Plato’s concept of the ideal state is an interesting attempt to distinguish citizens into three social classes. In his endeavour, his motivation for this division of labor can be attributed to rationality and balance. But before describing the citizens within the ideal state, he describes the overall structure of the ideal state. It presupposes that each city needs three core parts to function properly: a governing body to create laws, a fortified body to defend the city from internal and external enemies, and an efficient body responsible for creating and distributing goods.
As can be noted from Plato’s statement about the ideal structure, it can be problematic in many ways. One such case is when producers decide to over-abundant because of greedy intentions. The same intentions can lead to criminals hindering the overall good of the state. Another instance may be when the defenders use their authority for evil. Or perhaps presidents only decide to pass laws that favor themselves. In this way Plato thought that no one could do wrong for the sake of his citizens. It addresses this problem by restricting entry into these three classes based on certain qualities and characteristics the citizen enjoys.
Plato says that the principalities, or guardians, have the power of wisdom. This is due to the fact that this class will be solely responsible for creating laws that benefit the general good of the state. Due to the fact that they will have a great power of governing the body, they must also be citizens of good morals, that is, they must have wisdom. Furthermore, Plato submits that no one can become a prince, and only philosophers can become rulers. First of all, because a true philosopher will not concern himself with worldly things, but will constantly pursue knowledge. This Plato himself argues, a true philosopher, is sufficiently qualified to claim the position of leader. Of course, many other things.
The classification in the defending body is limited to those who have true strength. These citizens are doing their duty to protect the city from harm. It can be seen that this position is related to the office of a modern officer. However, Plato declares that no one can become a soldier out of desire. He must acquire strength through experience through pain and trial. Thus, to become a soldier is not a desirable path to take, but being a soldier is a desirable profession. In the words of a soldier’s soul, a soldier must have a courageous soul. It is the duty of courageous souls to carry out the dictates of reason in practical life, to do with courage all that the princes have determined to be best.
The rest of the citizens, who do not have either the power of knowledge or courage, will be placed in the generator. These producers are only responsible for creating and distributing goods in the city. However, it should be noted that the producer is very tempted to live a life of capital, a stingy way of life. And hence it is that the princes must preserve the good of the commonwealth, by telling the producers what and how much to produce. In this idea of the state the producers represent the appetitive part of the soul. Serving no purpose other than to bring worldly goods and services into the city, one can see why there is an innate temptation for producers to indulge in capitalist life.
Plato’s saying that the best republic should be reproached with non-guardianism, because they have no liberty to do what they will, is of great force. And it is only true that non-guardians have the choice to become guardians because philosophers have qualities that cannot, or are difficult to acquire. Referring to this idea in modern terms, it is to say that presidents are chosen from birth as leaders who must have certain qualities. In America, this removes the idea of the right to choose fate. In addition, the guardians will not usually feel in choosing which class they belong to. This ideology can be interpreted as the unjust free will of man, which can lead to serious implications.
But this argument can also be seen as flawed when considering the circumstances of the case. If we can know that some citizens are evil inside, the simplest solution would be to not allow them to choose their fate. This new theory assumes that people are naturally willing to do evil until proven good. Since this is a very dog-like aspect of the city, this can be especially useful when deciding on the roles of citizens within the city. There is no doubt that everyone can contribute his lot to the city. In this way, one can consider the construction of the security mechanism: if the citizen is bad, he will never have the chance to choose his own fortune, and if the citizen is naturally good, then from the beginning they will belong to the leaders or the soldiers. However, it is important to remember that this model does not always provide a correct classification of citizens, because it is possible that good citizens will never be able to become leaders or soldiers, without first knowledge as such.
But on the contrary, it can be argued that Plato’s imagination of the state despises the guardians, because they are worse at helping others than at themselves. But it seems foolish that the guardians should find someone else in their company, as anyone inferior to them will do harm except to their community. The easiest way to bring about the greater good of the state is to stop bad citizens from existing. The main reason for this, however, is that guardians help other citizens. This can be seen as a keeper’s efforts at the end. In this sense, there is no useful way for guardians to help other citizens.
In short, from Plato’s ideas about the best state and about the inner works that he stands for, it can be seen that he despises both the guardians and the citizens. I think that Plato’s best city is incomplete; It lacks a core structure for the state to thrive. By breaking the city into three classes, we cannot encapsulate the breadth of the city’s capabilities. Furthermore, I believe that Plato’s idea of the eligibility of the prince is very flawed. Claiming that all princes are philosophers, Plato limits the type of government to those who have no interest in earthly material things. This is the quality of an impotent prince in the sense that his own rulers must be common with the multitude of those who rule. Put a case in which the prince with the multitude, money. Since most people are driven by the desire for money, use this ruler to control or bend the desire to make the ruler profit. But only a prince who understands the truth of the desire for money can use this art. Therefore he cannot be a great philosopher because of the lack of material desires. Nevertheless, Plato makes very strong claims and is supported by many facts.
