UNIT-2 PLATO

INTRODUCTION
Plato, a Greek philosopher, is one of the most creative influential thinkers in political philosophy. He
was considered as the father of western political philosophy. A great deal of writings on Plato has
appeared from time to time. Political philosophy in the West begins with the ancient Greeks and
Plato, inheriting a rich tradition of political speculation became its first embodiment. Plato was an
idealist, for he laid down the basis for political idealism in the West. He was a philosopher, for he
had seen the forms beyond those which could be seen as appearances. He was a rationalist, for he
gave his philosophic a definite vision. He was a revolutionary, for he attempted to build a new and a
novel fabric in the ruins of the society around. Obviously, in the process, Plato drifted away from the
prevailing system, and was, thus, consequently damned as utopian, impracticable, identic.

LIFE
Plato was born in 427 BCE in Athens, Greece into a aristocratic family. Athens at that time had direct
democracy and they were overthrown by oligarchic factions after they were defeated by Sparta in
the Peloponnesian war. Both in 413–412 BCE and in 404–403 BCE, the democratic government of
Athens was overthrown by oligarchic factions, which ruled for short periods. When the democrats
came back a year later, they began a wave of revenge punishments. These included judicial
proceedings against Socrates and his subsequent execution, in 399 BCE. In shock and disgust at the
death of his teacher, whom Plato revered as the wisest man in Athens, Plato left Athens and began
his travels in Greece, Egypt and Italy. Plato returned in 387 BCE to Athens where he founded the
Academy. After 20 years of running the Academy, he was invited, in 367 BCE, to the city-state of
Syracuse in Italy to act as a political advisor. the death of Socrates had a great impact on Plato. Plato
considered himself to be Socrates’s student, and he had great respect and admiration for his
teacher. Socrates influenced him to such an extent that most of his dialogues are written as
conversations between Socrates and other notable citizens of Athens. Socrates is the main
protagonist of Plato’s dialogues. In fact, since Socrates did not leave any writings of his own, much of
what we know today about Socrates, is through the Platonic corpus. The collection of Plato's works
includes 35 dialogues and 13 letters, though doubts are cast on the authenticity of a few of them.
Some of his great works are: Republic, Laws, The Statesman, The Symposium, The Meno etc.

1. THEORY OF FORMS
Theory of Forms or ideas is at the centre of Plato's philosophy. This theory is his metaphysical idea
of essence of being something. Influenced by the Socratic dictum that virtue is knowledge, Plato
believed that political ills and injustice can be eradicated, if knowledgeable people are put at the
helm of a city-state’s politics. As per this theory every object in the observable or visible world (the
world which we can feel from our senses) carry or hold the ‘Form’ of being that object. In other
words he believed that each entity that exists in our world is an imperfect copy of the Form of that
thing existing in a transcendental realm. These Forms can be ‘seen’ only by those with a rational
mind
His theory of form separates two worlds- intelligible and visible. For Plato, human beings live in a
world of visible and intelligible things. The visible world is what surrounds us: what we see, what we
hear, what we experience; this visible world is a world of change and uncertainty. The intelligible
world is made up of the unchanging products of human reason: anything arising from reason alone,
such as abstract definitions or mathematics, makes up this intelligible world, which is the world of
reality. The Forms or ‘essence of being’ belongs to the intelligent world- world of being- whereas the
objects which carry those Forms belong to the visible world- world of becoming.
Plato imagines these two worlds, the visible world and the intelligible world, as existing on a line
that can be divided in the middle: the lower part of the line consists of the visible world and
the upper part of the line makes up the intelligible world. Each half of the line relates to a certain
type of knowledge: of the visible world, we can only have opinion (in Greek: doxa); of the
intelligible world we achieve "knowledge". Claims or assertions about the physical or visible world
are opinions. The higher level or awareness, on the other hand, is knowledge because there reason
is involved. Plato’s analogy of cave combines nicely his metaphysics, epistemology and some of his
ethical ideas. The story’s setting involves human beings living in a cave that have been bound in
chains. As the story develops, we find that one person is released from the chains by another. This
story is very rich in symbolism. Plato uses the cave as a symbol for the realm of existence of the
senses. When the person that is released comes out of the cave and into the
world above the cave, he or she has moved symbolically into another realm of existence. Above the
cave is symbolic for the world of the Forms. This is a drastic oversimplifying of the allegory of the
cave to focus our attention on the metaphysical implications. The more important issues of
enlightenment will be discussed in the presentation on epistemology. When the person that is
chained finally escapes from the cave and becomes enlightened he realizes that he must go back and
try to help the others This responsibility focuses on the correct use of wisdom from an ethical
standpoint

