Monthly Archives: September 2012

Relationship between the ruler and ruled

Posted on by

In Plato’s The Republic and More’s Utopia, both writers examine the relationship between ruling class and the ruled within a just society. Within each work, both classes are bound by the mutual sacrifice and duty that perpetuates justice, but the writers’ individual experiences with different forms of governance lead them to diverge when discussing the control that the ruled have over their rulers.

In both Utopia and The Republic, sacrifices on behalf of both the rulers and the ruled forge solidarity between members of the two classes. Plato and More agree that just as every man has a talent to offer, every man must also forsake certain pleasures to promote the functioning of the society as a whole. This is why in neither work do rulers have more wealth or luxury than those they rule over, for justice in both societies demands equal distributions of happiness and material goods among members. Rulers in both works also have a duty to be a guide for other citizens to follow. Just as Plato’s philosopher kings must descend back into the cave to lead others to enlightenment, magistrates in Utopia must encourage industrious spirit among citizens by performing manual labor.

However, their experiences with democracy and monarchy lead Plato and More to defend different forms of government, resulting in different powers that the ruled have over their rulers. Plato critiques democracy and believes that leadership roles ought to be filled by those whose intrinsic talents are best suited to the job. Thus, citizens are unable to elect their rulers. Because each member of society is fated to perform a certain role regardless of his own desires, there is an irreconcilable divide between the rulers and the ruled, for no ruler can ever be removed from power, and no ordinary citizen can ever rise to the level of a ruler. In contrast, More’s version of governance allows for social mobility. After living under a monarchy for his entire life, More promotes a democratic republican form of government wherein citizens elect a number of magistrates who then make decisions – such as selecting the prince – with their interests in mind. The ruled can revoke the power of the magistrates if they are thought be be unjust or abusive. This check on the power of the ruling class ensures balance and an equal distribution of power throughout the society that is essential to maintaining justice.

Compare and Contrast between the ruler and ruled in ‘Utopia’ and ‘The Republic’

Posted on by

‘Real’ Justice

                The word perfect or ideal signifies something that has no flaws and is not prone to objection. Therefore, we can reason that something so intricate probably has no substitute either. However,  learning about the ideal society in More’s Utopia  and Plato’s The Republicmakes my previous statement void of any substance. Although the two philosophers are aiming for the same objective, the structure between the ruler and ruled in their respective worlds could not be more different, which puts us in doubt as to what is ‘real’ justice.

However, there are some parallelisms that we can draw from the texts. They strongly believe that it is important to understand the meaning of justice, in Plato’s case by the philosopher king and in More’s case the general public. They also agree that the perfect society must be modeled in either absolutes: either everyone is good natured or they are morally incompetent. They both want to avoid the abuse of power by either providing an all-knowing central figure or by disregarding personal benefits and desires.

In The Republic, Plato brings forward the idea that it is necessary for someone who is of a higher standing i.e. more learned, to guide the perfect State. He reasons that people are misguided by personal desires and the wrong motives therefore, a savior or “philosopher king” is needed to teach them the right from wrong. Although this constitutes a form of dictatorship he believes the philosopher king will know better than to abuse such power. Plato’s State is built on the centralized figure whose sole responsibility is the functioning of the state.

Contrary to Plato’s belief, More in Utopia reasons that society cannot work solely on the ideology of one person. It has to be the collaboration of people that would help it rise to success. His Utopian people work together disregarding social status, which implies equality and reliance on each other rather than individual work. More shows that his Utopia’s abundant resources are due to everyone sharing the burden. More’s government is more democratically minded because it takes into account the opinion of the people and chooses leaders among them. Even the leaders are no exception to extreme laws and are not in any higher financial standing than the rest. More’s basis is that the good will and their peaceful forward moving attitude will enable them to work towards an Utopia.

Even though the texts are polar opposites of each other, they bring to light that a society needs either a leader or willed people to function well. May be, rather it is a combination of the two that will provide us an answer to the “real” justice.

Comparing the Genesis and Content of Morality in Plato and More’s Utopias

Posted on by

Thomas More’s Utopia and Plato’s The Republic both address morality in the context of ideal civilizations.  Similarities arise when each novel describes its people, and how they come to be functioning and ideal members of Utopia or the perfect State.  Each author describes some sort of conditioning process that each society’s residents must go through.  However, Plato’s subjects are closely inculcated with specific information and preplanned cultural influences from birth; thus, they know nothing other than their enforced goodness.  More’s Utopia was first populated by “rude and uncivilized”(p. 28) people, who, through generations of residing in their perfect civilization, came to be virtuous citizens.  The only true morality is that which is displayed by someone who has been presented with the opportunity to be dishonorable.

