The very goal of Plato's Republic is the pursuit of justice, but in practice this is extremely unrealistic. I can say with certainty that I would not like to live in Plato's ideal city-state because, in a sense, I already have. I was a citizen of the closest attempt at this utopia: the Soviet Union. Although I do not believe that Lenin started a communist revolution in 1917 with the intention of creating Plato's Republic, I do know that the Russian Empire was transformed into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics based on Plato's political ideas . In a sense, Lenin is a real attempt to become one of Plato's philosopher kings. While the stated ultimate goal was to exalt the workers, Lenin ended up exploiting them. Plato was too idealistic in proposing that, when put into practice, his so-called just and stable republic would work to counteract the selfish nature of men. In fact, the structure of Plato's Republic is totalitarian even in its ideal form. He would be right to call me a moral relativist, because, after my cultural experience of socialism, my conviction is that a democratic republic, despite its inequalities, is the closest thing to justice in the world. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay As you know, Plato had a negative perception about democracy. He grew up during the Peloponnesian War and saw firsthand how highly corruptible an uncontrolled democracy can be. If political power is available to everyone, it could easily end up in the hands of dictators and demagogues, people who manipulate the masses through their rhetoric and disguise their selfish interests as justice.1 In reality, their political agendas are at odds with the common good. Alternatively, direct democracy could allow excessive freedom that would allow the majority to dominate the minority to the point of causing anarchy. Thus, democracy lends itself to instability and corruption, often resulting in oligarchy or mob rule. Regardless, Plato's position on the matter is clear: the majority of society is not sufficiently informed or even interested enough in politics to be capable of governing itself, to be entrusted with making crucial political decisions that determine the fate of the state. you know Plato's allegory of the cave as a metaphor for the learning process: adopting new perspectives is uncomfortable before it becomes enlightening. But more importantly, you need to know the political meaning of this allegory. Plato's message here was to illustrate that the majority of people live in a sensory world composed of changing shapes and forms, unable to grasp the true and unchanging essence of ideas. 2. Truth is meant to transcend the narrow prism of cultural and personal experience. Plato developed this criticism by developing a model of his ideal republic. He believed that a stable and prosperous state would function under the unity of a universal and permanent idea. In designing his republic, Plato intended to provide a solution to the problems he had identified within the democratic system. He had to find a way to unify the State under an immutable ideal, that of justice. He found a way to do this by connecting the state with the human soul, proclaiming that the state should be the individual writ large. Plato divides the soul into three parts: appetite, passion and reason. The righteous person possesses a balanced set of equal virtues to create abalance between the parts of the soul: Temperance, Courage and Wisdom3. When functioning in harmony, the result is a healthy mind in a healthy body. Similarly, Plato proposed that the ideal state would consist of a rigid hierarchical system of three classes into which all citizens are born. Each class serves a crucial function for the welfare of the state, just as the three parts of the soul constitute the whole. The role of each class corresponds to that of each virtue intended to balance the three parts of the just soul. At the bottom of the hierarchy, Workers represent the desire for money and personal gain. Next, the Warriors represent the spirit and passion of the state. Finally, at the top of the hierarchy are the rulers, or guardians, whom Plato calls the philosopher-kings. Corresponding to reason, the guardian class links all virtues appropriate to reason. The result, according to Plato, is the possession of knowledge. Using their inherent reason to maintain balance in all parts of the state, Philosopher-Kings are believed to inherently place the love of knowledge before their desire for power. This ruling class was born and is the only one to have access to education. They are rigorously trained to be good policy makers so that the majority of the population does not corrupt such critical processes. They must limit the scope of their lives and their value to society to their particular, predefined craft. This all sounds like a good plan in theory, but human nature undermines its foundations. Plato assumes that everyone will be happy with what they have in this society since the end result is justice for all. But that's not enough for people in the real world. For example, Plato insists that the philosopher king, whose birthright is the exclusive power of the state, must lead a monk's existence, with a modest salary, no private property and, worst of all, no family. This is a fragile check on power, because Plato assumes that people will happily take on the fiscal commitment of running a state without personal benefits. This illustrates the underlying reason why Plato's Republic is unrealistic. According to Plato, justice is supposed to be for the equal benefit of all classes since a philosopher-king, who exclusively holds political power, would know that it is in the best interest of all. prioritize the prosperity of the state. And once everyone's well-being is ensured, ideally there is no need for conflict. This is supposed to satisfy everyone, but in reality, of course, it doesn't and it never will. The reason is that in reality it is contrary to our human nature to accept the idea that there is a harmony of interests between those who hold power and the common good. Someone will always take advantage of an opportunity to gain power, to increase their pleasure. Therefore, it is irresponsible to place all of a society's trust in the innate discipline of philosopher-kings ahead of their desires, regardless of the modest lifestyle imposed on them. Blind faith in what is seen as the intrinsic intellectual and moral superiority of an aristocracy cannot be the only check on power in a political system. This would be irresponsible and certainly not fair. This is why Plato's Republic resembles a totalitarian state. Hopefully at this point you can see that Plato's Republic would neither be just nor stable despite its goal. Now, to make it clear that this is ultimately unrealistic, I emphasize the fact that Plato built his theoretical republic on the foundation of a