His theory of Form can also be understood to create a duality of Idea versus material in which the
former is given precedence over the latter. According to Plato there are two different realms of
existence: the world of the senses and the world of forms. The physical world, the world of the
senses, is always changing, while the world of the forms remains constant. For Plato it is the world of
the Forms (the realm of being) that is "really real" world; the world that we perceive with our senses
(the realm of becoming) is little more than an imitation of this ultimate reality. He believes that for
particular and imperfect thing that exists in the sensible
realm (a table, a just act, a beautiful model, a circle) there is a corresponding absolute and perfect
Form (Table, Justice, Beauty, a Circle).

Plato explained that there is a difference between things which are beautiful and what beauty is:
former lies in the realmn of opinion while the latter, it is the realm of knowledge. What is more
important is Plato's insistence that the journey from 'appearances' to 'form' is possible through
knowledge.

Plato had conceived the Forms as arranged hierarchically- the supreme form is the form of the
Good, which like the sun in the myth of the cave, illuminates all the other ideas. The forms
of the Good (i.e., the idea of the Good) represents Plato's movement in the direction of attaining
goodness. In a way, the theory of Forms, as propounded by Plato, is intended to explain how one
comes to know, and how things have come to be as they are, and also how
they are likely to attain their ideals.

Plato's theory of Form is closely related to his belief that virtue is knowledge. According to
Plato, the idea of virtue is the idea of action; the ultimate object of virtue is to attain knowledge;
the knowledge of virtue is the highest level of knowledge; knowledge is attainable; and so is
virtue attainable
Plato's theory of Forms has been extended by him to his political theory. The types of rulers
Plato sought to have should be those with the knowledge of ruling people. Until power is in the
hands of those who have knowledge (i.e., the philosophers), states would have peace, so thought
Plato.

2. PLATOS THEORY OF JUSTICE

In his philosophy Plato gives a prominent place to the idea of justice. Plato was highly dissatisfied
with the prevailing degenerating conditions in Athens. The Athenian democracy was on the verge of
ruin and was ultimately responsible for Socrates’s death. The amateur meddlesomeness and
excessive individualism became main targets of Plato’s attack. This attack came in the form of the
construction of an ideal society in which justice reigned supreme, since Plato believed justice to be
the remedy for curing these evils.

'Justice' is the central theme of the Plato's Republic; its sub-title entitled "Concerning Justice". For
Plato, justice is a moral concept. Barker says: "Justice is, for Plato, at once a part of human virtue and
the bond which joins men together in the states. It makes man good and makes him social."
According to Plato, justice is a sort of specialization. Plato in his philosophy gives very important
place to the idea of justice. He used the Greek word “Dikaisyne” for justice which comes very near
to the word ‘morality’ or ‘righteousness’, it properly includes within it the whole duty of man.
Plato saw in justice the only remedy of saving Athens from decay and ruin, for nothing agitated him
in contemporary affairs more than amateurishness, needlesomeness and political selfishness which
was rampant in Athens of his day in particular and in the entire Greek world in general.

