Philosophy - Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics Essay

Philosophy - Platos Republic and Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics - Essay ExampleTherefore, it seems that commonwealth leads to anarchy. Further, Plato imagines body politic, which invites everyone as equals to regularisation themselves, as leading to a nation of power-hungry individuals motivated by selfish interests rather than the public good. Accordingly, Plato imagines land leading to tyranny. Either way, it seems democracy leads a society on a slippery slope toward an unsuitable end-state. In our modern day democracies, we tend to disagree with Plato in saying that, when well controlled, a democracy neither leads to anarchy nor tyranny. But Platos opposition to a modern society is more fundamental. The guinea pig Socrates advocates for a state ruled by philosopher-kings in a rigid system of castes that does not forgo for lateral exertion between the different groups in society (484d). This is abhorrent from the spot of liberal democracy because this neither acknowledges t he right of individuals to g everywheren oneself nor to find happiness in whatever pursuits one wishes to follow. This desire for a ruling caste stems from Platos view of the philosopher as superior in theoretical knowledge over the other people in the state (539e). Despite all of these differences, Platos Republic seeks many of the kindred ends as modern day democracies, including justice as the chief concern of a government (540e) and liberty as a necessary component of a good state (701d). Platos Republic advocates for a three-part division of society into menagees of rulers, soldiers, and the common people. The reason for this division is the concept of specialization wherein particular tasks or duties ar reserved to those who argon the most qualified to perform them. Plato conceptualises in this stratification as a content of achieving the greatest amount with the resources available to society. But this stratification leads to severe limits on the liberties of those with in the state. For instance, since the rulers of the city already have possession of a superior intellect, Plato reasons that they should be allowed to hold no property, to live at the get down of the state, and to live only on their most basic needs. Similarly, members of the common class and the soldiering class are not allowed lateral mobility within the classes. They are, from birth, determined to stay within those classes to develop and prosper in supporter to the city. Plato suggests that if citizens claim their dissatisfaction with the role in which they are placed, then the state ought to supply them with the falsehood that they are, by nature, appoint to that role based on the differential dispositions of people to fulfill certain roles (415a). Although this is an ideal situation from the perspective of Platos Socrates, from the perspective of a modern democracy, it leaves much to be desired. In fact, it seems clear that modern societies believe that individuals should be allowed to pursue whatever path they feel is right for them, regardless of whether they are effective in that social role. Of course, the nature of capitalism dictates that individuals perform acts that best enable them to support their livelihoods, but individuals do not need to act within strict social constraints like those proposed in the Republic. Secondly, a modern movement away from a class system lies in disagreement with Platos advocacy of a class system. Although classes seem justified on account