Philosophy Essay 1 PDF
Document Details
Uploaded by Deleted User
2024
Hade Lopez-Xirum
Tags
Summary
This is a philosophy essay discussing the concept of a just society as depicted by Plato. It delves into the importance of gender equality and the potential flaws in his ideal state, referencing critiques of Plato's ideas.
Full Transcript
Hade Lopez-Xirum Word Count: 919 Professor Martin Intro to Political Theory Sep. 19 2024 Gender Equality and Merit: Cornerstones of Plato’s Just Society Plato's vision presents a just societ...
Hade Lopez-Xirum Word Count: 919 Professor Martin Intro to Political Theory Sep. 19 2024 Gender Equality and Merit: Cornerstones of Plato’s Just Society Plato's vision presents a just society centered on gender equality and merit-based recognition. His model, despite its flaws, is strengthened by controversial elements like eliminating the concept of traditional family units and censorship. These components, often misunderstood, serve to reinforce rather than undermine the core principles of Plato's ideal state. To modern-day readers, adding gender equality to a just society is a given. However, during Plato's time this idea was revolutionary. So, why is gender equality important? Plato asks, "Is there anything better for a city than having the best possible men and women as its citizens?"(456e). Without equal access to education half of the population isn’t able to actively contribute to their state. Picture, half of the brightest minds and most skilled individuals unable to become doctors, engineers, artists, or musicians. Imagine all the innovation and progress that is lost. Plato recognized that all humans have the ability to reason, learn, and contribute to their communities. While Plato created a just society rooted around gender equality, critics of Plato refer to elements such as dissolving the traditional family unit as cruel, unjust, and disregarding human nature. Plato states, "That all these women are to belong in common to all the men, that none are to live privately with a man, and that all the children, too, and to be possessed in common…"(457d). Tearing apart newborns from the arms of a mother is definitely not on the agenda for most when visualizing a just society. While this may seem contrary to human nature, it aims to eliminate nepotism and private interests for the good of the state. This ensures equal opportunity within the silver class. Moreover, by creating one large family instead of individual family units everyone would be concerned with what is best for the state itself. Essentially, everyone is living to create the best state possible. In turn what is good for the state is good for the individual. Additionally, eliminating traditional family units frees women from the traditional role of being solely responsible for childcare. In this system, all men and women share responsibility for the children under their care, allowing women to pursue other interests therefore reaffirming the idea of gender equality in this society. Another crucial aspect of Plato's just society is that the most qualified individuals, philosophers, are chosen to become rulers. This is implemented in order to ensure that these positions are filled by those best suited to serve the common good and not by those who seek personal gain or recognition. Consider a typical high school class president election in which two popular students, Alex and Jordan, compete for the position. They create posters, make promises, and chat up students to gain votes. However, their primary reasons for running are to boost their college applications and gain social status. Meanwhile, Taylor, an introverted but highly capable student with innovative ideas for improving the school, doesn't even consider running. Taylor's potential contributions go unnoticed and unheard while the election becomes a popularity contest between Alex and Jordan. Is this not how large-scale elections tend to play out? Where qualities such as charisma and campaign skills overshadow actual qualifications and genuine interest in public service. This is why in a just state philosophers should rule since these are the individuals who will seek truth and possess the wisdom to govern effectively, rather than those who excel at campaigning. These are the people who are best positioned to advance and lead the state. On the other hand, by advocating for censorship in his ideal society, Plato undermines its claim to being just by limiting people's ability to learn and grow intellectually. This component raises questions about the integrity of the education provided by the state. It seems inconsistent that a society aiming to produce knowledgeable, truth-seeking philosophers would limit access to ideas and information. How can individuals develop critical thinking skills and pursue true wisdom if they are not exposed to a diverse range of thoughts and expressions? Plato asks, "Then shall we carelessly allow the children to hear any old stories, told by just anyone, and to take beliefs into their souls that are for the most part opposite to the ones we think they should hold when they are grown up?" (377b). Censorship is not implemented to stop progress or limit the intellectual growth of citizens but to foster just minds and morals—to create virtuous individuals who can positively contribute to this society. Additionally, implementing censorship reduces societal complications, ultimately minimizing conflicts. This includes preventing rifts between citizens in the state that could lead to violence or, worse, civil war. This serves to fortify the ultimate purpose of this hypothetical society, which is to be a long-lasting utopia of harmony, peace, and, most importantly, justice. In conclusion, Plato's hypothetical society is, in fact, just. In order to achieve this utopia, Plato lays a foundation centered on gender equality and merit-based governance. Despite controversial concepts such as eliminating traditional family units and implementing censorship, these elements serve to reinforce the core principles of the state. It is crucial for us to explore ideas of a just society in order to examine our own. There is no such thing as a flawless society, and while we may never agree as to what makes one just, by discussing it we strive to approach the idea of one as closely as possible.