example of ideal state essay

Creating Your Ideal State Essay

The essay sample on Creating Your Ideal State Essay dwells on its problems, providing a shortened but comprehensive overview of basic facts and arguments related to it. To read the essay, scroll down.

Eren ErkanFinal Draft 20801260 IR Phil 243/ 15 Tugce Ar? kan Essay Question: Explain Plato’s ideal state by referring to the Republic, book IV and VII. To what extent do you agree with Plato’s idea that the kings should be philosophers? Why? Why not? Concept of create an ideal state really need to long effort and time.

This concept and long standing debate that how should be an ideal state is explains in Plato’s Republic book IV and VII. In Republic, Plato explains the features of an ideal state and he claims that the kings should be philosophers.

He thinks to govern a state and make social harmony properly philosophers should govern the state. At this point, I will try to clarify Plato’s ideal state and why kings should be philosophers and why they are the only ones to spread justice & wisdom.

Main aim of ideal state should be to create a state which everybody is happy and equal. According to Plato, ‘’in establishing their city, they don’t aiming to make any one group outstandingly happy but to make the whole city so, as far as possible. They thought that we’d find justice most easily in such a city and injustice. ’(Plato, Republic, 420b) In that part Plato explains the state a big piece and he thinks there should be no differences in this piece, because if there is an unhappy or privileged groups that affects all state harmony.

Proficient in: Allegory Of The Cave

“ Thank you so much for accepting my assignment the night before it was due. I look forward to working with you moving forward ”

Then while he explains that idea Plato says everybody must do their own jobs. He means everybody should do their own duties. Plato gives an example that shows why all people should make their duties: ‘’ to be creating the happy city not picking out a few happy people and putting them in it, but making whole city happy.

What Is Ideal State

You must look to see whether by dealing with each part appropriately, we are making the whole part beautiful. Similarly, you mustn’t force us to give our guardians. We know how to clothe the farmers in purple robes, festoon them with gold jewelry, and tell them to work the land whenever they please. ’’(Plato, Republic, 420e) This quotation explains how to create social order because everybody should their own job properly. Thus, no one obstruct other ones duties and excellent social harmony and justice will be provided. As for what is necessary to create an ideal state, for Plato’s ideal state all part of society should work better.

Society should be divided in to three classes namely the philosophers, the guardians and the producers. This exact division of society, needless to say, is basic foundation of the concept division of labor and in both system, to function in a healthy way, everyone should does his or her own duty. These three classes have different duties and different symbolic implications. Philosophers constitute higher class and they are law maker. Their duty is administrate the state by their knowledge. The guardians are warrior and protector of city, and they constitute middle class.

Third class is producers; they are consisting of farmer and artisans. Their function is provide societies basic needs(Plato, Republic, 421b- 433a). Plato’s ideal state is that 3 classes of people made the harmony. I mean, when these classes worked like a machine, state will have peace. However, to protect these harmony Plato suggest that ‘’ city gets a good start; it will go on growing in a cycle. Good education and upbringing, when they are preserved, produce good natures, and useful natures who are turn well educated, grow up even better than their predecessors, both in their offspring and in other respect, just like other animals. ’ (Plato, Republic, 424b) He actually claims that, to protect these 3 classes harmony, we should have well educated people. If we teach and convince people to protect their status, we can reach excellent social system. In addition, according Plato, to being an ideal state, before individual should be just person, because he believes to manage a state well, people should be wisdom, courage, and moderate but apart from these people should be just. In ‘’Republic’’, Plato explains his idea that way ‘’ it is necessarily follows that the individual is wise in the same way and in the same part of himself as the city.

Isn’t individual courageous in the same way and in the same part of himself as the city? Moreover, he supposes that a man is just in the same way as a city. He also remembers that each one of us in whom each part is doing its own work will himself be just and do his own. ’’ (Plato, Republic, 441c) He means they are able to achieve found an ideal state if each one do its own work justly. Plato somehow considers society as a human body and he specifies each class as an organ, philosophers symbolize the brain, guardians are heart and producers symbolize the down of the body.

To keep this body healthy, each part should make their duties. Therefore, justice and injustice compared with health and illness. According to Plato, ‘’ just and unjust actions are no different for the soul than healthy and unhealthy things are for the body. Healthy things produce health, unhealthy ones disease. Produce justice establish the parts of the soul in a natural relation of control, one by another. ’’(Plato, Republic, 444c) Thus, in ideal state every person should be just because, for staying healthy our city needs to just people.

Thanks to just people state will become ‘’ideal’’. In ideal state, Plato has an idea that philosophers should be king because he thinks only philosophers are just and wise. In Republic book VII, wisdom and being just is explains with a metaphor that called ‘allegory of cave’. This metaphor is meant to illustrate the effects of education on the human soul. Education moves the philosopher through the stages on the divided line, and ultimately brings him to the Form of the Good.

In this allegory ‘’ the effect of education and of the lack of it on our nature to an experience like human beings living in an underground, cave like dwelling which is both open to light and as wide as the cave itself. They have been there since childhood, fixed in the same place, with their necks and legs fettered’’ (Plato, Republic, 514a) It is explains that differences between wise and others because wisdom means seeing truth directly and it is not possible behind the shadows. As I am said before wisdom and justice are related concepts.

To acknowledge as a wise person, s/he should be just personality. According to Plato ‘’ education isn’t what some people declare it to be, namely, putting knowledge into souls that lack it, like putting sight into blind eyes. The power to learn is present in everyone’s soul and that the instrument with which each learns is like an eye that cannot be turned around from darkness to light without turning the whole body. ’’ (Plato, Republic, 518c) this example shows that each soul has power to learn, but ducation cannot close the gap that wisdom and justice produced. Therefore, I agree with Plato’s idea that philosophers should be king because in this way state will ruled by just and wise person. In conclusion, main aim of Plato’s ideal state is create a city which everybody is happy and equal. To provide this aim Plato specifies different roles for different classes and he thinks justice is the harmony between classes namely everyone does his or her own job, which is a necessity for society and for people to live in an appropriate way.

Only by this way the society could function like a human body but the most important part the body is govern by ‘wise’ and ‘just’ people. Additionally, I think the idea of Plato that philosophers should be king is really reasonable because they are the only people who can govern the ideal state properly. They are wise than other people and they have ability to govern. Therefore, in order to have an ideal state, social harmony must be provide and philosophers should be king. Word Count: 1403

Cite this page

Creating Your Ideal State Essay. (2019, Dec 06). Retrieved from https://paperap.com/paper-on-ideal-state-4284/

"Creating Your Ideal State Essay." PaperAp.com , 6 Dec 2019, https://paperap.com/paper-on-ideal-state-4284/

PaperAp.com. (2019). Creating Your Ideal State Essay . [Online]. Available at: https://paperap.com/paper-on-ideal-state-4284/ [Accessed: 14 Aug. 2024]

"Creating Your Ideal State Essay." PaperAp.com, Dec 06, 2019. Accessed August 14, 2024. https://paperap.com/paper-on-ideal-state-4284/

"Creating Your Ideal State Essay," PaperAp.com , 06-Dec-2019. [Online]. Available: https://paperap.com/paper-on-ideal-state-4284/. [Accessed: 14-Aug-2024]

PaperAp.com. (2019). Creating Your Ideal State Essay . [Online]. Available at: https://paperap.com/paper-on-ideal-state-4284/ [Accessed: 14-Aug-2024]

• EEO in Your State: Questions and Resources Pages: 1 (272 words)
• Ideal Wife Essay Pages: 3 (649 words)
• The Ideal School Essay Pages: 7 (1877 words)
• Your Lifestyle Is Your Health Pages: 5 (1356 words)
• Lab Report on Ideal Gas Law Pages: 4 (948 words)
• How To Be An Ideal Wife Pages: 3 (825 words)
• Carl Becker Ideal Democracy Pages: 3 (650 words)
• Max Weber Ideal Bureaucracy Pages: 4 (1163 words)
• My Ideal Utopian Society Project Pages: 5 (1207 words)
• Ideal Observer Theory Pages: 7 (1997 words)

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Aristotle`s Theory of the Ideal State, Essay Example

Pages: 26

Words: 7235

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Aristotle’s political thought has exerted a seminal, precipitous impact on Western philosophical discourses down the ages. In the Nicomachean Ethics and the Politics, Aristotle effectively founded the discipline of political science. Fundamental to both of these works is a concern for the chief end of human beings: eudaimonia, the good life, the highest good. A concern for eudaimonia pervades both works: what it consists of, the character and disposition of individuals who have it, how to achieve it, and so on. Where the Nicomachean Ethics contains Aristotle’s ethics, the Politics contains the essential plan for their implementation in a civil society.

