The whole point of Plato's Republic is the pursuit of justice, but in practice it is absolutely unrealistic. I can say with certainty that I would not be interested in living 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. While 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 the real world's attempt to be 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, once put into practice, his so-called just and stable republic would work to counteract the selfish nature of men. Indeed, the structure of Plato's Republic is totalitarian even in its ideal form. You would be right to call me a moral relativist, because, after my cultural experience of socialism, my belief is that a democratic republic, despite its injustices, is the closest thing on earth to justice. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay As you know, Plato had a negative perception of democracy. He grew up during the Peloponnesian War and witnessed firsthand how unchecked democracy can be highly corruptible. If political power were available to anyone, it could easily fall into 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 might allow for excessive freedom that allows the majority to overwhelm the minority to the point where anarchy ensues. Therefore, democracy lends itself to volatility and corruption, often resulting in an oligarchy or mob rule. In any case, Plato's position on the subject is clear: the majority of society is not sufficiently informed nor even interested in politics to be able to govern itself, to be charged with making the 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: taking on new perspectives is uncomfortable before it becomes enlightening. However, more importantly, you should know the political meaning of the allegory. Plato's message here was to illustrate that most people inhabit the sensory world of changing shapes and forms, unable to grasp the true, unchanging essence of ideas 2. Truth is supposed to transcend the narrow lens of cultural experience and personal. Plato deepened this criticism by developing a plan for his ideal republic. He believed that a stable and prosperous state would function under the unity of a universal and permanent idea. In outlining his republic Plato intended to provide a solution to the problems he identified within the democratic system. He needed to find a way to unify the state under an immutable ideal, namely justice. He found a way to do this by relating the state to 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 right person has a balanced set of equal virtues to create balance betweenthe parts of the soul: Temperance, Courage and Wisdom3. When functioning in harmony, the result is a healthy mind within a healthy body. Similarly, Plato proposed that the ideal state should consist of a rigid hierarchical system of three classes into which all citizens are born. Each class performs a crucial function for the well-being of the state in the same way that 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. Subsequently, the Warriors represent the spirit and passion of the state. Finally, at the top of the hierarchy reside the Sovereigns, or Guardians, whom Plato calls the Philosopher-Kings. Corresponding to reason, the Guardian class links all appropriate virtues with reason. The result, according to Plato, is the possession of knowledge. Using their intrinsic reason to keep all parts of the state in balance, Philosopher-Kings should intrinsically place their love of knowledge before their desire for power. This ruling class is created and is the only one with 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 life and their value to society to their particular pre-assigned craft of craftsmanship. This all seems like a good plan in theory, but human nature undermines its foundations. Plato assumes that everyone will be content with what they have in this society since the end result is justice for all. But justice is 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, on modest pay, without private property and, worst of all, without a family of his own . This is a fragile check on power because Plato assumes that people will willingly take on the fiscal commitment of leading a state without personal benefits. This exemplifies the underlying reason why Plato's Republic is unrealistic. According to Plato, justice should be for the benefit of all classes since a philosopher king, who has exclusive possession of political power, would know that it is in the best interests of everyone. put the prosperity of the state first. And once everyone's well-being is achieved, ideally there is no longer any need for conflicts to exist. This should satisfy everyone, but in reality, of course, it doesn't and never will. The reason for this is that, in reality, it goes against our nature as human beings to accept the idea that there is harmony of interests between those in 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 faith in the innate discipline of philosopher kings over their own desires, regardless of the modest lifestyle required of them. Blind faith in what is presumed to be the inherent intellectual and moral superiority of an aristocracy cannot be the only check against power in a political system. It would be irresponsible and it certainly wouldn't be right. This is why Plato's Republic resembles a totalitarian state. Hopefully at this point one can understand that Plato's Republic would not be just or stable despite its intended purpose. Now, to underline that this is ultimately unrealistic, I highlight the fact that Plato built his theoretical republic on the foundation of a universal truth. He should have known better than anyone else, having been Socrates' chief pupil, that thetruth is unattainable in our reality. Granting exclusive control of the state to people considered knowledgeable goes against Socrates' fundamental belief that knowledge and truth are unattainable. As Jorn Bramann writes in a book I will send you, Plato undermines Socrates' claim that the only thing he is certain of is his ignorance. Now it is time for me to acknowledge your valid concerns, although I will preface this by stating