PLATO'S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Related questions:

•  “Plato’s political philosophy grew out of the circumstances of his time”. Discuss the events that combined to shape Plato’s utopia.

•  “Plato’s notion of justice is connected with his division of labour among the three classes in the state”. Discuss.

• Discuss Plato’s concept of justice. How realizable and justifiable is it?

(YOUR INTRODUCTION)

  

THE PHILOSOPHER: PLATO

        Plato was a very prolific writer who produced works on virtually every aspect of life. His overall collection of works is being referred to as “the great dialogues”. Of all his philosophical works, Plato’s political philosophy and theory can be found in three main books, which are “the Republic”, “the Statesman” and “the Laws”. As one with a very inquisitive mind, Plato usually met with his contemporaries, mostly Socrates and Thrasymachus at a place called “the Agora” where they engaged in didactic dialogues. Of all that they discussed about or that they expressed their views on, the most prominent of them all were the fundamental questions of “What is virtue”, “What is knowledge”, and “What is justice”? Of course, Plato followed Socrates closely as his mentor especially regarding the concepts of virtue and knowledge. But, regarding the idea of justice, Plato presented a very unique view which became the foundation of his political philosophy.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF PLATO’S TIME

        As usual, any political philosophy must be influenced by two basic elements which are “a metaphysical orientation about man” and “the philosopher’s culture and experience i.e. the happenings of his era or a pre-era”. In this regard, Plato’s philosophy is not left out. Accordingly, his political philosophy begins with his metaphysical orientation of man, which is centred on his concept of justice.

Ø Plato’s metaphysical orientation of man

Plato’s view on justice takes its root in his anthropological view of man. Plato’s answer to the question “what is justice” follows a psychological pattern. Justice in the man has to do, not just with his physical well being alone, but above all, the well being of his soul. Plato holds that a man’s soul is made up of a tripartite nature of “reason”, “courage” and “appetite”. Accordingly, Plato refers to them as “the rational element”, “the spirited element” and “the appetitive element”. Therefore, for a man to be just or for justice to be found in a man, there must be a harmonious functioning of all three parts such that no one is emphasized above the other. In other words, a man who is overly controlled by his rationality to the detriment of his courage or desire is not a good man. On the other hand, a man who is overcome by his desires and appetite is no less than an animal. In essence, a good or just man is one who possesses a soul in which his rationality has a balanced control over his courage and appetite. Justice can only be achieved when these three parts are in harmony with one another.

Ø The situation of the Greek states in Plato’s time

During the time of Plato, the major political theory being practised was democracy. This type of democracy which was quite different from the democracy of these contemporary times was such that the people (masses) had a right and opportunity to interfere directly in the process and administration of government. Due to this, there was much disorder and disorganization. It happened that the whole of Greece was divided into small city states which each had their own autonomous government and ruling system. They formed their own laws and coined out their own unique standard of living. It was all chaos and suffering. It even happened that there was ongoing strife within smaller groups. All this was as a result of the fact that everyone had a direct access to the process of government. Due to the fact that Plato was not pleased with this state of political affairs in Greece, he went on to extend his concept of justice in the man to the state.

For Plato, since every state is made up of individuals, it follows that once the pattern of justice in a man can be duplicated in several other men, the state would automatically turn out to be a just one; as in Plato’s words “...a society is nothing but the individual writ large”. Accordingly, Plato also divided the state into three parts with each corresponding to the three parts present in the soul of the individual. Plato holds that a state where justice could happen is one that has “the guardians (rulers)”, “the auxiliary (soldiers)” and “the artisans (peasants)”. Justice would flow naturally when the guardians do only the work of ruling the state, the soldiers do only the work of protecting and securing the state and the artisans do only the work of providing goods and services for the day to day running of the state affairs. It would be injustice for a guardian to be found doing the work of an auxiliary, or for a peasant trying to create laws for government (which was the default democratic situation of the Greek state during Plato’s era). In other words, Plato advocates the process of division of labour in the state via which justice can only be achieved. In order to make this tripartite stratification fair, Plato advocates that an equal opportunity be provided all, such that each man can prove his mettle as to which class of society he should belong. Specifically, the guardians would be rigorously trained (for about two years) and passed through various tests. If they finally make it through and master the skill of ruling, they would then have to forfeit the comfort of having a family and acquiring private property, so that their focus would be undivided toward the successful ruling of the state. However, they would be adequately taken care of by the state.

JUSTIFICATION OF PLATO’S UTOPIA

        The term utopia simply means “an ideal state”. Plato’s political ideals and theory on a just state is perceived as being too utopian or perfect. Plato was only a political philosopher but never a political scientist or politician. It is one thing to prescribe an ideal but another to successfully implement such an ideal. Plato seemed to have reduced justice in the individual to mere psychology.

  Likewise, regarding justice in the state, Plato erroneously talks about a strict stratification in which a single role is played by individuals that possess three parts. If for example, an individual qualifies as an auxiliary, it simply means that that part (to an extent) surpasses the other two parts in his soul, since that is what he knows how to do best. In such a case, can this individual still be perceived as good or just? So, it is clear that Plato talks about a state having three single parts, each to be handled by individuals that possess three parts. If justice in the man means an equal balance of his three parts, then justice in the state would not be possible as it restricts the individual to using only one of his three parts (which is reason, courage or appetite).

Although Plato means well by advocating the abolishment of family and private property for the guardians, so that they could be focussed on their ruling duty; he however possibly forgets or neglects the fact that doing this would have an adverse effect on the appetitive part of the guardians. Every normal human being would want to have a family or own some private property (achieved with personal means); but denying the guardians such opportunity would mean cheating their desires. And when the appetitive part of the ruler is affected, can he (according to Plato) still be good or just? Of course not! And if a ruler is not just, how can he rule a just state?

(YOUR CRITICISMS AND CONCLUSION)



 Back to "200 LEVEL- FIRST SEMESTER"
Back to "ARCHIVES AND RESOURCES"
Back to "PHILUZOPHY"