Different definitions of justice

Before stating these views through Socrates, Plato refuted the then prevailing theories of justice. He
denounced the father-son's (Cephalus- Polemarcus) theory of justice of traditional morality-
justice giving every man his due, in other words, 'doing to others what is proper' (Cephalus) or 'doing
good to friends and harming enemies' (Polemarchus). Plato recognised the worth of the traditional
theory of justice which compels men to do what they are supposed to do or justice as phenomena
creating unity. But he did not approve of justice being good for some and evil for others. Justice is,
Plato held, good for all-the giver as well as the receiver, for friends as well as foes.
Plato also rejected Thrasymachus' radical notion of justice according to which justice is always
in the interest of the stronger. He did agree with Thrasymachus that the ruler because he knows
the art of ruling, has all the power but did not agree that the ruler rules in his own interest.
Plato agreed with Thrasymachus that justice is an art, and that one who knows the art is the artist,
and none else.
And yet, there is another theory of justice advocated by two brothers-Glaucon and Adeimantus. The
theory is a conventional theory of justice and one which was favourably agreed to by Plato's hero,
Socrates. Glaucon held the view that justice is in the interest of the weaker (as opposed, to
Thrasymachus' view that it is in the interest of the stronger), and that it is artificial in so far as it the
product of customs and conventions. Plato did see limitations in Glaucon's theory by describing
justice as natural and universal as against Glaucon's notion of it as 'artificial' and 'product' of
conventions and customs.

Main theme of Plato's theory of justice

• Justice is nothing but the principle that each one should pursue a function for which one , is fitted
by nature; each one to do one's own for one's own and for common good.
• Justice means specialization and excellence.
Justice helps people to be in a society; a bond that holds society; a harmonious union of
individuals, of classes with the state. It is a bond that brings together individuals, classes and state
into one frame.
• Justice is both a 'public' and 'private' virtue. It aims at tlie highest good of the individual
(private), and of the whole society (public)

Justice : Private and Public virtue

Plato’s justice brings personal as well as public ‘Good’. It denotes just individual as integral
part of just society. Both unified as organic whole. Justice, therefore to Plato is like a manuscript
which exists in two copies, and one of these is larger than the other. It exists both in the individual
and the society. But it exists on a larger scale and in more visible form in the society. Individually
“justice is a ‘human virtue’ that makes a man self consistent and good : socially, justice is a social
consciousness that makes a society internally harmonious and good”.

• Just Individual
Plato strikes an analogy between the human organism on the one hand and social organism on the
other. Human organism according to Plato contains three elements-Reason, Spirit and Appetite.
An individual is just when each part of his or her soul performs its functions without interfering
with those of other elements. For example, the reason should rule on behalf of the entire soul with
wisdom and fore thought. The element of spirit will subordinate itself to the rule of reason. Those
two elements are brought into harmony by combination of mental and bodily training. They are set
in command over the appetites which form the greater part of man’s soul. Therefore, the reason
and spirit have to control these appetites which are likely to grow on the bodily pleasures. These
appetites should not be allowed, to enslave the other elements and usurp the dominion to which
they have no right. When all the three agree that among them the reason alone should rule, there
is justice within the individual.

• Just Society
Corresponding to these three elements in human nature there are three classes in the social
organism-Philosopher class or the ruling class which is the representative of reason ; Auxiliaries,
a class of warriors and defenders of the country is the representative of spirit ; and the appetite
instinct of the community which consists of farmers, artisans and are the lowest rung of the
latter are the producer class. Thus, weaving a web between the human organism and the social
organism, Plato asserts that functional specialization demands from every social class to specialize
itself in the station of life allotted to it.
Justice is thus a sort of specialization. It is simply the will to fulfill the duties of one’s station and
not to meddle with the duties of another station, and its habitation is, therefore, in the mind of
every citizen who does his duties in his appointed place. It is the original principle, laid down at the
foundation of the state, “ that one man should practice one thing only and that the thing to which
his/her nature was best adopted”.