my firm belief that it is better to risk the risks of democracy than the far more destructive ones of totalitarian government. In the 2016 presidential election, the American people may have been rational, but, in my opinion, they were not judicious about who they elected; they were persuaded by Donald Trump's hateful rhetoric, just as Plato, to his credit, said was likely to happen in a democratic society. During that election, the truth was challenged in many ways. Unfortunately, it has been stymied by politicians for as long as democracy has existed, and it will continue to be stymied again and again in the future. Furthermore, the possession of money actually allows some people to rise to power and make rules that promote their own self-interest rather than that of society as a whole. Clearly, direct democracy is dangerous. It is also evident that even our democratic republic in the United States is far from perfect. This, I admit. Even I myself, in a bad moment after the elections, came to wonder whether the masses can be trusted to make the nation's fateful political and structural decisions after all. But then I immediately remembered the simple but powerful concept that I have come to accept as truth, as my definition of justice: the privilege of living in a society that values ​​and safeguards above all else the voice and freedom of its citizens is the very thing that allows America to endure times like these. In every situation, there remains a constant commitment to support the right of every citizen to have a say in the political decisions of their country, regardless of their background or level of education. He is celebrated even by his fiercest political rival; it serves as America's common ground and redeeming quality. While it may not always guarantee an ideal outcome, inclusive government, having been built on a foundation of equality, is the best option. As strange as it may seem, I believe that Trump's election as president has demonstrated that the democratic republic we live in is truly a just society. A significant portion of Trump's voter base, which fell under the spell of the catchy slogan “Make America Great Again,” was itself a victim of social change. These individuals previously held secure jobs in the steel and coal industries and were displaced by the improved efficiency of automation. Plato also hated forms and concepts subject to change. Unfortunately, change cannot be avoided. As society progresses, upheavals occur along the way. I think of this suffering as the growing pains of the nation. But the good thing about America is that its political structure is flexible. We honor and protect the individual rights and freedom of every citizen so much that we honorably accept when a political candidate who appears immoral and belligerent is elected to office. As long as the outcome is determined by the free will of the people, and as long as our system of checks and balances remains functional, the results of an election are less relevant. What gives me hope is that even the seemingly worst outcomes of American politics do notthey are never permanent. People have the power to use their voices to counter manipulative rhetoric by influencing others with their passionate arguments. Furthermore, we must never forget that people have the power to use their votes to bring about change. In the USSR, Lenin, and then Stalin, took away our voice, and without a voice you are helpless. Communist Russia used the ideas proposed by Plato in The Republic to erect their version of a so-called just society, but this social experiment ended in failure. I should note that Lenin modified Plato's ideal republic somewhat. For example, in Plato's society the ruling class were trained intellectuals, and in Communist Russia that class was the proletariat, or workers. Furthermore, the proletariat was supposed to be the only 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 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 had the sole competence to undertake a rapid political action to reform the state in the chaotic upheaval of the Russian Empire. However, his reason could not prevail over his thirst for power as it would ideally have done with Plato's philosopher-kings. He couldn't be trusted to govern himself by curbing his hunger for power, and if the state is the individual writ large as Plato claims, how on earth can Lenin be expected to run a balanced state that brings about universal justice? Lenin stripped what should have been the ruling class of the right to have a say in the structural decisions that determined its fate, and killed his political opponents. Where is the justice in this? Simply having the freedom to express different perspectives in America, to criticize the powers that be, is a blessing. This is why it seems to me that justice is actually a precondition of a balanced state and not 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 change that accompanied the industrial revolution. Progressive change always leaves someone in the dust and, as usual, in Europe it was the working class. Russia has lagged particularly behind in this regard. The early stages of the USSR were dedicated to fighting the destabilizing changes that were suffocating workers at that 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, by embracing communism, Lenin established the ideal Platonic of the ruling elite when the aim was to create a single ruling class of the Proletariat. What replaced the Russian monarchy was simply an elitist oligarchy masquerading as the “Communist Party.”8 Thus, the voiceless citizens of the USSR remained locked in a position of submission to the ruling elite, fearing for their lives, while on paper, wealth and power were divided equally among a single ruling class of workers. On paper, it seems that an entire society's realization that everyone's well-being should be the same would be the ultimate egalitarian and unifying agent. It would be justice in Plato's ideal republic. However, in the plane of existence in which we live, such an ideal does not translate into reality. It is human nature to pursue the scope of one's well-being and?