+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Introduction to Ancient Greek Political Thought!

According to Ernest Barker, the origin of political thought began with the
ancient Greeks. In other words, Greek political thought is considered one of
the oldest in the world. It had a profound influence on the political
institutions of not only the ancient times but also of modern times. The
simple reason for this is the rational mind, secular outlook and efficient
management of city-states by the Greeks. These city-states, in fact, served
as laboratories for experimenting with various institutions.

The social and political organization of Greek city-states resembled a

commonwealth society wherein there was a great amount of mutual
sharing of life and habitat. Religion had no impact on the lives of the
people. The entire Greek community opined that state is a natural
institution that came into existence for the moral and personal development
of the individual.

The state was regarded as a means to an end. Man is regarded as an

independent citizen of the self-governing society and there was perfect
equality as well as opportunities and rights. Further, a number of Greek
city-states practiced different forms of governments such as aristocracy,
monarchy and democracy.

Greeks firmly believed in an ethical society. In their view, a city-state is not

only a self-sufficient body, but also a self-governing body. A man’s life was
expected to be ethical because the state was considered an ethical
institution.
Human welfare was the primary objective. There was a great amount of
emphasis on education in order to create an ideal state. Ancient Greek
philosophers aimed at making a society wherein there was a greater
cooperation between the people from different classes.

Some of the unique features of ancient Greek city-states are as

follows:
1. The city-state was administered directly owing to its small territories,

2. The city-state was a church as well as a state,

3. The city-state was self-sufficient and self-governed, and citizens enjoyed

freedom, and

4. The city-state was an educational, ethical and political body; there was
active participation of the people in political activities, and there was greater
harmony in the city-states.

Greeks had given great importance to law owing to their ability to think
rationally. A number of Greek political thinkers opined that law is the
dispassionate reason—objective and unbiased. They believed that law is
essential for the promotion of the well- being of the citizen. As far as justice
is concerned, Greek thinkers viewed justice as virtue in action.

They contended that justice enables a person to discharge his duties

towards the development of human personality. Further, a city-state was
considered ideal only if it was based on justice. According to thinkers like
Plato and Aristotle, justice is nothing but willful obedience of laws of the
state.
The notion of citizenship held today is not a continuation from the Greeks.
There were, in fact, stark differences between the Greek notion of
citizenship and that of the modern view. Citizenship is not mere payment of
taxes, right to exercise vote or obedience to laws. It is a direct participation
in the political affairs of the state, as the Greeks did not believe in
representative system.

However, not all members of the society were given an opportunity to

participate in the political affairs of the state. Slaves, minors, old—and in
some city-states women—were not allowed to participate or did not have
citizenship because it was widely believed that they could not discharge
their duties towards the state.

Even working classes, both skilled and unskilled, were denied citizenship
because they lacked leisure, and with this, reasoning and a speculative
mind. The Greeks, therefore, restricted citizenship to only those privileged
classes of the society who were free from economic insecurity and from
other economic day-to- day problems.

The system of governance in the ancient Greek city-states was not uniform
despite identical territorial limits and populations. Three important forms of
governments were in practice in different city-states, viz., monarchy,
aristocracy and democracy.

Aristotle, the most celebrated ancient Greek political thinker, after

examining nearly 158 constitutions, argued for a mixed constitution, taking
the best of all the available forms of governance. Greeks never believed in
democracy, as they never had faith in representative forms of government.
Thus, their conception of government is symptomatic of the class-based
authority—aristocracy.

Thus, from the above points, it can be stated that Greeks have a great
passion for reason, virtues and knowledge. They attached considerable
significance to the discussions for reaching truth. The entire political
enquiry was conducted through discussions and dialogues.

Methodologically, they may be viewed as the pioneers for the application of

inductive and deductive approaches for the analysis of political
phenomena. It is indisputable that the Greek thinkers have left an indelible
mark on the intellectual tradition of the successive political philosophers of
the medieval, modern and contemporary times in the West. With the above
basic premises that guide the Greek political thought, let us study about the
two most famous Greek political philosophers, viz., Plato and Aristotle, and
their opinions.
Theory of ideas

As per the great thinker and Philosopher Plato, Ideas are the ultimate

realities. In this world, there are lots of particular things but if we take these
things in a particular way only, nothing general  can be extracted.