There is a concept that is absolutely seminal to Aristotle’s ethical and political thought, so seminal that it forms much of the essential backbone of his arguments: eudaimonia (eudemonia) , which can be translated as “happiness” or “flourishing” or, better yet, “living well”—the good life (Bailey et al., 2008, p. 126). In fact, this concept essentially links Aristotle’s ethical thought with his political thought: the two cannot be separated from each entirely, inasmuch as both are concerned with this concept of promoting eudaimonia (p. 126). A crucial point here, however, is that Aristotle’s understanding of eudaimonia is that it is not simply defined in terms of things that supply some good, but rather in terms of the attributes of goodness itself (p. 126). Thus, to a considerable extent, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics pave the way for his Politics: where the Nicomachean Ethics are concerned with the virtues and their applications, the concern of Politics is how to construct an ideal polity that will be capable of best safeguarding the cultivation and transmission of these virtues in pursuit of eudaimonia (Bailey et al., 2008, p. 127). Aristotle apparently believed that the life devoted to intellectual pursuits was the best, although a life dedicated to political pursuits ranked as no mean second (p. 127).

The Nicomachean Ethics is a good place to begin to examine Aristotle’s concern with eudaimonia, particularly with regard to how it is relevant to the political life. In that work, Aristotle explained that the chief good is an end in itself (NE, bk. 1, ch. 2, p. 3). As such, this chief good should be sought above all other goods, above everything else, precisely because it can be expected to have a great impact on the way that one lives one’s life (p. 3).

An excellent articulation of this relation between the Nicomachean Ethics and the Politics is that by Shields (2007). As Shields explained, the concern of the Nicomachean Ethics is to describe eudaimonia for the individual, for human life; the concern of the Politics is implementing it (p. 350). Put another way, the Nicomachean Ethics describes the destination, while the Politics provides the road map and travel guide. The realization of the human good is the concern that pervades all of the Politics, but again, this builds off of the Nicomachean Ethics (p. 350).

An absolutely vital point to understand here concerns the fact that the Politics is concerned with states, and thus with the social order. As will shortly be seen in greater detail, Aristotle held the state to be wholly natural, a logical outgrowth of the human condition. However, the point concerns why, precisely, the roadmap for achieving eudaimonia should involve politics and the social order, rather than a merely personal quest or philosophy. Again, the key insight comes from Shields (2007), and it concerns how Aristotle would have reacted to any suggestions that humans ever lived in a “state of nature.” As Shields explained, a wide variety of philosophies in the West, long after Aristotle’s time, averred that humans derived from some sort of “state of nature”, whether by providence of God or due to nature alone (p. 351). From there, these various philosophies have held, from this primeval human state of nature, has come every civilization and social order—but only the state of nature was truly “pure”, and it is this state that is most representative of human nature at its best.

The contrast with Aristotle is significant, but it must be appreciated in full: Aristotle does not say that the state came first; indeed, he recognizes that it evolved from earlier forms. What he does hold is that the state is part and parcel of human nature (Shields, 2007, p. 351). Aristotle recognized that humans are social creatures, but he also believed that the state was essential for achieving a fully actualized human nature (p. 351). For the “state of nature” thinkers, such as Locke and Rousseau and so many others, humans left the state of nature to become members of state formations. For Aristotle, state formations, and their attendant civil societies, refined and proved the end of human nature (p. 351). Thus, rather than viewing stateless peoples, such as the so-called “barbarians” to the north of Greece, as living in or nearer to the state of nature, Aristotle viewed them as “barely—or not at all—human” (p. 351).

In the Politics, Aristotle claims that there is already an agreement on the nature of eudaimonia (Chuska, 2000, p. 11). In such a state, an individual should have access to a number of goods, including bodily goods, social goods, and internal goods for the soul (p. 11). Bodily goods ought to include “good size, strength, athletic ability, a good old age, health, and beauty,” while external or social goods ought to include “good birth, children, wealth, honor, friends, and good luck” (pp. 11-12). However, more important by far are the goods of the soul, for without these one simply could not be called blessed. They include “courage, self-control, justice,” and prudence (p. 12).

All of these things are good, but the virtues of the soul are most important, more important by far than wealth and power (Chuska, 2000, pp. 12-13). This is of import to political life, because the concern of political life is rightly to establish the good society—and the good society should be amenable to the sorts of pursuits that the truly blessed engage in and aspire to achieve (p. 13). More specifically, Aristotle claims that the study of eudaimonia is the enterprise, the end of politics. His reasoning here is quite interesting, actually: politics is the science that is devoted to eudaimonia because it is the study, the science, that determines what other subjects will be studied in any given polity, and importantly, by whom (NE, bk. 1, ch. 2, p. 3).

Thus, politics determines what studies, what arts will be pursued in any given society. What Aristotle is talking about is political science. In his own words: “now, since politics, uses the rest of the sciences, and since, again, it legislates as to what we are to do and what we are to abstain from, the end of this science must include those of the others, so that this end must be the good for man” (NE, bk. 1, ch. 2, p. 3). So far, so good. And here, a key point is that for Aristotle, politics is utterly natural, much like family life (Bailey et al., 2008, p. 127).

Aristotle seems to believe that the city-state, the polis, is just as natural as family life: just as individuals found households and have families, and—according to the customs of his time—just as masters and slaves “profit from the master’s intellect and the slave’s labor”, so too do city-states arise organically, as it were, as natural partnerships between individuals in larger groups (Bailey et al., 2008, p. 127). The polis, the Greek city-state, is altogether natural because only this form of polity can serve as the vehicle for achieving the full range of human potential: moral virtues as well as intellectual virtues (Shields, 2007, p. 353). Just as human beings seek to be happy, so too, as social creatures, do they tend to form associations towards this end (p. 353). Thus, Aristotle reasoned, humans “have both a natural capacity and a natural impulse to form a polis” (p. 353).

Aristotle’s view of the polis as wholly natural will have profound and significant ramifications for his views regarding the ideal state, the ideal polity, as will be seen. For Aristotle, the polis is a kind of social super-organism, and just as any association aims for some end, some good, so the polis aims for “the most authoritative or highest good” (Nichols, 1992, p. 14). Through political activity, individuals can exercise their virtues and cultivate them, and these virtues will in turn lead them to happiness, to eudaimonia (p. 14). Again, there is an essential continuity here between the virtues of the blessed life, eudaimonia , and the exercise of politics towards the end of reinforcing and protecting the citizen’s ability to enjoy eudaimonia (p. 14). Politics involves the use of such natural human capacities as reason (logos) and speech, capacities utilized toward the greatest and best end (p. 15).  