True justice to Plato, therefore, consists in the principle of non-interference. The state has been
considered by Plato as a perfect whole in which each individual which is its element, functions not
for itself but for the health of the whole. Every element fulfils its appropriate function.

CRITICISMS
1. Plato’s theory of justice is very good to read and imagine. it presents an ideal and blissful state of
nature. If his justice prevails in individual and society there would be no need for a formal
 system of law and justice as we need in modern times. If everyone is in perfect harmony within
oneself and society also is in perfect harmony and there is complete unification of individual and
the society what is the need for any remedial or retributive justice? there would be no crime, no
violence, no infringement of anyone's rights, and no one will violate his duties. In such perfect
social order formal laws are not required. But is such conception of Justice useful for the world in
which we live? perhaps not. Hence, the first problem with Plato's conception of justice is that it is
idealistic and utopic, not suitable for real societies.
2. Karl Popper in his text “The Open Societies and its Enemies” criticizes the idea of categorizing
society into three different classes that is, men of gold, men of silver and men of iron. He believed
that this could lead to hierarchization of the society and any society that is conceived on the bases
of hierarchy fundamentally ignores the principle of equality which is the founding principle of
democratic state. Thus, he believed any idea of justice which is violating the principle of equality
even at conceptual level cannot be universally applied.
3. Popper in his analysis of Plato’s theory of justice also believed that this theory is strongly in
favour of a political system of duties which would then mean that such a system or state would
demand complete devotion of its citizens to the state. Popper was of the complete belief that such
a system would actually help in creating totalitarian dictatorship where the principles of justice
that are understood as duties to be performed by its citizens would actually be used by the state to
discriminate and exploit its people. Popper believed any ideal state or ideal situation of justice
should be one where duties and rights go hand in hand.

4. Karl Popper also believed Plato’s theory of justice was based on the principle of one man one
work. This principle is against the all-round development of human personality. Human
personality is multi faceted and therefore requires all round development. By emphasizing on one
man one job primarily Plato’s idea of justice is crossly undermining its multidimensional man and
ultimately is creating a uni-dimensional man. This would certainly not lead either to the creation of
a just society or a happy society.
5. His theory of justice proposes regimented and close society. his idea of Justice is status quoist, it
supports maintain the prevailing social order. It is not pro change. Karl Popper, therefore, brand
Plato as enemy of open society, the society which guarantees individual autonomy, liberty, rights
and equality.
6. Ernest Barker while analyzing Plato’s conception of justice he explains perhaps Plato confuses
with the idea of moral duty with legal confusion and hence the system of justice he hopes to
achieve in an ideal state is more subjective. Thus when justice is subjective it is perhaps no justice
at all.

Conclusion
Plato’s theory of justice is, therefore , not a theory of juridical justice. It is not to be found in the
courts , among the judges or amidst the legislatures. It is, indeed, not the right of the individual to
have his/her own. On the other hand, it is the duty of the individual to do his/her own for his/her
own good and for the common good of which he /she is but a part. Plato’s theory of justice,
therefore, touches the lines of the right code of conduct, that is, of doing no harm to anyone; of
doing one’s own business, of doing it well and of doing it with full dedication, arid doing it in one’s
own good and the good of all. Justice, for Plato, is , thus, a matter of duty, rather than some right; a
matter of responsibility rather of some claim.

3. PLATO'S THEORY OF EDUCATION

Introduction
Education in a very general sense is the learning of skills, values, cultures, traditions, knowledge and
virtues through different forms such as listening, learning, writing, reading, and so on, and these are
also the ways in which one generation pass their knowledge to the next generation. Since the very
beginning of a civilized society people have their vested interests in teaching their children. Thus
philosophers have always commented upon it and propounded theories of philosophy of education.
John Dewey quotes “education is not preparation for life; education is life itself”, Rousseau says that
“education comes to us from nature, from man and from things.”
In this context, we have many more definitions and theories but Plato probably being the first
person to write a long treatise on how education should be, and what will its process and curriculum
be. There have been different ways in which knowledge has been imparted to the students and the
individuals such as storytelling, lectures, poem recitation. These were forms of education which only
comprised of speakers and listeners. Plato belonged to this very age, his teachings mainly being oral.
It was the latter half of his life when he decided to pen down his philosophy. Plato said that, “the
object of education is to teach us to love what is beautiful” (Plato, The Republic).