Thus, on the basis of some common qualities of things, Plato divides

particular things into different classes. Ideas are nothing but essential
features common to all members of these classes. As an example, there is
a class man, and every member of this class possesses a quality
called manness.  Thus, there exists an idea of manness. Likewise, there
are several ideas including an idea of tree, idea of horseness etc.

Throwing light on the importance of ideas, Plato says that the concept is
important to understand a sentence. As an example, there is a sentence
say, India is a democratic world. To understand it properly, we should have
an idea of democracy. Here comes the necessity of ideas to plato.

Features of Ideas, as explained by Plato:

 Ideas are substances as they are the ultimate realities of the world
 Ideas are eternal because they exist beyond space and time
 Ideas exist prior to particular things and apart from them
 Ideas are many in number. Thus, Plato is a pluralist as he considers
the reality to be more than one in number. However, bridging the gap
between atomists and parameindes, plato says that ideas are unity in
plurality. There are many trees but idea of tree is one.
 Ideas are perfect. For example, idea of beauty is a perfect idea. No
other thing in the world exists that carries the same level of
perfection.

Discussing the origin and status of ideas, Plato says that there is  a
different world of ideas, also called heaven of ideas. It can be
comprehended by our reason but  this world of ideas does not depend on
us for its existence. Plato, here, lays the foundation of Rationalism by
saying that in human reason , there exist some universal principles which
act as starting point of knowledge. On the other hand, by accentuating that
ideas do not depend on us for their existence, Plato advocates Objective
Idealism.

Ideas have been presented in a scale as per the degree of

comprehensiveness. Idea of Good is at the top that imparts axiological
dimension to Platonic theory( Zeller). Plato considers the reality to be good
and beautiful.

In views of Zeller, the theory also carries ontological dimensions because

ideas are not mere mental constructions, they are the substances. W.C.
states that ideas are epistomological because they have been considered
as the starting point of knowledge. In addition, they are mystical because
they have their own world ,different from our world.

Succinctly put, ideas are the realities of the world. However, this
consideration has left  big questions:

How this real world has been derived from the world of ideas?

What is the relation between this world and the world of ideas?

In answer to these questions, Plato has come up with two concepts:

1) Relation of appearance and reality

2) Concept of participation

According to Plato, world of ideas is a reality and our physical world is just
a copy of it. In his book Republic, Plato takes an example of allegory of
caves to prove his point. In this example, a man is considered to be fully
chained, can’t move from his place. Sunlight coming from behind makes his
shadow on the wall in front of him. As the man can’t move from his place,
he is only able to see the shadow and nothing except that. Thus, he
considers the shadow to be real. However, shadow is just an appearance.
Reality is the sunlight coming from behind.Same is the case with our world.
As we continuously see this world, we start considering it a reality. In
actuality, reality is the ideas and this world is a mere shadow of ideas.

Plato also provides second argument and opines that things and beings of
the world participate in ideas. A particular thing may participate
simultaneously in plurality of forms and assumes new forms when it
undergoes any change.
Ideas exist prior to things and apart from them. We can’t think of man
without having an idea of manness but not vice versa. Thus, ideas are
necessary for this physical world to exist. Secondly, things of the physical
world exist only to the extent that they participate in the world of ideas.
Thus, ideas explain the physical world.

Platonic theory draws praises from Whitehead but at the same time has
been criticized on the basis of inconsistencies. Successor, Aristotle, makes
a severe attack by saying that ideas are posterior, not prior to things. He
further says that ideas are abstract entities and they can not explain the
existence of this concrete physical world.

Plato considers two worlds in his theory, world of ideas and physical world.
Because of this, he has been attacked by Aristotle of keeping this
distinction between form( ideas) and matter. He says that Plato could not
reconcile between form and matter.

Plato stated that world of ideas is the only reality and this physical world a
mere shadow, on the other hand he said that physical things are real to the
extent they participate in the world of ideas. This seems illogical.

Though Plato’s theory has been criticized for being inconsistent, it cannot
be said redundant. Plato has discussed about all important issues that
have deeply influenced later philosophers.
Theory of justice

Plato believed in "Like Man, Like State", implying that the character of the
state is dependent on the character of its citizens. It also meant that once
the nature of human beings is understood, it's easier to understand the
functions of human society, and to arrive at the conclusion as to who is the
best fit for ruling in this society.

