Plato

y the other Forms. The first degree of belief are physical objects, as the second degree of belief are shadows and images of the physical objects. In the last book, Plato criticizes poetry and the fine arts. Plato feels that art is merely the imitation of the imitation of reality, and that poetry corrupts the soul. Socrates says that artists merely create things. As an example, if a painter draws a couch on his canvas, he is creating a couch. But the couch he creates is not the real couch, it is nothing but a copy of an ordinary, physical couch which was created by a craftsman. But the ordinary, physical couch is nothing more than an imperfect copy, or image of the Form of Couch. So, the couch on the canvas is nothing but a copy of a copy of the real couch and is therefore three times removed from reality. Socrates then goes on to explain that an artist's knowledge is also third-rate. If an artist is painting a picture of a table, for example, he is copying a table that has been manufactured by a furniture-maker, and this furniture-maker has more knowledge of the table than the painter does. But there is someone who has ever more knowledge about the table, the person who wants to have the table made. He is the one who gives the furniture-maker instructions to follow when making the table, according to its purpose for the buyer. So, the buyer of the table knows more about the table than the furniture-maker, and the furniture-maker knows more about the table than the painter. Socrates believes that only philosophers have the first-hand knowledge of things, since they believe in The Forms. Socrates also denounces Homer. Socrates feels that in his writing, Homer has pretended to be people he is not, such as a politician, general, businessman, teacher, and philosopher. Socrates feels this is wrong because Homer is claiming to be able to perform these functions that he has written about, but never really performed himself. He feels that Homer is abandoning "reality". Plato feels that poetry has no place in his Ideal State, and should be banished until it can show itself to be a friend of philosophy. Socrates also mentions about the existence of an immortal soul. With this concession, he makes the point that good is that which preserves and benefits. Justice is good, so it therefore preserves and benefits in this life as well as the next. Therefore, even though a man may wish to behave badly when no one is looking, as with the myth of the ring of Gyges, in fact, behaving justly will have the most rewards. The Republic was Plato's ways of expressing his Theory of Forms and Justice. The main idea perhaps is to make people understand that there can be no justice within a society whose people are not "just" within themselves. There needs to be an internal justice, within the people, and within each person, in order to bring peace to the society. From reading the Republic, I realized that some issues he mentions are very clear, and some are not clear since I live in a different society and time. Plato does not describe his ideal society in great detail since he is considered with the ideal idea itself, and it is hard for me as a materialist to understand without seeing. One thing that is clear is that Plato tries to defend his theory all along and lets us, "the unknowledged," experience a glimpse of the good. Plato's belief seemed that life was to involve a movement upward toward the good, as this was a movement of the Soul.

Morality in the republic

The theme of The Republic is very complicated in some ways; it is a manual of sorts, which demonstrates how society can achieve virtue. In the beginning of the Republic, we are introduced to the fundamental question of the rest of the text, whether it is more beneficial to live justly (moral) or unjustly (immoral). It is also important to note that The Republic is not arguing which is "better", but rather which is more beneficial, whether the just or unjust life will make one happier. I believe that morality is both instrumentally and intrinsically valuable and when morality is compared to immorality. First, let's take a closer look at morality. Morality is simply the politics of the passions, and it is often classed as a respect for manners and customs. Morality is that action which is acceptable to others, and mainly the majority. Many have said morality is our prejudices learned, as we grow older. Power often controls our morality. Yet, moral happiness should be the road all would choose, as it is the path of highest reward. Though morality is no more than a personal choice, more people could make the best choice, if it became monetarily easier to do so. Truth may be the founding father of morality, and universally unites morality, and immorality Moral rules must be flexible, society changes and with it so does morality. Morality must be as Agreed upon by, religious and non-religious alike, because morality, as everything else is part of an evolutionary process. By manifesting religious or scientific laws you manifest prejudice, ignorance and introduce immorality Morality is often vice to power, especially in decadent times. Yet, scientific morality knows the moral to be the best, and we should all know morality ends where force begins. To become totally moral is impossible, but to throw away morality is to throw away the human soul. On the other hand, many show that immorality has its advantages materialistically, but not realizing the dangers of being immoral. Socrates was one of the most influential philosophers, and his views on morality and immorality are equally beneficial, depending on the views and actions of people. There are many instance when moral conduct could be considered immoral and visa versa. "Let's