his writings. Plato believed that the remedy of excessive individualism is through justice. In Book 1 of The Republic, Socrates and his conversers examine the meaning of the word justice.

Firstly, Cephalus, who represents traditional morality, explained the traditional concept of justice. He explains that justice is "speaking the truth and repaying what one has borrowed." (331d). The foundation is on outdated ethical views. It associates justice to uprightness and goodness. That is reimbursing a person's balances, having good manners and respecting the gods. This definition of justice is inadequate because a person can challenge it through critical thinking. Socrates refuses to agree to this definition by presenting an example. He reasons that if justice relates to goodness, is it okay to return a weapon to the owner even though he or she may be insane? The mad person might engage in self-harm or harm other people.

Polemarchus, son of Cephalus, takes over the dialogue following his father departure to offer a sacrifice. He supports a poet called Simonides who said that it was "to render each his due." (331e). He further defends this assertion by explaining the term justice as "treating friends well and enemies badly" (332d). Socrates disagrees with Polemarchus by clarifying that a person may judge a person incorrectly hence harm competent individuals. This reasoning makes Polemarchus change his opinion, thus define justice as "to treat well a friend who is good and to harm an enemy who is bad" (335a). Socrates disagrees with him again by saying that a person cannot offer justice through harming anybody. It is ethically wrong because justice cannot result in injustice. Socrates way of reasoning confuses Polemarchus and agrees with Socrates that justice relates to goodness and is not supposed to harm anyone because harming somebody can only be caused by injustice.

At the end of the first part of the Republic justice is portrayed negatively. Additionally, both participants agree that the explanations offered do not answer what justice is especially under thorough scrutiny. Thus, through using the term justice in our daily lives, people partially understand what the word means due to failure of fully accounting what justice means. The definitions provided by different people must have supported via another description that aids in clarifying, plus establishing the overall understanding of the word justice.

The way different people define a word depends on the values and beliefs those individuals uphold. Hence, a person who has false beliefs about justice will define it in a limited way. Communication-based false beliefs cause division of people can lead to many confusions. For instance, the meaning of justice as "treating friends well and enemies badly" is incorrect, according to Plato. The explanation is narrow and inadequate; also, it is wrong since the basis of this belief is on mistaken beliefs of what the word justice should be. The basis of this definition is on factionalism which Socrates associates with tyrants, not the wise individuals (336a) (Heinze, 2007).

Thrasymachus, a sophist, then takes over the discussion. Sophists were mostly non-Athenians teachers who received payment to teach rhetoric and practical skills. Plato describes the Sophists as individuals who rejected religious beliefs and traditional morality. He compares the sophists to Socrates, who is also a teacher that does not get paid because he refuses to accept the payment of his teaching services but is committed to inquiring what is right and just. Thrasymachus opinion on what justice is is derived from the city's structure of supremacy and makes it relate to the welfares of the authoritarian group socially and politically.

According to Thrasymachus, an individual known for his rhetoric abilities, "justice is nothing else than the interests of the stronger" (338c). In other words, power is right because, when a person acts for his or her interests to get what the person wants, only the most influential individual succeeds. This definition is unethical firstly because it results in much individualism. The state government is the strongest, and according to this definition, if it tries to get anything it wants for itself, it will be successful. Thus, according to Thrasymachus, justice means fulfilling the particular interests of the governing class in a culture. The ruling class in any given society makes laws to govern its people. The laws made serve the welfares of the dominant group, and if a person violates such laws, they face are punished. The punishment is exerted because the ruling party views the violation of law as the disruption of justice.

Secondly, the definition given by Thrasymachus is unethical because it means that justice is not a collective ethical value although it is an idea which relates to the suitability of the dominant group; additionally, justice serves the individual interests of the governing unit. Thirdly, justice is a method of oppressing the less dominant group. Fourthly, there are no universal or shared interests between the ruling class and the governed. All that is experienced is supremacy by the formidable above the weak. Thus, the ethical understanding of the term justice is simply an instrument used to hide the welfares of the crowd and present these interests in a way to seem collective even to the less formidable.

Socrates does not agree with Thrasymachus statement because beliefs shape people lives, civilizations and nations. This definition makes us ask ourselves should a person trust that "justice (obeying the law) is perfect for another, the advantage of the stronger and the ruler, harmful to the ones that obey, while injustice (disobeying laws) is in one's advantage" (343c). Thrasymachus withdraws; however, Glaucon and Adeimantus begin to provide explanations on why they contemplate justice is not necessarily valued. The reason that justice should be respected if a person is not powerful enough to get away after the violation of what society believes justice is. The brothers intend for Socrates to convince them that most individuals happen to be incorrect and that it is vital to choose justice for its own sake. Also, it is vital to choose justice irrespective of the compensations or punishments. The compensations and rewards are presented on the unbiased by the gods and other persons. Glaucon and his brother say that they are ready to accept this deduction if Socrates can persuade them that it is always good to be. Hence Socrates needs to convince them that a fair person who is exceedingly unlucky stays a better life than an unfair person who is prosperous and is rewarded by the society as if he or she is just (Johnston, 2011).

Through the meanings offered by Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon about justice, Plato discovers that they all comprised of one shared element. The shared element is that they all thought of justice as something exterior "an accomplishment, an importation, or convection, they have, none of them carried it into their soul, or considered it in the place of its habitation". Plato provides proof that justice is independent upon a chance, convention or an outside force. He disagrees with Glaucon's opinion that justices external by explaining that it is the right state of a person's humanity by the nature of humankind when perceived in the fullness of his or her environment. Concurring to Plato, justice is internal as it exists in a person's soul. "It's regarded as an innermost grace, and its understanding is displayed to involve a study of the inner man". Thus, justice is natural and not born resulting from fear of the weak and oppressed but the yearning of a person's soul to perform a duty concurring to his or her nature.

Also, the explanation of the relationship of Plato's theory of goodness and ethics is when Socrates presents Glaucon with a striking image of several persons living in a cave since childhood. They are in shackles by the legs and necks such that they cannot look behind them. Behind the prisoners, there is a fire, and between the prisoners and the fire, there is a low wall. The prisoners only see shadows cast on the walls and the people carrying objects might be talking, silent or noise making. Socrates asked Glaucon what the prisoners thought of the shadows while tied up and cannot move their heads to have a glimpse at the real objects behind them.

Socrates and Glaucon both agreed that the prisoners would believe that the shadow made the sounds they heard. They imagined the prisoners playing games guessing which shadow was going to appear next and naming the shadows. Socrates then explains that one prisoner is unshackled and goes outside the cave. After adjusting to the light, the prisoner familiarizes themselves with the surroundings. The prisoner now has a better understanding of their surroundings from the blinding lights of the sun, to look at reflections in water, flowers and trees.

Conclusion

When the escaped prisoner returns to the cave, they would not be good at the guessing game because he or she knows that the shadows are imitations of actual objects. The other prisoners may think that instead of gaining knowledge, the escaped prisoner has lost. Socrates then asks Glaucon if the other prisoners would believe what the escaped prisone...