Plato characterises human behaviour in three main sources:

 Desire (or Appetite)

 Emotion (or Spirit)
 Knowledge (or Intellect)
Each human being has all three emotions but what varies is the degree to
which these emotions are present in them. According to Plato, the ones
who are restless and rapacious are fit for trade. Others who are driven by
their emotion or spirit are best suited to become soldiers. Lastly, there are
few who find no pleasure in worldly pursuits or victory and are satisfied in
mediation. Such beings yearn to learn, and they are always in search of
truth, and according to Plato, only these men of wisdom are fit to rule.

Plato thinks that just like the perfect individual is the one who has the ideal
combination of desire, emotion and knowledge, a just state is the one that
has individuals as its citizens for trade, to be soldiers and to rule. In the
perfect state, individuals driven by desire will lead to growth and production
but would not rule; the military armies would maintain security but not rule
either. Only the individuals who have no appetite to gain material
possession or power and are forces of knowledge would become the
rulers.

Justice: the virtue of state

In his idea of justice, Plato identifies virtues that suit each social class.

 The social class of traders, whose dominant trait is desire, the

befitting virtue of traders is TEMPERANCE.
  The social class of soldiers, whose dominant trait is spirit or
emotion, the befitting virtue of soldiers is COURAGE.
 The social class of Philosophers, whose dominant trait is
knowledge or intellect, the befitting virtue of Philosophers, is
WISDOM.
 The virtue that befits the state is JUSTICE which creates
harmony in all the three social classes and is a necessary
condition for human happiness.
The first three virtues belong to the respective three social classes, but the
fourth virtue is a manifestation of harmony between all the three classes.
These four virtues are also referred to as the four Cardinal Virtues of
Plato's theory of Justice.

Philosopher-Kings: the cornerstone of Plato's theory of Justice

Plato is known for his unique concept of the philosopher-kings put forward
in his political thought. He prescribed that the reins of government should
remain with a very small class of philosopher-kings who represent
REASON.

According to 'The story of Philosophy' by Will Durant, "the industrial forces

would produce, but they would not rule, the military forces would protest,
but they would not rule, the forces of knowledge and science and
philosophy would be nourished and protected, and they would rule".

Conclusion

Plato's theory of Justice is famously known as the Architectonic Theory

of Justice. He explains that as during the construction of a building, each
part is assigned to different artisans, but the architect combines it to
contribute to the final outlay of the building and add to its splendour.
Similarly, the three cardinal virtues, namely Temperance, Courage, and
Wisdom, would be cultivated by Traders, Soldiers and Philosopher class,
respectively, and Justice, the fourth virtue, would act as the architect
establishing a perfect state. Due to this inference between architecture and
the organisation of society, his theory is also called the Architectonic
Theory of Justice.
To conclude, Plato considers Justice to be a necessary condition of the
good life. It is conducive to human happiness. The Republic, his famous
work, is the most important work that explains his idea of justice. His theory
of justice, built on moral foundations, with a clarification of virtues and
classification of social classes, is considered today as relevant for all ages.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Plato gives a prominent place to the idea of justice. ‘Justice’ according to Plato was doing one’s
job for which one was naturally fitted without interfering with other people. In his contemporary
world Plato saw cities so divided that their citizens stood against one another. Thinking mainly
of the Athenian democracy in which he lived and at the hands of which Socrates had been killed,
he found the contemporary politics of his day dominated by two things: One was the ignorance
and the other was a political selfishness. Plato found in justice the remedy for curing these evils.
According to Plato, justice is that in individual life, and in social life, means placing each
individual and each class is in its proper place. And each class according to prevalence of one of
this capacities, places in the social and moral hierarchy. Justice is a quality – an indispensable
quality of moral life. It is condition of the individual and of the state and the ideal state is the
visible embodiment of justice. The state is the reality of which justice is the idea. In the theory of
justice Plato said that every individual was a functional unit, assigned a particular task with
clear-cut obligations and privileges, which one was expected to perform diligently and
meticulously. Plato explained his arguments for differing individual capacities with the help of
the theory of three classes and three souls, an idea borrowed from Pythagoras. He pointed out
that every human soul had three qualities: rational, spirit and appetite, with justice as the fourth
virtue, balancing and harmonizing the other three qualities. In each soul, one of these qualities
would be the predominant faculty. Individuals in whom the rational faculty was predominant
would constitute the ruling class. Those in whom spirit was the predominant quality were the
warriors. Together, the rulers and soldiers would constitute the guardian class. Individuals whose
souls were appetitive exhibited a fondness for material things. These were the artisans, the
producing class. Soul Class Rational Rulers Spirited Soldiers Appetitive Artisans Plato
understood injustice to mean interference and meddlesomeness. Any interchange in jobs between
the three social classes would bring harm to the state and was the worst evil. On the contrary, if
the rulers, warriors and artisans performed their respective tasks, then such a state would be just.
Plato also said that human faculties were not hereditary. An individual’s functional role in
society was determined by his own natural aptitudes, and not by parental lineage. To ensure that
the parents did not manipulate to get the best for their child, they were made to give up their
child to the state, which in turn would categorize and educate him in the appropriate faculty that
he was endowed with. Hence the three classes identified by Plato working in proper correlation,
will insure the maximum of well-being throughout the state. Every member of the community
must be assigned to the class for which he proves himself best fitted. Hence Justice is a principle
of non-interference, which keeps within proper bounds the various classes of society, various
individuals of each class and various elements in an individual’s soul. It is a principle of
functional specialization, which moves everyone to make a specialized contribution to society.
Specialization according to Plato leads to efficiency. Each class and each individual will do their
duty and none will interfere with other’s activities. This constitutes the central idea of justice.
When this is achieved, Plato says, justice in the society will start to reside. Like individuals,
classes will also not interfere with each other. He thought that if each class were engaged in
performing its own duty ordained by nature, then there should not arise any be no ground for
dissatisfaction. Plato’s theory of justice rules also out the possibility of interference of law.
Conclusion Critics have also criticised Plato’s theory of justice. They stated that Plato did not
state about the conflict or disagreement among the members of the same class or among the
different classes. Plato’s concept of justice also has another drawback. The guardian class
endowed with wisdom will eventually predominate over the entire society. It is a very common
experience that the persons or class controlling the administrative affairs of the state will
ultimately establish hegemony over the entire society. Despite these drawbacks Plato was
considered one of the outstanding Greek philosophers and has left behind many important works,
out of which ‘The Republic’ is still of great interest to all those interested in the history of
political ideas. Plato has also been credited for laying the foundations of the Greek political
theory, and he also explored, analyzed and covered a wide range of philosophical perspectives
and issues.

