The Dilemma of the Philosopher and the City

The Dilemma of the Philosopher and the City In the third wave in Book V of the Republic, Socrates proposes his idea of the philosopher-king (473d). The philosopher, Socrates claims, is superior to any wholeness else in any respect, and hence he should be king. but his superiority, the philosopher does not want to deviate from doctrine and be the ruler. The citizens alike rebel against the rule of the philosopher, because they cannot understand the faithfulness of philosophy. Hence philosopher cannot be the ruler in any live urban center. Moreover, philosophy is more of a danger to the imperfect city in which the philosopher is not the king, namely, all existing cities. It may be do by and lead to evil. And philosophy itself always goes against the imperfect regime, for it strives subsequently good expert. Philosophy and the city need each new(prenominal) as well as conflict with each other. Because on the one hand, the citizens do not appreciate the superiority of phi losophy, and on the other hand, the philosopher in the imperfect city may do misemploy to the regime, the real city cannot accommodate the philosopher. The philosopher, and only the philosopher, is qualified to be the king for trinity reasons: he is the most just man, he can memorise the underlying truth of the city and he requires nothing from the city. As defined in Book IV, justice of a city is when the other three virtues, knowledge, courage and moderation, ar in the mature place, which is to say, those with wisdom rule and the others obey. Analogically, justice of a man is that the wisdom within him rules. The philosopher, as friends and kinsman of truth, justice, courage, and moderation (487a), is much(prenominal) man, the most just man. The adjust philosopher, as the lover of the eyeshot of... If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper