0
What else can I help you with?
Why does Plato believe that philosophers would make the best rulers?
Why does Plato believe that only Philosophers are fit to rule? Rather than the practical pursuit we are accustomed to, for Plato, Politics is an intellectual faculty. Governance by non-philosophers is to be governed by opinions, beliefs and self-interest; in contrast the philosopher ruler will govern with virtue and justice with no hidden agenda. The philosopher is in love, in love with learning, knowledge and truth. It is important to make a distinction here between the acquisition of knowledge and the acquisition of truth, because knowledge is not necessarily the truth. With the help of an allegory, Plato explains the sensible world of illusion and belief, the place where most people reside. The philosopher has stepped outside this world, into a world of knowledge and truth. Plato makes use of a cave to explain this; I will use another means. A child believes in the myth of Santa Claus, a child has good reason to suppose this myth is true, it is inculcated when he receives Christmas presents, the media, family and friends consolidate the belief, the child even writes to Santa Claus and receives a reply. On Christmas Day this belief becomes a 'reality'. Through education and maturity, the child will have doubts as to the truth of this illusion. At some stage during the transition from childhood to adulthood he will acknowledge the illusion, and further, during parenthood the myth really comes home to roost as knowledge and absolute truth. (He now has a choice; he can put an end to the myth or continue the cycle) What is distinctive regarding each stage, is how far they have come out of the cave. Through illusion and belief to knowledge, or from artisan to auxiliary to philosopher. The fundamental prerequisite to becoming a philosopher ruler is to have knowledge of the forms, therefore knowing the truth. The forms do not exist in the sensible world, they can only be found in the super-sensible world. Platos' theory of the forms is partly logical and partly metaphysical. The logical part is, take for example a dog, there will be many types of dog, and general particulars regarding a dog. The form of a dog is universal and eternal it has no position in space or time, it is not born when a dog is born, nor does it die when a dog dies. The metaphysical part of the theory is the form of a dog is a perfect, unique dog, created by God. The dog is real, particular dogs are apparent. Armed with this truth, the philosopher rulers will always make the right decisions, and rule with total wisdom, justice and virtue. The rulers will not own property, nor have money, they will be free of vices, excesses and desires. They will have a Spartan existence (Plato was an admirer of Spartan culture). A ruler in Platos' society as described in his dialogue The Republic would be incorruptible, an absolute model of sensible world perfection and justice. If one was to look no further into Platos' utopian society you could be forgiven for thinking that the philosopher rulers would be the ultimate answer for political duties and government administration. A more detailed examination of policy and structure is necessary, prior to arriving at a conclusion. The structure in Platos' society is tripartite and hierarchical, made up of the philosopher kings as rulers. The auxiliaries who will be in a sort of military role (prospective rulers) and the artisans (workers) who will produce all the consumable and non consumable goods deemed necessary for consumption and the continued economic viability of the society....cont'd
Plato on epistemology?
Surely metaphysics? But ok, so can we defend the theory of the forms? Natural Intuition that things of a particular class share something in common- all chairs seem to have some common feature that makes them chairs but nothing seems to be constant except for that fact so we argue for a form of a chair. Lovers of physical beauty have a love of something which always changes. The appearance of the thing they love changes and its beauty waxes and wains. Thus they have only short term true belief or just opinion in Plato's view. To have knowledge one must know of the beauty itself which doesn't change and so thus we have knowledge not being of the physical world but of the form of beauty itself. The same then is supposed to be true of good and so forth. Plato's philosophical views here being based in his wider metaphysics which he owed to Heraclitus that the physical world is always changing and so wanted a stable aspect of the world to allow us to evaluate and understand. If everything is changing I can't possibly know anything (given Socrates' views on definition), thus there must be something that stays the same and as it isn't matter it must be something immaterial and so we get the forms. So the entire theory came about as a result of resolving conflicts between other ideas he got from Heraclitus and Socrates. Generally in Plato there are very few explicit arguments for things like the forms. Most really sophisticated philosophy is a case of adopting something out of necessity to explain some other thing rather than actively being able to answer for it independently. That's the case here I think. If you really want you might look up Hericlitus' views on Flux and Socrates' views on definition to find some kind of argument for the Forms but I don't think you'll find much over and above the intuitions I've pointed to. Another example you might consider is his demonstration in the Meno of a boy able to find mathematical truths without observation of the world. The boy can work out truth just by considering and being asked questions. Plato claims it is an example of recollection via acquintance with the ultimate truths in a past life, but it could be seen more generally as an example of the sort of knowledge Plato is after- knowledge by contemplation rather than observation. For Plato then the idea is that all real knowledge is a priori and possibly even that all the things we regard as knowledge are possible to know a priori. It's ropey, but he's not looking for a single knockdown argument so much as an intuitive or at least consistent metaphysics and epistemology.
In good arguments of this sort the conclusion necessarily follows or must follow from the premises.a) Deductiveb PropositionscInductivedTrue?
conclusion
What is platonism?
Plato's influence on Western culture was so profound that several different concepts are linked by being called "platonic" or Platonist, for accepting some assumptions of Platonism, but which do not imply acceptance of that philosophy as a whole.Platonic can refer to:Platonic love, a relationship that is not sexual in naturePlatonic idealismPlatonic solid, any of the five convex regular polyhedraPlatonism, the philosophy of Plato (Classical period)Middle Platonism, a later philosophy derived from that of Plato (1st century BC to 3rd century AD)Neoplatonism, a philosophic school of Late Antiquity deriving from Plato (starting in the 3rd century AD)Platonism in the RenaissanceIn civics or politics, a Platonist is someone who advocates a system resembling The Republic (Plato)Neoclassical economics is sometimes described as Platonist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic
Why is it sinful to follow Machiavelli's advice?
It was considered sinful to follow Niccolo Machiavelli's advice because it suggested in his book The Prince that future leaders should rule with reason and make choices based on ideas of humanism over religious beliefs. Unfortunately this was still fairly dangerous territory for men to speak of in his time, seeing as the Medici (a wealthy family who ruled through the church) was still in power. Machiavelli suggested that the qualities of a leader were of a kind sort but, when needed, could be the exact opposite. He was the one to propose many of the ideas on politics and philosophy that numerous world leaders use today. Therefore, although his ideals were very realistic, is seemed to cause a wave of trouble within the church. This is why it was considered sinful to follow Machiavelli's advice.
Is religion truly an istrument of social solidarity?
Absolutely. Plato, in The Republic, advocated maintaining a state religion, even if it wasn't true, strictly as a sort of social adhesive.
What is a a republic?
A republic is a country which is not run by an hereditary head of state. That is, it is not run by a king or any other sort of monarch who inherited the job from his or her father or mother. Each new ruler is chosen. A republic does not have to be democratic, it can be an oligarchy (rule by a minority), or a Dictatorship (rule by one person). Most republics claim to be democratic. Republic is a form of government. This is people with power.
Which government preceded did the roman republic pass on to future civilizations?
The phrasing is unclear. The form of government which preceded the Roman Republic was the Roman Monarchy. The Republic was followed by rule by emperors. However, the Republic did not pass this on to future civilisations because: 1) it was the collapse of the Republic, rather than some sort of handover; 2) no future civilisation tried to replicate Rome's period of rule by emperors or, for that matter, the Roman Monarchy.
Who or what is the republic?
A republic is a country which is not run by an hereditary leader. That is, it is not run by a king or any other sort of monarch who inherited the job from his or her father or mother. Each new ruler is chosen.A republic does not have to be democratic, it can be an oligarchy (rule by a minority). Most republics claim to be democratic, even if they aren't.
Why are you a republic?
A republic is not a person, it is a type of government.A republic is a country which is not run by an hereditary leader. That is, it is not run by a king or any other sort of monarch who inherited the job from his or her father or mother. Each new ruler is chosen.A republic does not have to be democratic, it can be an oligarchy (rule by a minority). Most republics claim to be democratic, even if they aren't.
What happens when chandler was going to propose monica for the 1st time?
Chandler's first attempt to propose to Monica is interrupted by the appearance of Richard Burke and his date. They end up sitting at the table next to Monica and Chandler, thus making it impossible for Chandler to propose to her.
Can private citizens introduce laws?
Sort of. You can propose laws to your representatives. If they want, they can sponsor a bill, and it goes from there.
What is a sorting rule in math?
sorting rule means sort out according to size and kind
What was some of the things Plato failed?
Plato failed at practically everything he attempted, from giving an account of knowledge and metaphysics to defending and describing justice. Much of Aristotle's work is a veiled refutation of Plato. Plato's primary achievement is as a writer, as an intellectual he was nothing more than a particularly gifted Sophist of the sort Socrates so reviled.
What sort of government did Constantine live under according to Aristotle's classification system rule by one rule by few rule by many?
rule by one
What material is currency from the Dominican Republic made out of?
Some sort of paper.
What sort of government does Switzerland have?
Federal republic, with directorial system and direct democracy