universal truth. He should have known better than anyone, having been Socrates' star student,that the truth is inaccessible in our reality. Giving exclusive control of the state to people considered knowledgeable goes against Socrates' fundamental belief that knowledge and truth are unattainable. As Jorn Bramann says in a book I will send you, Plato undermines Socrates' claim that the only thing he is certain of is his ignorance. Now is the time for me to acknowledge your legitimate concerns, although I will preface this by stating my firm belief that it is better to risk the hazards of democracy than the far more destructive ones of a totalitarian government. In the 2016 presidential election, the American people may have been rational, but, in my opinion, they were not judicious in choosing their elected officials; they were convinced by Donald Trump's abhorrent rhetoric, just as Plato, to his credit, said this was likely to happen in a democratic society. Throughout this election, the truth has been thwarted in many ways. Unfortunately, this has been thwarted by politicians for as long as democracy has existed, and it will continue to be thwarted time and time again in the future. Furthermore, the possession of money actually allows certain people to gain power and make rules that favor their own interest rather than that of society as a whole. It is clear that direct democracy is dangerous. It is also evident that our democratic republic in the United States is also far from perfect. This, I admit. Even I, at my lowest point after the election, came to wonder whether the masses could ultimately be trusted to make the nation's fateful political and structural decisions. But then I quickly remembered the simple, yet powerful, notion that I have come to accept as truth, as my definition of justice: the privilege of living in a society that values ​​and safeguards voice and freedom above all else. freedom of its citizens is precisely what allows America to withstand times like these. Whatever the situation, the unwavering commitment to defending the right of every citizen to have a say in the political decisions of their country, regardless of their origins or level of education, remains. It is celebrated even by the fiercest political rivals; it serves as America’s common ground and redeeming quality. Although it cannot always guarantee an ideal outcome, an inclusive government, built on a foundation of equality, is the best option. As strange as it may seem, I believe that Trump's election to the presidency has demonstrated that the democratic republic in which we live is indeed a just society. A significant part of Trump's electoral base, fallen under the spell of the catchy slogan "Make America Great Again", has itself been a victim of social change. These people once held secure jobs in the steel and coal industries and were supplanted by the increased efficiency of automation. Plato hated forms and concepts that were also subject to change. Unfortunately, change cannot be avoided. As society progresses, upheavals occur along the way. I consider these sufferings to be the growing pains of the nation. But America's advantage is that its political structure is flexible. We honor and protect the individual rights and freedom of every citizen to such an extent that we honorably accept when a political candidate who appears immoral and belligerent is elected. As long as the outcome is determined by the free will of the people and as long as our system of checks and balances remainsfunctionally in place, the results of an election are less relevant. What gives me hope is that even the worst results of American politics will never be permanent. People have the power to use their voices to counter manipulative rhetoric by influencing others with their own passionate arguments. You must also never forget that citizens have the power to use their votes to bring about change. In the USSR, Lenin, then Stalin, took away our voice, and without a voice, you are powerless. Communist Russia used the ideas proposed by Plato in The Republic to build its version of a so-called just society, but this social experiment ended in failure. I should note that Lenin modified Plato's ideal republic in some respects. For example, in Plato's society the ruling class consisted of skilled intellectuals, and in communist Russia this class was the proletariat, or workers. The proletariat was also supposed to be the sole ruling class. But despite these differences, Soviet Russia could be considered the social experiment of Plato's theoretical state. Lenin took advantage of Plato's belief that the people did not have the capacity to know what was best for them or what course of action to take in the aftermath of his Bolshevik revolution.6 The communist revolutionary leader was convinced that he alone had the competence to take rapid political action to reform the state in the chaotic upheaval of the Russian Empire. However, his reason could not trump his lust for power as it ideally would for Plato's philosopher-kings. He could not be trusted to govern himself by controlling his lust for power, and if the State is the individual writ large as Plato asserts, how on earth could Lenin be expected leads a balanced State leading to universal justice? Lenin stripped what was supposed to be the ruling class of the right to have a say in the structural decisions that determined its fate, and he murdered his political opponents. Where is the justice in this? Just having the freedom to express different points of view in America, to criticize the powers that be, is a blessing. This is why it seems to me that in reality, justice is a prerequisite for a balanced state rather than the other way around as Plato suggests. Continuing my brief history lesson, what sparked the communist revolution on a broader level than just Russia was the rapid pace of change that accompanied the industrial revolution. Progressive change always leaves someone in the dust and, as is often the case, in Europe, it was the working class. Russia is particularly behind in this area. The early days of the USSR were dedicated to fighting the destabilizing changes that were stifling workers at the time. Clearly, resistance to change has been a trend throughout history, which is another problematic aspect of Plato's Republic, according to philosopher Karl Popper.7 The problem for Russia was that in embracing Communism, Lenin established the Platonic ideal of the ruling elite when the goal was to create a single ruling class of the proletariat. What replaced the Russian monarchy was merely an elitist oligarchy disguised under the title "Communist Party."8 Consequently, the voiceless citizens of the USSR were stuck in a position of submission to the ruling elite, fearing for their lives, while on paper the wealth and power were shared equally among a single ruling class of workers. On paper it seems that?