In Politics, Aristotle begins his search for the ideal regime with a consideration of the household. Specifically, Aristotle explains, one should start with a consideration of how households are managed before considering how states are managed, since, after all, states are composed of households (Politics, bk. I, ch. 3, p. 4). He examines three institutions: “master and slave, husband and wife, father and children” (p. 4). And, of course, Aristotle is also concerned with how households go about the business of acquiring wealth (p. 4). All of these institutions are seminal to Aristotle’s thinking about the ideal state.

Of profound importance, perhaps the greatest for our purposes here, Aristotle examines the institution of slavery, which was common enough in the society of his times (4 th -century BCE Greece and Macedon). Aristotle notes that there is a certain division of opinion here: for some, ownership of slaves and the management of their labor is entirely natural, and thus there is nothing wrong with it as such (Politics, bk. I, ch. 3, p. 4). Aristotle himself is part of this first camp. The second camp argue that slavery is “contrary to nature, and that the distinction between slave and freeman exists by law only, and not by nature; and being an interference with nature is therefore unjust” (p. 4).

For modern sensibilities, which fall overwhelmingly in the first camp, it may well be difficult indeed to understand Aristotle’s reasoning here. However, it is important that we try, inasmuch as it is so foundational to his political science, indeed, all of the major ideas he articulates in the Politics. Aristotle first reasons that property is important: some amount of wealth is vital for maintaining life (Politics, bk. I, ch. IV, p. 5). Next, Aristotle makes an analogy: just as in other enterprises, other arts, the management of the household requires its instruments. These “instruments” vary greatly, depending on the function that they are called to perform: in a sense, to use one of his analogies, both the rudder and the look-out man are “instruments” on the ship, which help the pilot (p. 5). The first is an inanimate object, the second is a living human being, but both serve their purpose.

Now, Aristotle says, so too it is with slaves: like the rudder, like the look-out man, the slave is a living possession, an instrument for the use of their master (Politics, bk. I, ch. IV, p. 5). Aristotle also distinguishes between instruments of production, such as the weaving-shuttle and the plectrum, both of which make something (cloth and music, respectively), and instruments of action—such as slaves (p. 5). Aristotle also argues that slaves are slaves by nature: that is, slaves are born, not made (bk. 1, ch. V, p. 5). Aristotle believes, quite literally, that “from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule” (p. 6).

Here, the analogy is with tame animals: much as tame animals are used by their owners to tend to the owners’ own needs, so it is with slaves (Politics, bk. 1, ch. V, pp. 6-7). In fact, the distinction is like that between soul and body, since (as Aristotle presumes) a slave really has nothing to offer but their body (p. 6). Such individuals “are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master” (pp. 6-7). A slave is, by nature, the possession of another, a conclusion which, though repugnant to modern eyes, is nonetheless an important one for Aristotle, as will be seen (p. 5). In fact, this is a very important principle, because it speaks to Aristotle’s preoccupations with analogies between household life and political life.

At this juncture, however, it is well worth it to stop and take stock. How, those of modern sentiments might well ask, could Aristotle have defended so repugnant and degrading an institution? (Kraut, 2002, p. 277). As Kraut indeed explained, it is not that Aristotle had never even heard of the idea of abolition, because as seen, his defense of slavery is a reply to some unnamed individuals who have argued against it as unjust, by virtue of being unnatural and dependent solely upon coercion and force to function (pp. 277-278). As Kraut (2002) explained, however, Aristotle’s chief conception—indeed, misconception—might well be that he believed slaves to not possess full rationality (p. 283).

For Aristotle, the human soul was bifurcated, dichotomized between a reasoning part and a part that listens but does not reason, the latter being capable only of “listening to and being persuaded by reasoning” (Kraut, 2002, p. 283). Aristotle explains the distinction by giving an example: at some times, someone might wish to do something rational, only for one’s other mind or other part of the soul, as it were, to urge throwing caution to the winds (p. 283). This is the distinction between reason on the one hand, and passion and the impulses on the other (p. 283). Again, though, this part of the human soul or mind can share in reasoning, in that it can be persuaded by reason: it can listen to reason, but it cannot come up with sound reasoning on its own (p. 283).

But Aristotle’s reasoning is not so simple as to suggest merely that the slave is deserving of slavery because they lack the capacity to reason, the reasoning part of the soul (Kraut, 2002, pp. 283-285). Aristotle does believe that slaves are more capable than that, but the aforementioned distinction between the two different parts of the soul is still relevant, because Aristotle seems to be arguing that slaves lack bouleutikon, the faculty of deliberation (p. 285). Those with bouleutikon have greater reasoning faculties, and therefore, Aristotle seems to be saying, are natural masters (p. 288). Those who lack it benefit from the direction of one who possesses this faculty, and thus are natural slaves (p. 288). Kenny (2007) summarized Aristotle’s views on slavery in terms of a rejection of the idea that it is just to enslave the hapless inhabitants of a defeated polity after an unjust war (p. 85). However, Aristotle believed that it was actually better for those who were sufficiently “inferior and brutish… to be under the rule of a kindly master than to be left to their own devices” (p. 85).

As with the household, so with the city. For Aristotle, the master-slave relationship was a necessary one, one that was born out of the survival imperative: as seen, the master benefits from the slave’s labor, while the slave benefits (according to Aristotle) from the master’s good sense and direction (Nichols, 1992, p. 15). Similarly, households are formed by men and women, who come together in order to reproduce and raise their children (p. 15). This in turn begets the third significant relationship in the household, that between a father and his children (p. 15).

All of this is natural, in Aristotle’s view, and all of it suggests that the polis is just as natural, because the polis originated from an agglomeration of households (Nichols, 1992, p. 15). The agglomeration of several families, Aristotle explains, is the village, which is essentially an extension of the basic form of the family household, albeit scaled up (Politics, bk. I, ch. 2, p. 2). This, Aristotle argues, is what explains kings: kings came about because the eldest (male) always heads the family household (p. 2). Thus, the early Greek poleis were ruled by kings, and of course, “the barbarians still are” (p. 2).

Beyond the village comes the state itself, which is constituted of several villages (Aristotle, Politics, bk. I, ch. 2, p. 3). The several villages are effectively knit together, becoming a singular community. As before, just as with the family household and the small village, the city-state or polis exists for the purpose of guaranteeing its residents eudaimonia, a good life (p. 3). A seminal part of this is the function of the city-state to serve as a guarantor of order: the polis passes and enforces laws, which serve to constrain ruffians and troublemakers of all sorts (Nichols, 1992, p. 17). The function of the state, then, is to secure eudaimonia by passing laws that protect its inhabitants from troublemakers who might harm them.

Having delineated what a state is supposed to do, Aristotle also takes it upon himself to evaluate three particular regimes of his own time: Sparta, Crete, and Carthage (Nichols, 1992, p. 36). In examining these regimes, one of Aristotle’s biggest concerns is to ascertain “what should be common to citizens”, in Nichols’s words (p. 36). He delineates three alternatives: the citizens have (or hold) nothing in common with each other; the citizens have everything in common, and the citizens have some things in common, but other things not (Politics, bk. II, ch. 1, p. 20). Aristotle’s own answer is the third option, and in his examination of the three regimes he will touch on this basic concept on more than one occasion. Here, Aristotle’s argument is that states are not made up all of the same kind of men, but rather of different kinds—again, shades of the master-slave argument here (bk. II, ch. 2, pp. 20-21).

Aristotle argues, and it is difficult indeed to deny him his point, that without some commonalities between citizens one cannot have a functional state (Politics, bk. II, ch. 2, p. 21). On the other hand, if the citizens had all things in common this would create many difficulties: first of all, it would undermine self-sufficiency, because it would become too much like a single individual (p. 21). Moreover, holding wives and offspring in common, as Socrates indeed suggested in Plato’s Republic, is impracticable: it would undermine the incentive of parents (or fathers, at any rate) to invest in their offspring, and it would manifestly undermine family ties and affections (ch. 3, pp. 21-22). Clearly, the only outcome that makes any sense at all is for families to be discrete and separate, rather than held in common—and yet, families can still participate in community life (p. 22). Thus, there is a distinction between public and private, and it is an important one in Aristotle’s thought.

