Plato's argument for the benefits of a just life is intrinsically linked to his definition of good and its relation to people's desires. He begins by showing that when the objective of a desire is simple (e.g. quenching a thirst), the desire must be correspondingly simple. Since thirst is a simple desire, the man's objective must also be simplistic and should we assign an adjective to his objective, we would falsely complicate it. In addition, Plato believes that we would be seriously erring if we assign a value of good to a desire. In common use, the adjective good would denote something that is good in relation to others of its kind. We consider a drink good if it contains characteristics that we look for in a drink (e.g. pleasantness or taste). Plato takes this a step further and states that something that is good must not only be good in relation to others but it must be wholly good. Thus a drink cannot be truly good if evil results from it. This poses an i!
nteresting question for Plato's readers namely, since no one wants bad things to happen to them, why do people engage in self-destructive activities? The answer lies in the fact that the only reason that we desire to drink is that we ant
. . .
Our usage of the word good, however, has come to denote an expectation of usefulness to our purpose; although this may be relative to the end result that we experience from the object. Our appetites see no further consequences than the immediate fulfillment of our desires; they do not contemplate the results of the actions we take to fulfill our desires. We can see from Book IV, that since the objective is complex, the accompanying desire must be correspondingly complex. We have said that the timocrat, the oligarch, and the tyrant are all dominated by singular passions, which control every judgment. In Book VIII, Plato provides us with an overview of four types of lives that people can lead. Rather he allows that all pleasures are equal and must be valued equally' (561c). What this meant for Plato was that the origin of desire for the good couldn’t be the same as the origin of desire for simple objectives. Plato states his views on this overpowering desire. Since the aristocrat regulates the three parts of the soul, keeps them in order, unites them, and has experienced the pleasures of each, he is in the best position to determine what is best for the whole. There must be a part of the soul, Plato reasons, that contemplates the end result of our actions and makes decisions based on a higher reasoning than desire. We need to consider everything that is relevant to the action or object and determine its possible consequences before we denote it as good. By referring to the division of the soul. This means that none of the three parts of the soul dominates the individual. Plato holds, however, that rather than being principles, these are merely momentary enthusiasms. Instead, it searches for a type of objective, which precedes any other one goal.
Approximate Word count =
1650
Approximate Pages =
7 (250 words per page double spaced)
Simply subscribe to view this paper, and 100,000 others.
| CREDIT CARD |
ONLINE CHECK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOIN BY PHONE
|
|
|
