The compilation of Plato’s ideas in the Republic, if not technically a religion, is essentially one. For the sake of simplicity I will compare the Republic to the religion of Christianity unless stated otherwise. Firstly is the issue of God; described as omnipotent, moral, and of the highest authority. In the Republic God’s parallel is the philosopher king, a true philosopher. As someone who strives to learn everything that is true and has real knowledge, Plato has created something that is as close to omnipotence as possible; the philosopher king strives for omnipotence. Plato also states that a philosopher king would be perfectly moral; so such a being would be good and not bad in any way, and in that way resembles God. Plato claims that such a person should be put in the highest authority of a community much like god. The main distinction between the Christian God and Plato’s philosopher kings would be that philosophers are tangible people; however this is not a feature that is unlike some religions. Ancient Egyptians believed that the pharaohs, or kings, were a god in the form of a human, a tangible being.
What is good or what people should do and why is also covered by both Christianity and Plato. Most notably are the Ten Commandments, but there are countless other lessons on what is good and what is not good to do. The stories of the Bible show consequences for people going against what they had been told to do. Whether that consequence is your town being destroyed with fire and brimstone, or eternal damnation the outcome is negative. In the Republic Plato gives what being moral and good is, and he tries to show why acting this way is beneficial. He argues that immorality is bad and has negative consequences.
Both religion and Plato explain what man is. Christianity does so in the book of Genesis; man was created by God and in his image. The Bible gives accounts of Gods actions and describes his qualities; through this an image of man is formed as a reflection of God. It also describes mans’ tendency for bad and his understanding of good and evil with the story of Adam and Eve eating the apple from the tree of knowledge. While man is not literally created by Plato in the Republic, he recreates and brakes down the mind of man; he gives his answer to what man is beyond the physical body. This is done with his tripartite division of the mind theory. He breaks the mind down into parts, and gives the qualities that make them up.
I would I have to say that I strongly agree with the points that Adam has made. I too believe that the many ideas that Plato presents in the Republic resemble those of some sort of religion. Adam draws the connection between Plato’s explanation of a man and the depiction of a man within the book of Genesis; both attempting to mold man in the image of God. With that being said the books storyline itself, thus far, has resembled that of the bible. In my opinion the ideas and beliefs that Plato explains in the Republic are his way of intentionally assuming and playing the role of god. The main character of the book, Socrates, is a prime example of my belief. What has Socrates done thus far in the tale? From the start of the book we find Socrates combating the beliefs already set in place within his society, in hopes of reforming the way things are as well as shedding light on what should truly be valued in society as well as life in general. This comes across as Socrates acting as a sort of voice for god. He claims to possess true knowledge and knows what the true solutions to the problems plaguing the people of his time. Plato also assumes a god like role as he describes the ideal community along with the people who would inhibit such a thing. In essence, Plato gives birth to a sort of utopia. He describes the steps that must be taken in order to create the “ideal” community and plans out how such a community would and could be brought about along with what characteristics and values the people within the community should possess. It’s almost as if Plato includes a small creation story within the story itself.
I fully agree with what both Adam and Aaron have said. Adam claims that Socrates' philosopher king strives to seek truth, and therefore knowledge, and possess a strong moral compass. It is widely appreciated that God is all knowing and a source of morality, therefore it would be reasonable to conclude; while God possesses all knowledge and is always moral, a philosopher king embodies as much of God as a human can. Therefore, a philosopher king would resemble an earthly God, someone whom guides his ‘disciples’ (fellow countrymen) with both knowledge and morality. In the Republic, Plato implies that God represents all the ideas and realities in the real world, and subsequently, the ‘Forms’. This represents God not as something material and visible, but rather something abstract. The concept of abstraction, according to Plato, is clearly defined as being part of a real and imperceptible world. While Plato is providing an idea of God, the philosopher does not impose the need to idolize God on anyone. Rather, Plato presents an abstract idea of what God should represent, which are all of the ‘Forms’. Subsequently, Plato argues that a philosopher king would be similar to a God, as philosopher kings strive to embody all of the ‘Forms’. Plato also presents his belief that the ‘Forms’ represent true knowledge, which in turn symbolizes God, and as Plato would claim, the philosopher kings. This could prove the Plato views philosopher kings to be a representation of God on earth, someone who embodies the traits of God, yet is human enough to relate and govern the common man. Because Plato strongly suggests the correlation between God and philosopher kings, one might conclude that the philosopher king rules over his people in the divine manner that God rules over his disciples. That would provide reason to believe that Plato’s ideal republic can be viewed as a form of religion.