Concerning property, Aristotle wisely distinguishes between this question and that of families. As he explains, there are three options: firstly, “the soil may be appropriated, but the produce may be thrown for consumption into the common stock; and this is the practice of some nations” (Politics, bk. II, ch. 5, p. 24). Secondly, Aristotle suggests, “the soil may be common, and may be cultivated in common, but the produce divided among individuals for their private use”, and this practice, Aristotle proclaims, is held amongst some “barbarian” nations (p. 24). Finally, “the soil and the produce may be alike common” (p. 24).

Again, Aristotle chooses a relatively well-considered and sensible option: it will not do for the consumption to be common, in essence, for there to be communism, because “those who labor much and get little will necessarily complain of those who labor little and receive or consume much” (Politics, bk. II, ch. 5, p. 25). Aristotle argues that property should be common to a certain degree, but generally private: generally private, in order to motivate all men to work for themselves, and yet, some things may be shared amongst friends (p. 25). Here, Aristotle notes the custom of the Lacedaemonians (Spartans), who often use the slaves, horses, and dogs owned by their countrymen—an example of private property with common use (p. 25).

Remarking that governments tend to be a mix between democracy and oligarchy, Aristotle observes that the Lacedaemonian (Spartan) constitutional form is a much-praised blend of “oligarchy, monarchy, and democracy” (Politics, bk. II, ch. 6, p. 30). A key sticking-point here is whether the Ephoralty, the institution of the Ephors, five magistrates from the people, constitutes a tyranny or an example of democracy (p. 30). Aristotle argues that the best constitutions are a mix of the various elements: monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy (p. 30). Indeed, Aristotle’s contention throughout is that the best regime has at least some elements of kingship or aristocracy (Simpson, 1998, p. 203).

In evaluating the character of any given regime, Aristotle explains, it is necessary to consider two things: firstly, the merits or demerits of a particular law vis-à-vis the character of the perfect state, and secondly, the consistency or lack of consistency of the law with the character of the law as presented by the lawgiver (Politics, bk. II, ch. 9, p. 37). And now his long discussions about the character of the master-slave relationship and the management of households are revealed in their full import, for although the citizens might wish to have their fill of leisure, the cardinal problem with this is that such leisure rests on the backs of slaves, and slaves have a tendency to rebel (pp. 37-38). After commenting on the slave uprisings in Thessaly and Sparta, Aristotle notes that Crete has not been so troubled, and the reason for this would appear to be that their neighbors have avoided giving any kind of encouragement to rebellious slaves in Crete, since they have their own large slave populations (p. 38).

Another consideration concerns the temperament and character of the citizens themselves. If they are wise, they will learn how to manage their subject populations; however, Aristotle claims that they must also learn how to govern themselves—the women, in particular (Politics, bk. II, ch. 9, p. 38). Aristotle argues that the Lacedaemonian women are licentious, and that their license has, in effect, defeated “the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the happiness of the state” (p. 38). And what have the Lacedaemonian women done that is so grievous? They live, Aristotle explains, in “every sort of intemperance and luxury” (p. 38). Luxury and intemperance, then, are corrosive and anathema to the cultivation of the good life. States with such an indolent and luxury-loving citizenry will suffer as a result.

Curiously enough in light of his other, rather sexist views, Aristotle does not seem to believe that it is problematic or harmful for women to hold power in principle. Indeed, if they are skillful, then the polity can benefit as a result. In fact, Aristotle explains, during Sparta’s heyday, “many things were managed by their women” (Politics, bk. II, ch. 9, p. 38). By contrast, Aristotle avers, their daughters of a later generation played no insignificant role in Sparta’s defeat by Thebes, which cost the city much the bulk of its helot population (pp. 38-39).  What is needed, Aristotle is saying, is for men and women to be temperate, restrained, and  to know how to govern themselves. And—crucially—they must also know how to accede to the government of the state as a whole, because if they do not yield to the laws then there will be, in effect, nothing short of anarchy (p. 39).

Another criticism of the Spartans from Aristotle concerns land distribution. Most of the land is held in the hands of a few, an inequity Aristotle attributes principally to inheritance laws which allow women to inherit, and to the fact that land is often given in large dowries (Politics, bk. II, ch. 9, p. 39). This inequity, Aristotle contends, is not merely problematic in principle—again, his own views of social relations are rather chauvinistic and elitist by the standards of modern sensibilities—it is problematic because it has deprived the Spartans of citizens (p. 39). The reason for this is that in Sparta, as in many other ancient city-states (including Rome), citizenship was tied to land ownership: thus, fewer land-owners meant fewer Spartan citizens. This in turn led to Sparta’s downfall, after their ruinous defeat by Thebes. If the Spartans had simply redistributed their lands, Aristotle contends, they would have prevented themselves from falling into such ignominy (p. 39).

Aristotle next turns to the Ephoralty, Sparta’s premier democratic institution, and one that leaves much to be desired in Aristotle’s own opinion. First and foremost, Aristotle diagnoses the basic problem as one of the ephors being given far too much power, despite the fact that they are chosen democratically (Politics, bk. II, ch. 9, p. 40). The consequence of this is that the ephors are often “very poor men, who, being badly off, are open to bribes” (p. 40). The effects, Aristotle argues, have been simply ruinous: ephors have been perfectly willing to exercise their power towards the ruin of the Spartan state, all in the service of those who have bribed them. Not even the kings are immune from having to curry favor with them, and the result has been a degradation (from Aristotle’s point of view) of the Spartan constitution from an aristocracy into a democracy (p. 40).

Having criticized Sparta’s constitution, Aristotle offered his own suggestions for improving upon it greatly. Somewhat surprisingly, he affirmed that the selection of the ephors “out of the whole people” was perfectly acceptable, though it should be done with more prudence and care (Politics, bk. II, ch. 9, p. 40). Secondly, Aristotle recommends a written law code, which should guide the decisions of the ephors. Thirdly, the ephors have “a deal too much license”, which has corrupted them; by comparison, the other citizens react to the harsh strictures of Spartan laws, customs, and mores by secretly indulging in sensual pleasures (p. 40).

The Spartans’ council of the elders, too, was not without defect in Aristotle’s view: though the institution itself was sound and advantageous, Aristotle explains, the fact that the elders serve for life is questionable and probably unwise (Politics, bk. II, ch. 9, p. 40). And as with the ephors, Aristotle alleges, the elders have been guilty of taking bribes and exercising partiality in the disposition of their high offices (pp. 40-41). Aristotle repeats the contention that the way in which the Spartans hold their elections is childish: rather than a candidate canvassing for office, “the worthiest should be appointed, whether he chooses or not” (p. 41). And in this vein, Aristotle makes an interesting suggestion about the selection of kings, of which Sparta had two: they should be chosen, like the elders, based on ability rather than lineage (p. 41).

Having critiqued the Spartan, or Lacedaemonian constitution, Aristotle turns to the Cretan, which he suggests may have served as the prototype of the Spartan (Politics, bk. II, ch. 10, p. 42). The Spartans have their five ephors, and the Cretans have their ten Cosmi (p. 43). Unlike the Spartans, however, the Cretans have abolished their monarchy, and now it is the duty of the Cosmi to lead them into war (p. 43). There is also a council of elders, much as in Sparta. Finally, they have an underclass, the Perioeci (p. 43).