Theory of communism

Plato’s Theory of Communism (Including 2 Forms of Communism)!

Plato’s theory of communism was certainly a corollary of his conception of
justice. He believed that without communism there would be clash of ideas
and interests between reason and appetite. Plato’s communism is based
on the premise that property, family instincts and private interests would
distract man’s attention from his obligations to the community.

He strongly opined that family and property are always impediments not
only to philosopher king, but also to a commoner in his discharge of duties.
As property and family relationships seemed to be the main source of
dissension in the society, Plato stated that neither of them must be given
any recognition in an ideal state. Therefore, a sort of communism of family
and property was essential to offset the consequences of Plato’s design of
ideal state.
Plato strongly believed that an economic division between the citizens of a
state is the most dangerous political condition. This belief was mainly due
to the widespread and frank opinions expressed by the Greeks that
economic motives are very influential in determining political action and
political affiliations.

Long before The Republic was written, Euripides had divided citizens into
three classes, viz., the useless rich—who are always greedy for more, the
poor—who have nothing and are devoured by envy, and finally the middle
class—a strong body of men who saves the state.

An oligarchical state to a Greek meant a state governed by, and in the

interest of the well-born whose possession of property was hereditary,
while a democratic state was governed by and for the many who had
neither hereditary birth nor property.

These economic differences were the key to the political institutions and it
was no new idea, which the Greeks were following since ages. The cause
for unrest that Plato was experiencing in Athens was mainly due to the
troubles present since the days of Solon a statesman reforms in Athens.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

This situation convinced Plato that wealth has a very pernicious effect on
the government, but was dismayed at the fact that there was no way to
abolish the evil except by abolishing the wealth itself To cure greed among
the rulers, there is only one way and that was to deny them any right to call
anything their own. Devotion to their civic duties admits no private rival.
The example of Sparta, wherein the citizens were denied the use of money
and the privilege of engaging in trade, undoubtedly influenced Plato in
reaching this conclusion. The main reason for Plato to emphasize on
communism of property was to bring about greater degree of unity in the
state.

Plato was equally vehement about the institution of marriage and opined
that family affections directed towards a particular persons, as another
potent rival to the state in competing for the loyalty of rulers.