Plato’s thoughts in The Republic are certainly poignant and address much of the way in which a society and humans should exist and could function as a guiding book for many people, but I would not say that it could be an organized religion. The first and most important reason why there could never be a religion behind Plato’s ideas is because those who understand and appreciate his ideas see that it somewhat undermines the idea of organized religion as a whole. An excellent example of what I am referring to can be seen in the cave allegory where they discuss how humans are mostly all incapable of seeing beyond the cast shadows on the wall of the cave. If one observes the way that an organized religion like Christianity works, it is essentially a mass of people who believe that they know the true intentions and forms of a higher power, namely God, and speak to this higher power, praying and repenting for violating a certain human-created code. While I am not saying that there is no God, I do think that Plato realizes that we could never truly comprehend the true nature of a higher being or the truth, whatever that may be. Looking to Plato’s ideas about human nature, we see that he realizes that humans are followers who are comfortable with the false world they live in and that an organized religion only reinforces that of behavior by pretending to have a solution or answer to the question of the truth or a higher being. Ultimately, we have to see that people who truly understand what Plato is saying in his works would come to the same conclusion that I have: People look to organized religion to find an answer to the truth, but this is a futile effort because that only makes people more comfortable with the false world they live in.
Plato’s compilation of ideas in The Republic display the resemblance to the ideals of a religion that is based on morality, however, Plato’s ideas and beliefs are really just that, his ideas and beliefs. Throughout the book, Plato in a sense speaks through Socrates in the book and all Socrates does is display his views and opinions on morality through arguments. By merely speaking his mind and tossing around others opinions and views in the process, he is in no way either following or creating his own religion. In every religion there are two qualities that are essential to have in order for the religion to be considered a religion; for one it has to be able to be realistically practiced, and secondly it has to have finite ideals. Plato’s view of morality doesn’t have either of these qualities as he is merely stating his ideals rather than following them in a religious manner. First and foremost, there is no possible way for him or any other human being to realistically follow his views of morality because morality in his sense is essentially perfection. Being moral in Plato’s opinion is thinking every decision through and making the ‘most rational decision’ which he believes will always be the correct decision. However, regardless of if a person were to rationally think every decision that he or she made through before making it, there is no guarantee that that would be the ‘right’ decision because no human can make the ‘right’ decision every single time. This would imply perfection and not even Socrates could come up with an argument that would state that perfection is attainable and that humans can be perfect. Lastly, his ideals on morality aren’t even finite as he is open to the opinions of others and takes those into account before he finalizes his argument or viewpoint. A religion should have a solid foundation of a certain belief, in this case morality, which Plato’s ideals do not have.
The compilation of Plato’s ideas in the Republic, if not technically a religion, is essentially one. For the sake of simplicity I will compare the Republic to the religion of Christianity unless stated otherwise.
ReplyDeleteFirstly is the issue of God; described as omnipotent, moral, and of the highest authority. In the Republic God’s parallel is the philosopher king, a true philosopher. As someone who strives to learn everything that is true and has real knowledge, Plato has created something that is as close to omnipotence as possible; the philosopher king strives for omnipotence. Plato also states that a philosopher king would be perfectly moral; so such a being would be good and not bad in any way, and in that way resembles God. Plato claims that such a person should be put in the highest authority of a community much like god. The main distinction between the Christian God and Plato’s philosopher kings would be that philosophers are tangible people; however this is not a feature that is unlike some religions. Ancient Egyptians believed that the pharaohs, or kings, were a god in the form of a human, a tangible being.
What is good or what people should do and why is also covered by both Christianity and Plato. Most notably are the Ten Commandments, but there are countless other lessons on what is good and what is not good to do. The stories of the Bible show consequences for people going against what they had been told to do. Whether that consequence is your town being destroyed with fire and brimstone, or eternal damnation the outcome is negative. In the Republic Plato gives what being moral and good is, and he tries to show why acting this way is beneficial. He argues that immorality is bad and has negative consequences.
Both religion and Plato explain what man is. Christianity does so in the book of Genesis; man was created by God and in his image. The Bible gives accounts of Gods actions and describes his qualities; through this an image of man is formed as a reflection of God. It also describes mans’ tendency for bad and his understanding of good and evil with the story of Adam and Eve eating the apple from the tree of knowledge. While man is not literally created by Plato in the Republic, he recreates and brakes down the mind of man; he gives his answer to what man is beyond the physical body. This is done with his tripartite division of the mind theory. He breaks the mind down into parts, and gives the qualities that make them up.