And yet, despite these similarities, the deficiencies of the Cretan constitution far exceed those of the Spartan. For one thing, the Cosmi are a far worse institution than the Spartan ephors: they are elected only out of certain families, rather than all the people as at Sparta, and the council of elders are elected from former Cosmi (Politics, bk. II, ch. 10, p. 43). Like the Spartan elders, the Cretan elders are irresponsible, serve for life, and exercise far too much arbitrary power: they are given far too much leeway to act according to their own judgment, rather than established and written laws (p. 43). Even worse, the Cosmi “are often expelled by a conspiracy of their own colleagues, or of private individuals” (p. 44). Thus, their power is limited, but in a way that tends to make for instability, rather than accountability and moderation in governance. This is the reason Aristotle cannot stand the Cretan constitution: it is far too arbitrary, and it alternates the accumulation of too much power by the wrong individuals and/or the wrong means with checks and balances based on nothing more than caprice (p. 44).

Of the three regimes Aristotle examines, that of Carthage, the great Phoenician trading city in North Africa, receives the greatest praise. The Carthaginians have quite a few institutions that are nothing short of excellent, Aristotle explains, and the combination of a loyal populace and a history free from any sort of tyranny attests to the superiority of Carthage’s constitution (Politics, bk. II, ch. 11, p. 44). The Carthaginian 104 Judges, or magistracy of the 104, Aristotle likens to the ephors of Sparta, save for the fact that Carthage chose the 104 magistrates by merit, rather than by means of any other qualification (p. 45). Like Sparta, Aristotle claims, the Carthaginians have kings and a gerusia, a council of elders. However, the kings “are not always of the same family, nor than an ordinary one, but if there is some distinguished family they are selected out of it and not appointed by seniority” (p. 45).

To be sure, Aristotle sees some flaws with the Carthaginian constitution, but no more—and indeed, far fewer—than with the Lacedaemonian and Cretan constitutions Politics, bk. II, ch. 11, p. 45). However, Carthage earns especially high marks in Aristotle’s esteem in that of the features of its constitution of which he does not approve, some tend towards democracy and others toward oligarchy. By way of example, if the kings and elders are unanimous in so doing, they “may determine whether they will or will not bring a matter before the people” (p. 45). Whenever they are not unanimous, it is left to the people (p. 45). Measures brought to the people by the kings and the elders may also be opposed by them, a feature that is more democratic than those of either Sparta or Crete. The supreme council of 100 is a decidedly aristocratic institution with some characteristics of oligarchy; overall, the Carthaginian constitution is included more towards oligarchy than to aristocracy (p. 45).

In Aristotle’s thought, the main problem with Carthage’s deviation from aristocracy to oligarchy is that the true aristocrat is innately more virtuous (Politics, bk. II, ch. 11, p. 46). The problem with emphasizing the oligarchic features is that the political life tends to become too dominated by wealth, particularly the exercise of wealth to buy political offices (p. 46). Again, this speaks to a very persistent strain in Aristotle’s thought: different people have different dispositions and characters, and some people are, by their very nature, better and of higher character than others. He finds much to praise in the Carthaginian political system, and he clearly esteems it above the Spartan and the Cretan as being far more rational and overall superior, inasmuch as it is better able to promote and safeguard the good life.

However, he does note that the Carthaginians have found a work-around, a practice that allows them to essentially preempt or deflect the problems that, to Aristotle’s mind, come with oligarchy. Carthage had a considerable colonial empire, including parts of Sicily as well as Sardinia, Corsica, and parts of southern Spain; according to Aristotle, they used these considerable colonial holdings as the means of “enriching one portion of the people after another” (Politics, bk. II, ch. 11, p. 46). This is a considerable source of strength for them, of course, but that it is also a glaring defect is relatively obvious: it is dependent upon the colonies functioning as wealth-generating imperial possessions, which would leave Carthage vulnerable in the event of a mass revolt (p. 46).

As Kenny (2007) explained, again, Aristotle’s view of which kinds of governments were best proceeded directly from his view of what the state is for (p. 84). Because the purpose of the state is eudaimonia, “a good and happy life for its citizens”, then the form of government it adopts is better or worse to the degree that it either does, or does not, facilitate this end (p. 84). To give a very specific example, if the state has a single individual, or perhaps some great family, who possess a surfeit of virtue and excellence, then it is altogether logical and reasonable that this state adopt a monarchical form of government (pp. 84-85).

In practice, Aristotle recognizes, such an event is very rare: usually it is not possible to guarantee that the office will not be abused and corrupted (Kenny, 2007, p. 85). A corrupted monarchy becomes a tyranny, the very worst sort of government (p. 85). Failing monarchy, in principle, in theory, aristocracy should be preferred as the basis of the state’s constitution, because this constitutes rule by a number of individuals of outstanding character. Again, it would be ideal if the state had just one individual with outstanding character who could serve in this role as a king, but if one individual of supreme virtue cannot be found, as in most cases, then an aristocracy is really the next best thing (p. 85).

However, theory and practice are often worlds apart, and Aristotle was intelligent and insightful enough to realize this (Kenny, 2007, p. 86). In practice, what Aristotle actually favored was a kind of mixed regime, wherein “rich and poor respect each others’ rights, and in which the best-qualified citizens rule with the consent of all the citizens” (p. 86). When such a regime deteriorates into anarchic mob rule, it becomes what Aristotle referred to as “democracy” (p. 86). Thus, despite his seemingly anti-democratic views, Aristotle actually did favor a kind of democracy, albeit a much more limited one, with plenty of meritocracy and aristocracy (p. 85). As with so many aspects of his thinking, Aristotle is nuanced, complex, and multi-tiered. Parsing through the various layers takes persistence and diligence.    

In book seven, Aristotle begins the thought-experiment of constructing an ideal state. Treating of population, a defensible location, and access to the sea, he proceeds to discuss the character of the citizenry. Again, this reflects his entire approach: the character of the citizenry must, of necessity, impact the character of the regime and how effective it will be in securing eudaimonia, for the simple reason that state-level civil societies are made up of people, and respond to them. Aristotle compares the “barbarian” peoples of Europe, whom he claims are “full of spirit, but wanting in intelligence and skill”, with the peoples of Asia, who “are intelligent and inventive… but wanting in spirit” (bk. VII, ch. 7, p. 162). Where the European barbarians are relatively free but without any effective political organization (to Aristotle’s eye), the peoples of Asia, though intelligent and inventive, “are always in a state of subjection and slavery” (p. 162). Unsurprisingly, Aristotle finds his happy mean in Hellas, with the “Hellenic race” and its intermediate character, “being high-spirited and also intelligent” (p. 162).

As with real-world state-level societies, Aristotle’s projected ideal society is highly specialized by occupation. The ideal state, as with real-world state formations, should include food producers, artisans, weapons and those to wield them, public revenue, religious specialists, and, of course, a government (Politics, bk. VII, ch. 8, p. 164). And specialization is to be the rule: as with Socrates in Plato’s Republic, Aristotle defends the idea that there should be not only occupational specialists, but also a ruling class (ch. 9, p. 164). The military, Aristotle argues, ought to be citizens, that is to say, property-owners and members of the body politic (ch. 9, pp. 164-165).

Aristotle spends a fair amount of time detailing the kind of social and civic life that his ideal polity should have. Common meals should be the order of the day; indeed, Aristotle praises this institution where it exists amongst the polities of his day (Politics, bk. VII, ch. 10, p. 166). The mature citizenry ought to have access to the leisure square, and to be able to engage in the gymnastic arts (Chuska, 2000, p. 173). Music, too, should be accessible to all citizens, as an important part of the cultural life of the polity. And philosophy, of course: the citizens should also be able to hear the philosophy in the city square (p. 173).

The significance of all of these things is not hard to appreciate. What Aristotle is proposing is a civil society with social, community-building pursuits and functions. The society should have these cultural arts for the enjoyment and edification of the citizens, as well as to bring them together. And, of course, all of these arts quite logically contribute towards eudaimonia, and thus are an integral part of the recipe for the good life.

