There is much extremism which brings larger issues eventually in politics. The democratic socialist regime for example that is trying to be pushed in America is the equivalent to a false reality. Humans by nature are flawed and hate crimes would happen anyways due to human ignorance and a lack of understanding.
The desire for superiority over another without good reason and self interest is animalistic and visibly has animalistic outcomes. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account.
You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. Skip to content. In practical terms, his idea is very controversial and not feasible, but serves as a good illustration of the implications of rule by a chosen elite rather than by the people Plato believed there were three parts to a human soul and proposed that people would be divided into three classes, depending on which part of their soul is dominant.
Share this: Twitter Facebook. Like this: Like Loading As someone who professes the subject, I can tell you that most politicians, and most voters, have little real interest in political philosophy.
Nobody has so far asked me, but I figure I have the answer to the problem of the philosopher-king. Don't worry, it's not to grant me absolute power, much as I might covet that on certain days.
It is, instead, to borrow a page from a different, and more ironic, tradition of ancient wisdom than the Greek philosophers. Jacques Derrida, puzzling over the problem of the modern university, suggested that the best course to follow was to have a philosopher in charge of each and every one of them.
Some of my colleagues seem bent on making this happen: philosophers are over-represented in university administration. But Derrida went on to note that no actual colleague, however brilliant, is sufficiently enlightened to qualify as a true philosopher.
Therefore the chair of the university president should remain empty. The empty chair is a striking part of the ethic of hospitality enacted by the Seder dinner: a chair for the guest who may arrive at any moment, for whom a place must be kept. The practice has analogues in other places. Gatherings of PEN, the international freedom of expression group , always feature an empty chair for a missing writer, in prison or under house arrest elsewhere in the world.
Somewhat less sublimely, Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos apparently insists on having an empty chair at every company meeting: the chair represents the customer, according to Bezos "the most important person in the room". What is Socrates definition of justice — someone who is good and just and does good things 5. What is the nature of the philosopher — their curious to know true knowledge, inner truth, they are not …show more content… Is the PK a counter example to Socrates definition of justice — Is being a ruler and being a philosopher compatible with his nature — Does the PK have the ability to perform these two jobs due to his nature or due to his education- If he does have to jobs would he be unjust — Why might you claim that the PK is the most unjust and just individual in the city — In this book, Socrates discusses an ideal city and the philosopher king, which is a philosopher who qualifies as an ideal ruler.
Plato believes that the philosopher king is the ideal ruler because the philosopher king loves learning and knowledge and knowing the absolute truth. The philosopher king is also thought as the ideal ruler because he will govern the city with virtue and justice and no hidden agenda.
The philosopher king is felt compelled to rule because a true philosopher will love the pursuit of truth. He will be indifferent to the pleasures of the body, he will not be interested in money, he will not think human life is anything of great importance and will not be concerned with dying.
The philosopher had. Get Access. We live at a time when there is a general distrust of people towards their governments, perhaps because governments who should do what is for the common good instead reveal their ugly sides. Instead of seeking to secure the good of the people, motivated by public service commitments, governments can be perceived as doing nothing but consolidating power for themselves, motivated by self interest.
This perception has led to a cynical attitude towards governments, and a scepticism concerning the sincerity of those in public office. More recently, we saw the US government prying into the private internet correspondences of people all around the world.
But this is a global issue, not limited to Western nations: Bo Xi Lai, who was a rising star in Chinese politics, has been tied with allegations of corruption, murder, espionage and sex. The Republic stimulates ordinary citizens to reflect on the state and to make an appropriate reaction to it, so it can guide our deliberations and subsequent actions too. In particular, its principles could assist us in our choice of leaders and governments, which might in turn help us overcome our distrust and cynicism towards them.
In the twenty-first century, most governments are democratically elected and ordinary citizens are allowed political participation in a concrete way through the ballot box. If those in power are more conscientiously selected by citizens, then there will be a reduction of distrust and cynicism towards them. The question is, what amounts to a conscientious choice?
I would say that such a choice must be made on the basis of reliable criteria. In a literal sense, the ruler must be a lover of wisdom , which is the meaning of the Greek word philosophia. But what does it mean to be lover of wisdom, or philosopher? The main thrust of his argument in The Republic is that those who govern must do so with the relevant expertise, but the philosopher king must be trained in the following in particular: a physical education, b music, and c mathematics Republic bb, c-e, bc.
0コメント