I would I have to say that I strongly agree with the points that Adam has made. I too believe that the many ideas that Plato presents in the Republic resemble those of some sort of religion. Adam draws the connection between Plato’s explanation of a man and the depiction of a man within the book of Genesis; both attempting to mold man in the image of God. With that being said the books storyline itself, thus far, has resembled that of the bible. In my opinion the ideas and beliefs that Plato explains in the Republic are his way of intentionally assuming and playing the role of god. The main character of the book, Socrates, is a prime example of my belief. What has Socrates done thus far in the tale? From the start of the book we find Socrates combating the beliefs already set in place within his society, in hopes of reforming the way things are as well as shedding light on what should truly be valued in society as well as life in general. This comes across as Socrates acting as a sort of voice for god. He claims to possess true knowledge and knows what the true solutions to the problems plaguing the people of his time. Plato also assumes a god like role as he describes the ideal community along with the people who would inhibit such a thing. In essence, Plato gives birth to a sort of utopia. He describes the steps that must be taken in order to create the “ideal” community and plans out how such a community would and could be brought about along with what characteristics and values the people within the community should possess. It’s almost as if Plato includes a small creation story within the story itself.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with what both Adam and Aaron have said. Adam claims that Socrates' philosopher king strives to seek truth, and therefore knowledge, and possess a strong moral compass. It is widely appreciated that God is all knowing and a source of morality, therefore it would be reasonable to conclude; while God possesses all knowledge and is always moral, a philosopher king embodies as much of God as a human can. Therefore, a philosopher king would resemble an earthly God, someone whom guides his ‘disciples’ (fellow countrymen) with both knowledge and morality. In the Republic, Plato implies that God represents all the ideas and realities in the real world, and subsequently, the ‘Forms’. This represents God not as something material and visible, but rather something abstract. The concept of abstraction, according to Plato, is clearly defined as being part of a real and imperceptible world. While Plato is providing an idea of God, the philosopher does not impose the need to idolize God on anyone. Rather, Plato presents an abstract idea of what God should represent, which are all of the ‘Forms’. Subsequently, Plato argues that a philosopher king would be similar to a God, as philosopher kings strive to embody all of the ‘Forms’. Plato also presents his belief that the ‘Forms’ represent true knowledge, which in turn symbolizes God, and as Plato would claim, the philosopher kings. This could prove the Plato views philosopher kings to be a representation of God on earth, someone who embodies the traits of God, yet is human enough to relate and govern the common man. Because Plato strongly suggests the correlation between God and philosopher kings, one might conclude that the philosopher king rules over his people in the divine manner that God rules over his disciples. That would provide reason to believe that Plato’s ideal republic can be viewed as a form of religion.
ReplyDeletePlato’s thoughts in The Republic are certainly poignant and address much of the way in which a society and humans should exist and could function as a guiding book for many people, but I would not say that it could be an organized religion. The first and most important reason why there could never be a religion behind Plato’s ideas is because those who understand and appreciate his ideas see that it somewhat undermines the idea of organized religion as a whole. An excellent example of what I am referring to can be seen in the cave allegory where they discuss how humans are mostly all incapable of seeing beyond the cast shadows on the wall of the cave. If one observes the way that an organized religion like Christianity works, it is essentially a mass of people who believe that they know the true intentions and forms of a higher power, namely God, and speak to this higher power, praying and repenting for violating a certain human-created code. While I am not saying that there is no God, I do think that Plato realizes that we could never truly comprehend the true nature of a higher being or the truth, whatever that may be. Looking to Plato’s ideas about human nature, we see that he realizes that humans are followers who are comfortable with the false world they live in and that an organized religion only reinforces that of behavior by pretending to have a solution or answer to the question of the truth or a higher being. Ultimately, we have to see that people who truly understand what Plato is saying in his works would come to the same conclusion that I have: People look to organized religion to find an answer to the truth, but this is a futile effort because that only makes people more comfortable with the false world they live in.
ReplyDeletePlato’s compilation of ideas in The Republic display the resemblance to the ideals of a religion that is based on morality, however, Plato’s ideas and beliefs are really just that, his ideas and beliefs. Throughout the book, Plato in a sense speaks through Socrates in the book and all Socrates does is display his views and opinions on morality through arguments. By merely speaking his mind and tossing around others opinions and views in the process, he is in no way either following or creating his own religion.
ReplyDeleteIn every religion there are two qualities that are essential to have in order for the religion to be considered a religion; for one it has to be able to be realistically practiced, and secondly it has to have finite ideals. Plato’s view of morality doesn’t have either of these qualities as he is merely stating his ideals rather than following them in a religious manner. First and foremost, there is no possible way for him or any other human being to realistically follow his views of morality because morality in his sense is essentially perfection. Being moral in Plato’s opinion is thinking every decision through and making the ‘most rational decision’ which he believes will always be the correct decision. However, regardless of if a person were to rationally think every decision that he or she made through before making it, there is no guarantee that that would be the ‘right’ decision because no human can make the ‘right’ decision every single time. This would imply perfection and not even Socrates could come up with an argument that would state that perfection is attainable and that humans can be perfect. Lastly, his ideals on morality aren’t even finite as he is open to the opinions of others and takes those into account before he finalizes his argument or viewpoint. A religion should have a solid foundation of a certain belief, in this case morality, which Plato’s ideals do not have.