Book VII of The Republic features Socrates’s description of the perfect society.  To build it, Socrates suggests that everyone over the age of ten be expelled from the city, and those remaining—who possess the most potential—will be trained until the age of fifty to be perfect citizens or Philosopher Kings.

Similarly, in books II-IV, Plato describes that guardians of another perfect society, the Luxurious State, must be specifically taught what is and isn’t appropriate to do and think.  The populace is told fictitious stories of its gods and rulers to instill respect.  Various information, both true and false, is strategically fed to and withheld from the citizens of the Luxurious State to ensure that they unknowingly grow to be dignified, trusting, and most importantly, moral— but is accidental morality actual morality?

The answer is no.  More’s Utpoia was founded by one man who created an artificial island away from the rest of society, and used its old, corrupt inhabitants to populate his new city, Utopia.  When Utopia’s government and laws were established, the new citizens could choose to either follow or break the law, and accept the consequences.  Through generations, Utopians grew to appreciate their lifestyles, and became exceptionally virtuous people.  They witnessed acts of evil, saw their consequences, then often chose not to commit them for the benefit of society and themselves.  Plato’s people are made “moral” by masterminds, while More’s people are made moral by the community.  Plato’s citizens are characterized by a fictitious and enforced integrity, whereas Utopians are truly moral, because they are exposed to evil, and choose to be honorable.

Location and Utopias

Posted on by

 

For More and Plato, location of a utopia affects its development and success. While More believes that a utopia must be physically separated from other societies, Plato suggests that any society can become a utopia wherever it is located if certain conditions are developed and met over time. More’s utopia is located on a remote island. His placement suggests the utopia cannot be corrupted because its inhabitants are physically separated from others. Essentially, More thought that outside contact corrupts the mind and society. In Book II of Utopia, More describes Utopia as not an “island at first, but part of a continent (More 28).” Utopus, the ruler of Utopia, believes that the continent they conquered was full of “uncivilized inhabitants (More 28).”  For this reason he orders all individuals of Utopia to dig a channel fifteen miles long to separate Utopia from the other continent. This channel serves not only as a physical separation, but also as a metaphorical one in which the ideas of Utopia become disconnected from the uncivilized culture surrounding their society. In addition, each town is located almost equidistant from the other. This placement is deliberate and creates an overall equality among the people because no individual has to go further for something than another individual demonstrating the true essence of a utopia.

In contrast, in Plato’s Republic, location is not as essential to the creation of a utopia.  However, location plays a small role in how Plato constructs his utopia. Plato believes that his “philosopher kings” must be separated from society at a young age so that their minds are not corrupt. Plato believes the separation from society allows the philosopher kings to rely not on sensorial observation, but rather on their training and understanding the Form of the Good. The utopian society that Plato creates is different than More’s because he does not believe his utopia needs to be isolated. Plato suggests that if certain conditions are met, any society can become a utopia.  For instance, if the philosopher kings are well trained in arithmetic, geometry, physical training, astronomy, and ultimately dialectics they will be able to create a utopian society no matter where they are.  More and Plato both use location in many different ways while describing their utopias. More uses location as a complete separation from the world. Plato uses location as a way to separate a few individuals and train them to then return to society and then rule society in a utopian fashion. Thus location is essential to the development of a utopia.

Comparing the Genesis and Content of Morality in Plato and More’s Utopias

Posted on by

More and Plato have similar ideas on how one lives a virtuous life, but their reasons for encouraging their own versions of morality come from two different viewpoints. More encourages following God’s will, and ethics, while Plato praises balance for the common good; although both authors seek order and harmony for the citizens of their utopias, especially through knowledge, their differing inspirations for writing may be why their basis for pursuing virtue is inconsistent. Perhaps Plato puts more responsibility on the individual’s ability to shape society because of the disastrous results of group think, and mob mentality which led to the execution of his teacher Socrates. More, on the other hand, places higher importance on religion because of his strong support of the catholic faith, and his attempts to maintain its purity.

Both More and Plato believed that health is one of the greatest pleasures that man can obtain. Fulfilling desires for food, and drink are enjoyable in the act as well as in their results. For this reason, both authors encouraged the pleasures of eating and drinking because these actions lead to good health. Influenced by his catholic faith More further says that these are the appetites which come from nature, and since nature was created by God, as humans were, it is imperative that we live in accordance to its laws (More, 49). Although good eating habits may lead to health both authors also place importance on moderation because excess can lead to as much pain and harm as it would health when desires are pursued beyond needs. As food feeds the appetite of the body, knowledge fuels the mind. More believes, “The pleasures of the mind lie in knowledge, and in that delight which the contemplation of truth carries with it…”(More, 52). This of course is identical to Plato’s ideals which place the pursuit of an absolute truth above all else.