Plato's scheme of education

Plato's Republic is not merely an essay on government, it is, as Rousseau informs us, a treatise
ever written on education. The essence of his whole philosophy, as stated in the Republic, was to
bring about reforms (political, economic, social as well as moral, intellectual, cultural) in the ancient
Greek society. The object of The Republic was to locate and thereafter establish justice in the ideal
state and his scheme of education aimed, precisely, at that. For Plato, social education is a means to
social justice. It is, therefore, not incorrect to say that education, for Plato, had been a solution to all
the vexed questions. Education, as Klowsteit tells us, has been an instrument for moral reforms.
Barker rightly says that Plato's scheme of education brings the soul into that environment which in
each stage of its growth is best suited for its development.

Plato also believed that education builds man's character and it is, therefore, a necessary condition
for extracting man's natural facilities in order to develop his personalities. Education is not a private
enterprise for Plato; it is public in so far it provides a moral diagnosis-to the social ailments. Barker,
speaking for Plato, says that education is a path. of social righteousness, and not of social success; it
is a way to reach the truth. Education, Plato emphasised, was necessary for all .the classes in society,
especially for those who govern the people. The rulers, for Plato, are supreme because they are
educated by philosophers, for the rule of the pliilosophers, as Barker explains, is the result of the
education they receive.

Plato considered the state as an educational institution, and called it the “one great thing”. The
stress on education was derived from his theory of forms which based on the Socratic belief that
“virtue is knowledge”. According to Plato, the idea of virtue is the idea of action; the ultimate object
of virtue is to attain knowledge; the knowledge of virtue is the highest level of knowledge;
knowledge is attainable; and so is virtue attainable. Impressed by the results of state-controlled
education in Sparta, Plato duplicated the same for Athens. Plato's scheme of education had both the
Athenian and the Spartan influence. Sabine writes: "Its must genuinely Spartan feature was the
dedication of education exclusively to civic training. Its content was typically Athenian, and its
purpose was dominated by the end of moral and intellectual cultivation.” ‘His educational scheme
falls naturally into 2 phases, the elementary education, which includes the training of the young
persons up to about the age of 20 and culminating in the beginning of military service, and the
higher education, intended for those selected persons of both sexes who are to be members of the
two ruling classes and extending from the age of 20-35". In doing so he promoted two aims: first to
ensure universal literacy and second adequate and proper training for the members of the ruling
class in the state. While elementary education made the soul responsive to the environment, higher
education helped the soul to search for truth which illuminated it. It trained the human eye to
respond slowly to the glow of pure light through strict discipline and hard work. Let us look into
these in more detail.

Elementary education
In the first phase, elementary education that would be confined to the young till the age of
18. Elementary education enabled the individual soul to develop fullness of experience, both
theoretical and practical. It trained the human mind in moral and aesthetic judgement. It developed
the physical body to be healthy and athletic. Both boys and girls received the same kind of
education, far beyond the physical distinctions.
Elementary education consisted of music and gymnastics, designed to train and blends the gentle
and fierce qualities in the individual and creates a “harmonious person”. Gymnastics provided poise
to feelings, and tempered spirits. It involved the training of the body for the sake of the mind. Music
tried to soften the spirit by developing the nascent power of reason. It inculcated the power of right
opinion. Children were to be told stories about gods and great persons to ensure their good moral
upbringing.

