Blog Comment on Plato - Mira Antolovich

I believe that Plato's argument brings up interesting points, but it mainly relies upon a perfect world which does not exist. An example of this is how Plato's argument relies upon the "it is or it is not" mentality to prove certain arguments. For instance, how people in the "moral city" are part of castes that can only have certain traits is illogical. When certain people are split between three groups: "guardians", "soldiers", and "citizens" they cannot just be assigned a trait. Since each caste has a certain role they need to fulfill in this perfectly moral society, this trait (that cannot be defined before they become mature and even then, being mature is being able to accept other views and correct yours if you are wrong) must be taught and engraved into them. I believe that this way of arguing is completely based in fantasy. Most people will change their stances on life and being in a caste would be counterproductive and possibly make people hide this side to them. Some may argue that you need to censor ideas if you need to keep this way of life acceptable. This brings me to my next point, teaching someone how to think is not how one should create their own identity. In fact, in The Republic, Plato (as Socrates) argues that if you are to argue for something you must believe in it. In this sense in a fantasy world, if the "guardians" are not exposed to other points, then there is no consideration for a different view. However, in the real world, people are socializing and seeing new ideas all the time. Unless in this perfect city, there was no socialization between castes, which would be detrimental all in itself (as one could abuse power), this is not how it would work in the real world. Most people would question other points of view, as we see in all of The Republic as all the characters are debating each other. This leads to more evolved arguments and leads to improving the understanding of the world. If the perfect moral city is so perfect, then why can other viewpoints not be expressed? If someone is so certain of something, then debating only strengthens and enforces their viewpoint. All in all, the argument Plato gives is illogical and could be related more to the real world.