The Republic of Plato

Midterm exam

Professor H. Faradj

Student name: Arman Simonyan

Date: 10/24/2011   

1. Compare and contrast the views of Plato (the Republic) and Thucydides on the following concepts: human nature, history, justice, reason, and war.
1. According to Plato (427-347 BC), the human soul consists of three parts: namely the appetitive (sensory) part of the affective (emotional) and rational (reasonable) portions. Virtue is important for the appetitive part of the soul, - temperance, virtue, which is important for the affective part of the soul, - courage, and, finally, the virtue which is important for the rational part of the soul - wisdom. Virtue which is manifested in the presence of mutual harmony of these three parts is justice. In accordance with these three parts of the soul consists of three people of social classes. The bulk of the citizens, including merchants, artisans and farmers, form the lower class, corresponding to the appetitive part of the soul. Public employees (guards) are middle class, in charge of the emotional soul. The rulers of Plato are the highest class, which corresponds to the rational part of the soul. When the people rule the philosophers who know the idea of ​​God, there is an ideal state. According to Plato, the world of Ideas brings people upbringing. But he singled out as the most important philosophers of education, that is, the minority ruling class. For him the ideal image of the personality was that of "one who loves wisdom" (philosophy), as well as one "who harmonized" is a person whose mind and body are in harmony and which owns all four virtues: wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. The purpose of education is to create an ideal State.
2. Thucydides carries on account of the events of history, trying to find a rational explanation of their causes and effects. He tries to refrain from emotional evaluation of what is happening or mention of random detail, claiming that his History is not intended as entertainment readers, but to be the property of centuries.
3. In the "Republic" of the Plato, designing a perfect, fair state proceeds from the match, which exists between space, the state and the individual. "By the very idea of ​​justice - Plato says, just not how much a person different from the fair state, but rather similar to it." 
    
     In man, there are three principles: intelligent, fierce and appetitive (biological). Perfect man, according to Plato, is the person whom dominated the reasonable start. 
    
     In the ideal state, as in human, there are three starts.
4. Plato says that we all need practical wisdom to use our rational ability to carry out a reasonable self-control, control of our emotions and desires, as well as the expression and realization. But in the central sections of the Republic (Book V-VII), he insists on the highest degree theoretic understanding of the mind, accessible only by specially trained intellectual elite, which are Philosophers.
5. Thucydides thinks that the Human nature, regardless of gender, age and sex, has something in common: 
   desire for freedom, the desire to rule over others, the desire to capture more, jealousy, revenge, cruelty, reckless hopes and aspirations. 
   Under the pressure of circumstances, human nature or change the direction of the brutality and degeneration or ennobled, striving for freedom. 
   Characteristic of the human crowd phenomena of mass hysteria. 
   In politics it is the blind forces of natural, which violate causality of historical events. The scope of these forces is irrational and is not subject to ethical standards. These impersonal forces exert a decisive influence on the success or failure of human plans, decisions and plans. 
   Only those who anticipate the course of events can lead people properly, keeping the bad natural qualities of the people. 
   The men of ordinary abilities, often act as if they always have good luck in the belief that it is always cope with circumstances

1.6 It’s very interesting the Thucydides thinking about justice, he said: all the people likely to commit unlawful misconduct in both the private and in public life, and no law will prevent them from doing so. States have tried all sorts of punitive measures, all the while reinforcing them. (...)Over time, almost all the sentences have been replaced by death. (...)However, this measure of crime is not diminished. So, it would either come up with even more terrible punishment, or to admit that in general any criminal penalty does not deter. 

It's so hard to compare the Plato and Thucydides. Both of them are thinking that human being is something, that using his appetite, but Plato said that in ideal State the appetite must be in bottom, and mind have to be the first, only in this case its possible to build the  ideal State. Plato against war, but Thucydides is talking proudly about Peloponnesian war.

I think, that Plato is more Utopian thinker, and Thucydides is more Realistic historian. They are both are the statues of foundation of early human history, politics, ethics and of course philosophy.

2.0 Using the political and ethical views of Socrates in the Apology and Crito, critique Thucydides account of Pericles funeral oration (book II) and the Melian dialogue (Book V)

      2.0 Pericles built the building of the Athenian state under the influence of internal destructive      forces soon collapsed. 
The sad result, is not it? Immediately, questions arise. Could it be otherwise? 
Corruption of morals! Yes, yes! Pericles humbled her, but could not fix. 
He encouraged the enrichment of Athens, and wealth, as we well know from history that easily gives rise to corruption of morals. But is it possible to raise high 
moral qualities in man, if he is hungry? Or before it has to be eat? How do I get beyond the "daily bread" and that really necessary, he would not be much else, not enticed temptations "sweet life"? Difficult question Perhaps it should try to in a small Athenian state to adopt (as it was the Spartans) a new publicly available ethics, maybe even a new religion? Is it possible 
was at that time? 
And yet ... Suddenly there was something can be done then? At least believed in this great contemporary of Pericles, Socrates. The attempt failed, and Socrates was executed. But he's only a philosopher, rather than Head of State! Unfortunately, history cannot put a control experiment. But her experience and does not disappear without a trace, tangible or invisible it affects the lives of future generations.

In Melian dialogue Athenians try to justify their imperialism, drawing an analogy with the laws of nature. They argue that because throughout nature a strong power over the weak, it is also true for human relations A similar argument is very rude to our modern ears, but he is - thanks to the accuracy of Thucydides - clearly disclose the basis of Athenian politics This relentless law of the strong. As we know, Thucydides believed that the abuse of power ultimately led to the fall of Athens. And in "Melian dialogue", he gives us a brilliant example to illustrate the weak moral position of the Athenians, unable to rise above the level of animal behavior.

According to Socrates in his last hours of life he talks with his friend Crito.

I think it going to be very interesting to criticize the Patriotism, because I think that Thucydides gives as an very good example of it, but as Plato said we are the humans and our appetite is more dominant than mind.

Before starting let see what the Socrates thought is.

In the "Apology of Socrates' accusers say against the philosopher and even eloquently, but wrong. Socrates, by contrast, criticizes them, using only one truth. 
Socrates did not fear death, but was afraid only of shame and cowardice. He says that even if have been released on condition not to engage in philosophy, he is still engaged to her for life. The murder of Socrates doubly worse for his murderers, rather than for himself, because hardly find after his death, a man who preached so vehemently desire for truth. Socrates did not teach, but allowed to ask themselves questions, and he asked questions for people. It was entrusted to him by God. 
In a speech after being accused Socrates says about himself. He was surprised that the charge against him supported by so small a number of votes. As being someone's slave Socrates does not want to, as well as be an exile, he does not think the appropriate punishment of imprisonment, a fine to pay him nothing, and make disciples, he will not allow it: all the same to God's will and in order to use it never stops their teachings and the spread of virtue. 
In a speech after the death sentence, referring to those of voters who wanted to justify it, Socrates says that inner voice, always staying in front of his misconduct, this time all was silent and did not require to take any measures to avoid death, which in this case is good. Death - not evil, it is the destruction of man, while Socrates was the acquisition and transition into Hades, where there are the righteous judge, where he will talk to such as he continued his study of virtue, and will be the final immortal. So, too, and his supporters did not let the fear of death.

So, I believe that this life is only  the shadow of future, and if we strongly believe on this, then we can become more  and more moral humans, than the Athenians who were 2500 years ago, and “Athenians” who live now, I mean 95 % of human beings and States on this World.