He stated that anxiety for one’s children is a form of self-seeking more

dangerous than the desire for property, and the training of children at
homes as a poor preparation for the whole and sole devotion, which the
state has the right to demand. Plato was, in fact, appalled by the
casualness of human mating which according to him would not be tolerated
in the breeding of any domestic animal.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The improvement of the race demands a more controlled and a more

selective type of union. Finally, the abolition of marriage was probably an
implied criticism of the position of women in Athens, where her activities
were summed up in keeping the house and rearing children. To this, Plato
denied that the state serve half of its potential guardians.

Moreover, he was unable to see that there is anything in the natural

capacity of women that corresponds to the Athenian practice, since many
women were as well qualified as men to take part in political or even
military duties.
The women of the guardian class will consequently share the work of the
men, which makes it necessary that both shall receive the same education
and strictly be free from domestic duties. Plato’s argument about breeding
of domestic animals refers to the sexual relations between men and
women.

It is not that he regarded sex casually, but he demanded an amount of self-

control that has never been realized among any large populations.
According to him, if the unity of the state has to be secured, property and
family stand in the way, therefore, they both must be abolished.

Forms of Communism:
Plato’s communism is of two forms, viz., the abolition of private property,
which included house, land, money, etc., and the second, the abolition of
family, through the abolition of these two, Plato attempted to create a new
social order wherein the ruling class surrendered both family and private
property and embraced a system of communism. This practice of
communism is only meant for the ruling class and the guardian class.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

However, Plato did not bind this principle on the third class, namely, the
artisans. In other words, they were allowed to maintain property and family,
but were under strict supervision so that they do not become either too rich
or too poor. Though Plato structured the society in this manner, he never
made any attempt to work out his plan that ensured such a system to
function.

The following is a brief description of each form of communism:

1. Communism of Property:
Plato’s communism of property is in no way related to the modern
communism or socialism because there was no mention of socialization of
the means of production. Plato’s approach was mainly concerned with one
factor of production, that is, property that has to be socialized.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The land and its products were in the hands of the farmers. So, only the
guardians were deprived of property. Plato deprived them of all valuables
such as gold and silver, and were told that the diviner metal is within them,
and therefore there is no need for any ornaments as it might pollute the
divine thoughts.

The guardians were paid salaries just right enough for their maintenance.
They were expected to dine at common tables and live in common
barracks, which were always open. Thus, Plato’s communism was ascetic
in character. Plato’s communism existed only for the governing class.
Therefore, it was political communism and not economic communism.

2. Communism of Wives:
Plato’s scheme of communism deprived the guardian class not only of
property, but also a private life or a family because family introduced an
element of thine and mine. He believed that family would destroy a sense
of cooperation that forms the basis for a state. To destroy family, it is
important to destroy selfishness. Plato wanted the rulers of an ideal state
not to get distracted from their work and get tempted towards self-interests.
Plato opined that family was the great stronghold of selfishness, and for
this reason it has to be banned for the governing class. This situation
brings about a question of ‘Did Plato deny his guardians class a normal sex
life?’ For this, Plato stated that mating was encouraged between those who
can in the best possible manner produce children of the desired quality.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Another question that was raised was related to those children who were
born out of this union. According to Plato, they would be the property of the
state. Immediately after their birth, they would be taken to a nursery and
nursed and nurtured there. This method would make sure that no parent
would have any affection upon one child, and thus love all the children as
their own.

Further, the guardians, instead of caring for the welfare of their progeny,
would thrive for the welfare of all. Thus, guardians of the state would
constitute one great family wherein all children would be treated equal and
common. Bound by common joys and sorrow, there is personal or
exclusive relation to one family and in the process the entire state.

Plato further stipulated the age for both men and women for begetting
children. He stated that the proper age for begetting children women should
be between the age of 20 and 40 and men between 25 and 55 because at
this time, the physical and intellectual vigor is more. If anybody flouted the
rules, they were treated as unholy and unrighteous beings.

Thus, Plato’s communism of wives provided social, political and

psychological bases for the ideal state. Plato believed that such a
communism of family would remove the conflict between the personal
interests and the objectives of the state.

Plato’s Theory of Education

Education for Plato was one of the great things of life. Education was an
attempt to touch the evil at its source, and reform the wrong ways of living
as well as one’s outlook towards life. According to Barker, education is an
attempt to cure a mental illness by a medicine.

The object of education is to turn the soul towards light. Plato once stated
that the main function of education is not to put knowledge into the soul, but
to bring out the latent talents in the soul by directing it towards the right
objects. This explanation of Plato on education highlights his object of
education and guides the readers in proper direction to unfold the
ramifications of his theory of education.