However, as Chuska (2000) pointed out, it is striking indeed that in books VII-VIII of the Politics, Aristotle does not delineate the kind of government that the ideal polity ought to have (p. 173). In a way, this is not surprising: Aristotle has spent the vast part of the compilation already talking about the merits and demerits of three various regimes, and a number of governing principles in society. In all probability, he did not believe it was necessary to further elaborate on the essential principles—and the detailed specifics of the day-to-day running of the polity were clearly not his concern in any event.

Indeed, the chief aim of the Politics is to envision the kind of state-level civil society that would be most conducive to eudaimonia. To be sure, Aristotle gives his readership many considered opinions on the advisability or inadvisability of monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, and democracy—but the goal is always the polity that can best realize eudaimonia for its citizenry. Thus, Aristotle can concern himself with the composition of the ruling class—land-owning, citizens, also the soldiering class—and the education of the youth, all without detailing elaborately the kind of regime he found most ideal for his ideal polity.

In fact, Aristotle reflected that “each government has a peculiar character which originally formed and which continues to preserve it” (Politics, bk. VIII, ch. 1, p. 181). Thus, Aristotle contends, the kind of education favored by a city should be in accordance with the kind of government that it has. What is particularly important, however, is for all citizens to understand that they are not their own: rather, every citizen belongs to the state, because they are each a part of it (p. 181).

Consequently, Aristotle’s thoughts on education are important for contextualizing his aims and his understanding of the ideal polity. He noted that the custom of his own time was to teach four branches of education: “(1) reading and writing, (2) gymnastic exercises, (3) music,” and sometimes a fourth, drawing (Politics, bk. VIII, ch. 3, p. 182). Aristotle’s approach considers the proper use of leisure as well as of work. From this comes a very interesting approach, one decidedly oriented towards eudaimonia: education is not simply an end, but rather a means to an end. Thus, reading and writing are useful in and of themselves, and “many other sorts of knowledge are acquired through them” (Politics, bk. VIII, ch. 3, pp. 183-184). Because of all of this, they most certainly should be taught. Gymnastics should also be taught, in order to teach courage and promote fitness; however, the emphasis is on cultivating a noble habit, not a brutal one (Politics, bk. VIII, chs. 3-4, p. 184).

The logical outcome of these views, at least in Aristotle’s mind, was that education should be the concern of the state rather than of the family, as it was in his time: in other words, education should be a public enterprise rather than a private one (Simpson, 1998, pp. 252-253). Again, education is not only important for gaining knowledge and virtues such as courage and nobility, but also for cultivating a certain civic-minded virtue. In Aristotle’s view, the way to achieve this is for the young to be educated by the state, in order for their character to be molded into the form that is appropriate for maintaining and upholding the regime in its established character (p. 252). And, importantly, Aristotle believed that if the regime failed to do this, it would run the very considerable risk of allowing its citizenry to, in Simpson’s words, “develop some other character opposed to the regime,” which could only be to the detriment of the polis (pp. 252-253).

If the above sounds artificial, like a grand experiment in social engineering, then it is important to note that in Aristotle’s mind it was not. Again, as seen throughout this work, Aristotle viewed politics as natural, and the proper end of the state as the pursuit of eudaimonia for its citizens (Roberts & Sutch, 2004, pp. 48-49). Because the individual’s pursuit of eudaimonia is entirely contingent on, and realized through, citizenship in the polis, it therefore followed quite naturally that the younger generation needed to be brought up properly, in order to develop the right kind of character to maintain the character of the political regime (Roberts & Sutch, 2004, p. 49; Simpson, 1998, pp. 252-253).

Though the Politics contain Aristotle’s articulation of the concept of an ideal state, it superficially appears striking that he does not delineate more thoroughly the character of an ideal regime. However, this apparent aporia dissipates when one considers that the true character of Aristotle’s project with the work is to consider how to implement the kind of society that will support the pursuit of eudaimonia. Again, the basic template is with the household: different individuals have different roles to play in accordance with their dispositions and characteristics, leading to an end result that secures eudaimonia for all concerned. While it is easy enough to deplore Aristotle’s sexism and his defense of slavery, this aside his argument is concerned with the best and most virtue-promoting regime. In principle, Aristotle held that monarchy could be the best type of regime, if a sufficiently virtuous king were at hand; failing that, an aristocracy was preferable. The excesses of tyranny, plutocratic oligarchy, and anarchic democracy should all be avoided. And the way to secure all of this, the best and most ideal regime, was through education. Only through education could the character of the younger generations be molded into a form that would serve to uphold the regime, thereby ensuring that this best and most eudaimonia-promoting polis would continue.

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. (W. D. Ross, Trans.). New York: Forgotten Books.

Politics. (B. Jowett, Trans.). New York: Forgotten Books.

Bailey, A., et al. (2008). The Broadview anthology of social and political thought: vol. 1, from Plato to Nietzsche. 2 vols. Buffalo, NY: Broadview Press.

Chuska, J. (2000). Aristotle’s best regime. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Kenny, A. (2007). Ancient philosophy: A new history of Western philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kraut, R. (2002). Aristotle: Political philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nichols, M. P. (1992). Citizens and statesmen: A study of Aristotle’s Politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Roberts, P., & Sutch, P. (1998). An introduction to political thought: A conceptual toolkit. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.

Shields, C. (2007). Aristotle. New York: Routledge.

Simpson, P. L. (1998). A philosophical commentary on the Politics of Aristotle. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Reflective Discussion Summary, Essay Example

Interest Groups, Essay Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

Plato’s Ideal State: Self-Enclosed and Unstable Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Plato was not only a great philosopher but also one of the first political theorists in written history, applying his philosophical outlook to the problems of state and society. One of his most famous works, Republic , outlines the author’s approach to the organization of government. While developing the model of a perfect ruler and an ideal state, the philosopher finds faults with all types of government present in Ancient Greece, be they timocracies, oligarchies, democracies, or tyrannies (Plato VIII).

In particular, he criticizes democracy for threatening hierarchical power structures and promoting anarchy. Plato’s proposed alternative is the rule of a philosopher-king – a wise person able to see the essence of justice and, consequently, have the precise knowledge rather than a mere opinion of what is right. However, the perfect state he envisages is not fault-free either and demonstrates notable philosophical downsides. Plato’s idea of wise rulers who can discern justice proves unconvincing, because his definition of justice is self-enclosed, and the philosopher-king’s rule is ultimately as unstable as he democratic one.

Before pointing out the shortcomings of Plato’s ideal state as a preferable alternative to democracy, it is necessary to cover, however briefly, the philosopher’s criticism of the latter. According to Plato, the main downside of a democratic rule is that it promotes anarchy by gradually undermining any authority and hierarchy. As he puts it, democracy breeds “subjects who are like rulers and rulers who are like subjects” (Plato VIII).

This adverse impact on the existing power structures not only manifests in public politics but in every aspect of social life, including private households, According to the philosopher, in a democratic society, fathers lose their parental authority over their offspring ,and children “have no respect or reference” for their parents (Plato VIII). One step at a time, anarchy finds its way into every social group, every family, and every household, until the denial of authority poisons the society as a whole. This gradual destruction of established power structures and hierarchical relationships is one of the critical arguments against democracy as a form of political organization offered by Plato.

Yet one should be aware that Plato’s vision of a perfect state and society is just as prone to destroy the power structures already in existence in his contemporary society. It is not even necessary to interpret the Republic for a historical perspective and utilize the millennia of accumulated philosophical knowledge to note this fact. Even Socrates’ own companions in the treatise point out that his ideas directly threaten the existing social order. One of them comments that, upon hearing of Socrates’ radical ideas, “numerous persons, and very respectable persons too,” would grab any weapon that happens to be nearby and attack him on sight (Plato V).