Education in arts would be followed by two years of compulsory military training. The guardians
were perfected as professional warriors. Luxury and self-indulgence were prohibited with the
purpose of strengthening the spirit, without making it rigid or harsh. Plato reiterated the Athenian
practice which provided for compulsory military service between the ages of 17 or 18 and 20.
Elementary education perfected those souls who were receptive to habit and conditioning. These
souls would become auxiliaries.

Higher Education
At the age of 20, a selection was made. The best ones would take an advanced course in
mathematics, which would include arithmetic, plane and solid geometry, astronomy and harmonics.
Arithmetic was necessary, for it used “pure intelligence in the attainment of pure” truth”. Besides
this philosophical value, arithmetic had a practical value too like the Warriors were to learn the use
of numbers in order to arrange the troops. Arithmetic, because of its philosophical
and practical use, was studied by the best. Geometry helped in the choice of positions and methods
of tactics. It helped in easily acquiring the vision of the Idea of Good. Astronomy and harmonics had
the same value as arithmetic and geometry. Higher education was to cultivate
the spirit of free intellectual enquiry.

Those who did not qualify to join this exclusive category of esoteric minds would become
soldiers, and form the second tier of the ruling elite. The first course in the scheme of higher
education would last for 10 years. At the age of 30 there would be another selection. Those who
qualified would study dialectics or metaphysics, logic and philosophy for the next five years. They
would study the Idea of Good and the first principles of Being. They would receive partial experience
for ruling. They would accept junior positions in military and political life till the age of 35. This
period would last for the next 15 years. By the age of 50, the philosopher ruler was fully equipped.
He would devote the greater part of his time to contemplation and philosophy, along with political
obligations. Since he would have grasped the idea of Good, he would be in a position to do good to
the community. Since Plato subjected ruling to scientific training, he was categorical that only those
perfect in true knowledge could make good rulers, for they would ensure the good of others.
Features of education system
In a nutshell, we may identify the characteristic features of Plato’s scheme of education as these:

 His scheme of education was for the guardian class, i.e., the auxiliary class and the ruling
class; he had ignored the producing class completely;
 Its whole educational plan was state controlled;
 It aimed at attaining the physical, mental, intellectual, moral development of human
personality;
 It consisted of three stages: elementary between 6 to 20; higher, between 20 and 35;
practical, between 35 and 50;
 It aimed at preparing the rulers for administrative statesmanship; soldiers for militarily skill;
and producers for material productivity;
 It sought to bring a balance between the individual needs and social requirement,

Criticisms
Plato's plan of education was undemocratically devised in so far as it ignored the producing class. It
was limited in nature and was restrictive in extent by laying more emphasis on mathematics than on
literature. The whole plan was unexpectedly and unduly expensive. It was un-individual in the sense
that it restricted man’s thinking process and his autonomy. It was too abstract and too theoretical,
so much so, it lost sight of administrative intricacies.

Plato and Aristotle's education

The true goal of education for both Plato and Aristotle was to inculcate the values of civic
virtues. They framed an educational curriculum that would impart “a moral liberal education rather
than a study of political science. What they sought was rather a frame of mind which will respond in
a just, responsible and self manner to public issues”. Both believed that education would be an
effective remedy for corruption and instability that affected the states of their time, by injecting into
the citizens a sense of rights and obligations. They were convinced that a system of education
controlled and regulated by the state would teach the citizenry the traditions and laws of the state.

Conclusion:
In the field of philosophy every theory is open to various kind of interpretations and criticism indeed
there is no theory that is undisputed forever. This does not mean that what one has said at one
point of time losses its meaning or importance, thus, for that matter Plato’s philosophy even in
today’s world is not only of great importance as a curriculum but its application in the system of
education would have helped us to gain something more of ethical nature than mere materialistic
achievements. Education according to Plato is only relevant if one can use it as an instrument or a
tool to improve the society. In such a context, Plato’s importance cannot be ignored in this age.