Plato was, in fact, the first ancient political philosopher either to establish a
university or introduce a higher course or to speak of education as such.
This emphasis on education came to the forefront only due to the then
prevailing education system in Athens. Plato was against the practice of
buying knowledge, which according to him was a heinous crime than
buying meat and drink. Plato strongly believed in a state control education
system.
He held the view that without education, the individual would make no
progress any more than a patient who believed in curing himself by his own
loving remedy without giving up his luxurious mode of living. Therefore,
Plato stated that education touches the evil at the grass root and changes
the whole outlook on life.

It was through education that the principle of justice was properly

maintained. Education was the positive measure for the operation of justice
in the ideal state. Plato was convinced that the root of the vice lay chiefly in
ignorance, and only by proper education can one be converted into a
virtuous man.

The main purpose of Plato’s theory of education was to ban individualism,

abolish incompetence and immaturity, and establish the rule of the efficient.
Promotion of common good was the primary objective of platonic
education.

Influence on Plato’s System of Education:

Plato was greatly influenced by the Spartan system of education, though
not completely. The education system in Athens was privately controlled
unlike in Sparta where the education was state-controlled. The Spartan
youth were induced to military spirit and the educational system was
geared to this end.

However, the system lacked the literacy aspect. Intriguingly, many

Spartans could neither read nor write. Therefore, it can be stated that the
Spartan system did not produce any kind of intellectual potentials in man,
which made Plato discard the Spartan education to an extent. The platonic
system of education is, in fact, a blend of Athens and the organization of
Sparta. This is because Plato believed in the integrated development of
human personality.

State-controlled Education:
Plato believed in a strong state-controlled education for both men and
women. He was of the opinion that every citizen must be compulsorily
trained to fit into any particular class, viz., ruling, fighting or the producing
class.

Education, however, must be imparted to all in the early stages without any
discrimination. Plato never stated out rightly that education system was
geared to those who want to become rulers of the ideal state and this
particular aspect attracted widespread criticism.

Plato’s Scheme of Education:

Plato was of the opinion that education must begin at an early age. In order
to make sure that children study well, Plato insisted that children be
brought up in a hale and healthy environment and that the atmosphere
implant ideas of truth and goodness. Plato believed that early education
must be related to literature, as it would bring out the best of the soul. The
study must be mostly related to story-telling and then go on to poetry.

Secondly, music and thirdly arts were the subjects of early education. Plato
believed in regulation of necessary step towards conditioning the individual.
For further convenience, Plato’s system of education can be broadly
divided into two parts: elementary education and higher education.
Elementary Education:
Plato was of the opinion that for the first 10 years, there should be
predominantly physical education. In other words, every school must have
a gymnasium and a playground in order to develop the physique and health
of children and make them resistant to any disease.

Apart from this physical education, Plato also recommended music to bring
about certain refinement in their character and lent grace and health to the
soul and the body. Plato also prescribed subjects such as mathematics,
history and science.

However, these subjects must be taught by smoothing them into verse and
songs and must not be forced on children. This is because, according to
Plato, knowledge acquired under compulsion has no hold on the mind.
Therefore, he believed that education must not be forced, but should be
made a sort of amusement as it would enable the teacher to understand
the natural bent of mind of the child. Plato also emphasized on moral
education.

Higher Education:
According to Plato, a child must take an examination that would determine
whether or not to pursue higher education at the age of 20. Those who
failed in the examination were asked to take up activities in communities
such as businessmen, clerks, workers, farmers and the like.

Those who passed the exam would receive another 10 years of education
and training in body and mind. At this stage, apart from physical and
mathematical sciences, subjects like arithmetic, astronomy, geometry and
dialectics were taught. Again at the age of 30, students would take yet
another examination, which served as an elimination test, much severe
than the first test.

Those who did not succeed would become executive assistants, auxiliaries
and military officers of the state. Plato stated that based on their
capabilities, candidates would be assigned a particular field. Those who
passed in the examination would receive another 5-year advanced
education in dialectics in order to find out as to who was capable of freeing
himself from sense perception.

The education system did not end here. Candidates had to study for
another 15 years for practical experience in dialectics. Finally at the age of
50, those who withstood the hard and fast process of education were
introduced to the ultimate task of governing their country and the fellow
beings.

These kings were expected to spend most of the time in philosophical

pursuits. Thus, after accomplishing perfection, the rulers would exercise
power only in the best interests of the state. The ideal state would be
realized and its people would be just, honest and happy.