The implications of this observation are clear: the numerous and respectable people in question would fear that Socrates’ political ideas undermine their power. Therefore, Plato’s idea of a perfect state as narrated by Socrates in the Republic threatens hierarchies and power structures to a no lesser degree than democracy.

Consequently, the only reason to prefer a philosopher-king’s rule to democracy is that the former destroys unjust hierarchies to promote the just ones, while the latter does not. Yet Plato’s treatment of justice as a concept deserves due criticism because his portrayal of those who can and cannot see it creates a potential for logical blunders. According to the philosopher, the ability to see “the absolute and eternal,” including justice, only manifests in a limited number of wise persons (Plato V).

Those who see the mere impressions of things rather than their true forms and operate personal opinions rather than infallible knowledge are “simply blind” when compared to those who have mastered philosophy (Plato VI). Only a philosopher may discern true justice, and others, as exemplified by Socrates’ remark to Glaucon, are “not… able to follow” this superior understanding (Plato VII). While this distinction is entirely in line with Plato’s approach to ontology, its implementation in practice undermines the argument in favor of the wise philosopher-kings.

Separation of people into two categories – philosophers who can see the actual forms of things, including that of justice, and common folk who lack this ability – seems to create a logical fallacy. While this distinction supposedly gives philosophers a claim to power, it also undermines Plato’s argument if one takes a closer look at it. If no ordinary person may comprehend true justice – as mentioned above, ordinary people are “not… able to follow” philosopher’s reasoning even if they try – a philosopher’s opinion becomes the only point of reference for them (Plato VII). While Plato himself would claim that forms exist objectively, it makes no difference for those who cannot see them anyway.

If they adopt his reasoning, then, from their perspective, justice is what a philosopher defines as such. Yet, on the other hand, Plato has already defined a philosopher as a person who understands justice. This creates a self-enclosed definition: justice is what a philosopher declares just, and a philosopher is a person able to see justice. Hence, Plato’s case for philosopher-kings is based on a logical fallacy and, as such, is not an example of persuasive philosophical reasoning.

One may object that, even though Plato’s case for the rule of philosopher-kings rests on a faulty logical premise, his imagined ideal state has other comparative advantages, such as stability. Indeed, maintaining balance and preventing unrest is the utmost concern in Plato’s political philosophy and likely the main function of the guardians of the state as he portrays them. In one instance, he notes that the rulers should be “true saviors and not the destroyers of the state” (Plato IV).

Saving rather than destroying the state implies maintaining its stable continued existence and, according to Plato, a wise philosopher-king who values “knowledge more than power” would create a perfectly stable society (Prior 125). Thus, one may argue that, while Plato’s ideal state is not superior to other forms of political organization from a strictly logical perspective, it still has comparative advantages in purely practical terms. Even if the argument for philosopher-kings is logically unsatisfactory, their rule would still be a preferable alternative if it could offer stability unachievable in democracies.

However, Plato undermines this potential objection himself in his discussion of the different types of government. He does that when discussing how a timocracy – a type of state guided by honor and governed by military leaders – arises from an aristocracy, of the imaginary government of the best and wisest. He states outright that even the perfect constitution as envisaged in the Republic “will not last forever, but will in time be dissolved” (Plato VIII). According to him, it would happen when the ruling philosopher-king proves unable to raise decent successor due to a “miscalculation of the proper time for breeding the guardians” Arruzza 115)

. Thus, even the idealized wise ruler, as represented in Plato’s treatise, is not immune to mistakes, and, more importantly, these mistakes inevitably bring the end of Plato’s perfect government. As a result, the rule of the wise comes to an inglorious end with the same assuredness as the very democracy Plato criticizes for its instability and propensity for civil unrest. Considering this, one may hardly agree that it offers greater stability to the citizens of the state.

As one can see, Plato’s case for the rule of philosopher-kings as a preferable alternative to democracy is mostly unconvincing. The Greek philosopher identifies the main fault of democracy as undermining power structures, but his companions quickly note that the impact of his ideas is precisely the same. To explain the difference, Plato points out that a philosopher-king would destroy unjust hierarchies and promote the just ones, unlike the democratic leaders who lack the knowledge of true justice. Yet this strict separation of people into two categories based on their supposed ability to see forms eventually leads Plato to craft a self-enclosed definition of justice.

Since self-enclosed definitions are logically wrong, Plato’s argument for the rule of philosopher-kings appears unconvincing. One can still argue for the reign of philosopher-kings based on stability it is supposed to provide, but Plato undermines this counter-argument himself by noting that his imagined government is also prone to decay. Thus, the Republic offers no decisive argument in favor of Plato’s ideal political order.

Works Cited

Arruzza, Cinzia. A Wolf in the City: Tyranny and the Tyrant in Plato’s Republic . Oxford UP, 2019.

Plato. “The Republic.” Translated by Benjamin Jovett. Project Gutenberg . Web.

Prior, William J. Virtue and Knowledge: An Introduction to Ancient Greek Ethics . Routledge, 2017.

• Locke's Second Treatise of Government and Voltaire's Candide’s Value on Money
• Private Property as Seen by Locke and Rousseau
• ‘Enclosed Field Behind Saint-Paul Hospital’ by Vincent van Gogh Paintings
• Socrates by Aristophanes and Plato
• Greek Philosopher Socrates
• The Philosophies of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton
• Military and Political Leadership
• John Locke’s Ideas on Citizens and Authorities
• Political Discourse: Marx, Locke, and Rousseau
• Idealist Philosophy After World War I
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, June 30). Plato’s Ideal State: Self-Enclosed and Unstable. https://ivypanda.com/essays/platos-ideal-state-self-enclosed-and-unstable/

"Plato’s Ideal State: Self-Enclosed and Unstable." IvyPanda , 30 June 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/platos-ideal-state-self-enclosed-and-unstable/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Plato’s Ideal State: Self-Enclosed and Unstable'. 30 June.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Plato’s Ideal State: Self-Enclosed and Unstable." June 30, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/platos-ideal-state-self-enclosed-and-unstable/.

1. IvyPanda . "Plato’s Ideal State: Self-Enclosed and Unstable." June 30, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/platos-ideal-state-self-enclosed-and-unstable/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Plato’s Ideal State: Self-Enclosed and Unstable." June 30, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/platos-ideal-state-self-enclosed-and-unstable/.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

8 Important Features of an “Ideal State” (According to Aristotle)

Aristotle widely regarded as a realist, outlined his ideal state in book II, III, VIII of his “Politics”. A comparison between idealism of Plato and Aristotle is best illustrated by Sabine, “What Aristotle calls the ideal state is always Plato’s second best”.

While Plato hails his ideal state to be good for all times to come, Aristotle accepts limitations of his ideal state. Moreover, Aristotle like his master prefers monarchy. But, he insists on the primacy of law not a philosopher king.

Image Source: ichef.bbci.co.uk

Features of the Ideal State :

Following features can be outlined about Aristotle’s ideal state.

1. There is supremacy of law in his ideal state. He favours impersonal rule of law which represents the wisdom of community since the ages.

2. It is an ethical institution to develop the moral qualities of the citizens to promote good and happy life of everyone.

3. Private ownership but common use of property.

4. Aristotle’s ideal state is marked by division of labour where slaves are engaged in agriculture residents in commerce and citizens in political activities.

5. Aristotle’s ideal state is the city state of the moderate size. Population should be manageable.

6. It should be self-sufficient, without any aggressive design against foreign countries.

7. There should be six classes, viz., agriculture, artisans, and a war like class, leisured class, priests and administrators. Only the later four are entitled for citizenship.

8. There is a predominance of middle class that provide stability because it possesses twin qualities of obedience and command.

Related Essays:

• Importance of Understanding the Psychology of Your Audience for Effective Communication
• What are the 5 Reasons for Government Intervention in International Trade?
• Short Essay on the Joint Family Property under Hindu Law
• Legitimacy of Children of Void and Voidable Marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act

Privacy Overview

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — The Republic — The Republic by Plato: the Role of Property in the Ideal State

The Republic by Plato: The Role of Property in The Ideal State

• Categories: The Republic

About this sample

Words: 909 |

Published: Jun 29, 2018

Words: 909 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Is there any greater evil we can mention for a city than that which tears it apart and makes it many instead of one? Or any greater good than that which binds it together and makes it one? There isn't (Republic, 462a-b).

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1450 words

4 pages / 1929 words

3 pages / 1304 words

3 pages / 1253 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

In Plato’s Republic, the ideas of virtue are expressed in regards to the soul. Socrates says that the four main virtues—wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice—are found in different parts of the ideal city. Wisdom, courage, [...]

The "noble lie" is perhaps one of the most disturbing and thought-worthy aspects of Plato's Republic. Through its use, the people of the "just regime" are intentionally misled and misdirected in an attempt to make them unified [...]

The so-called “Myth of Er” has long puzzled Plato’s readers. Socrates, whose teachings and conversations Plato chronicles, tells the story of Er, who journeyed to the afterlife and came to life again to tell his story. The tale [...]

In an elaborate effort to comprehend individual justice, Socrates engages in a lengthy debate which explores intricate details, structures, and overarching principles of a just city. This analysis will explore the City-Soul [...]

Friendship is arguably the most relevant philosophical matter expounded upon in The Nicomachean Ethics. While other virtues may not be practiced on a daily basis, friendship and the implications of such a relationship are [...]

For Aristotle, the doctrine of the mean is a moral frame of reference by which each man's character can be better understood. When applied to specific virtues such as courage, it illuminates what Aristotle believes to be the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Improving writing skills since 2002

(855) 4-ESSAYS

Type a new keyword(s) and press Enter to search

Ideal state.

• Word Count: 722
• Approx Pages: 3
• View my Saved Essays
• Downloads: 12
• Problems? Flag this paper!

            Throughout history, humanity has tried to obtain a world in which one can live with enjoyment, equality, fairness, and happiness. Many great philosophers have created utopian societies for people to consider and explore. Not only have they been asked how politics work but mostly, how they should work. These philosophers have been concerned with the nature and justification of political obligation and authority and the goals of all political actions. Although their proposed ideas have differentiated, and numerous have been utopian in concept, they have all shared the same basic ideas and principles.              Since every human dreams of a better life everyone's goal is to live in an ideal state, which is what religion refers to as heaven, and which is the best existence that can be obtained. Since it is impossible to experience the perfection of heaven while still alive, then it can be concluded that the ideal state will only come through the effort of humanity. Humanity should strive to make its own heaven, a heaven on earth, a utopia. Only a unified belief and effort by humans will achieve an ideal state, a heaven on earth, for everyone and everything. An ideal state can only be created if all of humanity seeks an ideal state together.              First, Everyone would be born equal and if they are ambitious they will stay equal. Everyone in the society must feel as if they are worth something and know what their role is. There would be no pre determined social classes, what you get depends on how hard u work, if you work hard and are determined you will be at the top, if you don't work hard you will be at the bottom. Everyone is offered the same educational opportunities, free of finances.              On an more individual level, people must work overcome the negative emotional tendencies of most humans. Hatred, jealously, prejudice and other negative thoughts must be controlled and will never control a person's actions.

• Page 1 of 3

Essays Related to Ideal State

1. greek ideal.

Central to their schools of thought was concern with an ideal State. ... These regulations and theories were part of Plato's ideal State. By creating an ideal State Plato was expressing the only way the State would be run and remain successful according to his point of view. Aristotle, who believed that the State was substantial, did not create a blueprint of the ideal State like Plato did. ... Plato's ideal State made his political view easily understandable and more rational than Socrates who left behind no notes and Aristotle who did not create a blueprint for an ideal State....

• Word Count: 1340
• Approx Pages: 5
• Has Bibliography

2. My Ideal University

Also available is a state of the art recording facility available free to all students. ... A very important aspect of any person's ideal university is the quality of the teachers. In my ideal university all teachers will -obviously- know their subject well. ... In my ideal university the answer is "Yes." ... The ideal university is an idea for most students that is almost never 100% accomplished. ...

• Word Count: 544
• Approx Pages: 2
• Grade Level: High School

3. Ideal state

These ideals, while some may have had excellent points resulted in inadequate consequences. ... In conclusion, I will also combine the positive and negative attributes of both to ascertain a true ideal state. ... As far as an ideal state, I believe the French were a lot closer in their principles of a democracy. ... Therefore, I find communism in its ideal state to fail miserably. ... In conclusion, I deduce the ideal state is what ever accustoms itself to the citizens of the culture and society best. ...

• Word Count: 740

4. Definition of an Ideal Society

Definition of Ideal Society "Sometimes the most positive thing you can be in a boring society is absolutely negative."... In my ideal society, everything would be uniform, a by the book world, where order and obedience would prevail. ... The leader would be used as the ideal portrait of this utopian society, he would be the mouth piece from the government to the people, and once elected they serve until they die or the central government finds someone better. ... Society cannot function without labor, so in my ideal society, a utopian existence would occur in the form of everyone doing th...

• Word Count: 835

5. Plato - An Ideal State Based on Justice

Plato's ideal state is based on justice. A just state is one that is imposed by the Idea of Good. ... The idea of property should guide the state and the individual. ... In Plato's Republic is the question about the ideal state. ... Justice is for each man to deal only with the issues themselves, without intervening at all in others, mean that everyone does so in virtue have to do (that peasants and artisans work in the production, the guardians safeguard the freedom and security of the state and rulers govern wisely and prudently); thus justice is met. ...

• Word Count: 619

6. Nostalgic Feelings

Supplemental Reading II The column written by a student at Ohio State University during the 1921-22 school year shows the nostalgic feelings experienced by many due to a period of rapid change brought about by WWI. ... You can see this through statements about the ideal college girl is "armed with sexual knowledge" and "she knows the limits". ...

• Word Count: 318
• Approx Pages: 1
• Grade Level: Undergraduate

7. Plato's Ideal State and his Theory of Education

IDEAL STATE AND ITS THEORY OF EDUCATION "The object of education is to turn the eye which the soul already possesses to the light. ... It was a positive remedy for the operation of justice in the ideal state. ... Its with this conviction that Plato starts to emphasize the importance of education in his ideal state. ... However education in the Republic is exclusively meant for those who are to become the rulers of the ideal state. ... The ideal state, thus, will be realized & its people, balanced in soul, will be just & happy. ...

• Word Count: 2037
• Approx Pages: 8

Was Utopia the idea for and ideal government? ... To me it means basically an ideal state that has achieved perfection in social, political, and moral aspects. ... In an ideal society, such as Utopia claims to be, there would be no bloodshed over any matter. ... The third and most drastic reason for Utopia not being a utopia also may point out the reasons why a true ideal society cannot exist. ... However the expression of the individual and all that that encompasses is a necessity for an ideal society. ...

• Word Count: 2207
• Approx Pages: 9

9. Analysis Of Rise Of The Virtual State

In the second half of The Rise of the Virtual State, Rosecrance examines several nations and comments on how they relate to the virtual state concept. ... He argues that the role of the state is decreasing in the economic domain. ... Therefore, in order to insure that a virtual state is attracting the necessary "factors of production-, it would have to engage in tasks that have not been assigned to the virtual state. ... He describes this as an encompassing coalition that provides the stability for the virtual state and body state to work in. ... Currently the United States is the lead...

• Word Count: 1468
• Approx Pages: 6