Structurally, both authors provide what could be considered a foil character to help show the complete opposite of their ideal citizen. More uses the Zapolets, glutinous, blood thirsty, savages who are motivated exclusively by greed to show more clearly his goals for humanity by providing the reader with an antagonist. The Zapolets are exposed to a superior way of living in their interactions with the Utopians, and still reject it. Plato uses a similar method in his cave analogy. The prisoners watching the shadows of reality perfectly contradict the most elite members of his society who are able to break free of their metaphorical bonds, and see the light outside of the cave. Furthermore they reject the ideal of enlightenment by attempting to discredit the truths told to them by the individuals who were able to leave the cave. In this way both sets of characters are not accepting of an ideal of their society which is explicitly shown to them by more correct citizens.

Plato’s reason for encouraging morality comes from his assumption that the good principles, and habits of the individual, pass from themselves to the entire state (Plato, 105). The perfect state can only be created by being filled with people who believe in morals which will help support the common good. More on the other hand puts his faith in a homogeneous population all following a similar religion. The citizens of Utopia are morally correct by following the virtues described by their faith. Since everyone believes that the soul is eternal, they are led away from selfishness because they believe vices will be punished, and virtues rewarded in the afterlife.

 

Comparing the function of location in both Plato and More’s utopias

Posted on by

Though Thomas More and Plato both had visions of a perfect world, their ideas of what would constitute such varied quite a bit, as demonstrated by how different the location of each of their utopias was. Not only did the placement of the utopias effect how they were physically portrayed, but additionally gave insight into how each community was to function.

When comparing the two utopias, the first aspect that should be taken into consideration is the literal, physical one. In this regard, the two are not very different. More’s interpretation of a utopia includes the society being distanced from all other populations by way of a barrier. Though the utopia itself is described as an “island… in the middle two hundred miles broad [of ocean],” it was originally landlocked, and the people residing in it were required to help dig a fifteen mile trench to keep it isolated (More, 28.) The republic that Plato describes in his novel functions similarly, based on how it too relies on solidarity to maintain a perfect state. The citizens of Plato’s utopia essentially invaded a city and banished anyone over the age of twelve, thus eliminating those who they did not deem an exact fit for their society.

This examination the physical structure of each utopia additionally tells the reader a lot about how these utopias function. Plato’s utopia, which is based on intelligence and learning more than anything, is exclusive. No matter how enlightened and able to contribute to society one may have been, if they were above a certain age, they were banished with no room to dispute such. On the other hand, More’s utopia is quite broad, and allows everyone an equal chance to prove their worth. Though this utopia did choose to isolate themselves, everyone within the community was given opportunity to excel because all trades were valued the same. This fairness was not present nearly as much in Plato’s utopia, where the intelligent ruled over those who weren’t considered to be so, and one could not achieve the title of a philosopher king unless they were successful in both arithmetic and dialect.

Physical descriptions of places may not strike anyone as largely informative, but by dissecting them one can unveil a variety of telling information. For example, through understanding that Plato’s utopia came to be through by forcing those deemed unintelligent away, the reader can begin to grasp that intelligence and a hierarchy of such is prominent in this utopia. More’s utopia- an island maintained by all of the community- focuses on both equal rights and an equal chance to succeed. It’s impossible to say which utopia is better because that’s a matter of opinion, but by analyzing the physical structure of both and the ideals that went hand in hand with such, the differences (and similarities) between the two were clearly defined.

Comparing The Relationships Between The Rulers And The Ruled In Thomas Mores and Platos Utopian Societies

Posted on by

Robert Ekblom

Professor K. Qualls

First Year Seminar 2012

 

Comparing The Relationships Between The Rulers And The Ruled In Thomas Mores and Platos Utopian Societies

 

 

Both Thomas More and Plato believe that Utopian societies must have class systems; however they have different views on responsibility in their respective Utopias. While Plato argues that a select and limited group of people should rule and have the important responsibilities, More argues that responsibilities are to be more spread out amongst the people.

 

Both Plato and More believed that in their respective Utopias the relationships between the rulers and the ruled would be positive simply because everyone in a Utopia must contribute the same amount in order to maintain equality. This means that regardless of the position or class, everyone will contribute equally, and thus the relationships between the rulers and the ruled will be positive, as it won’t be the rulers leeching off the working classes efforts.

 

Plato and More disagree on the subject of how the ruled in a society would feel about the rulers. Plato argues that those ruled in society would be happy to be ruled, and would not revolt. He argues that everyone is fit for their individual civic duties and they would not have an issue with being the ruled. On the other hand, More disagrees and argues that there must be collaboration between the social classes, as the people could revolt because of opinions of inequality of power. While both arguments have their strengths and weaknesses, More seems to have a more realistic opinion of human nature. A minority, with all the power, making decisions in a society with no collaboration with the masses is likely to have much more tension between the rulers and the ruled as opposed to a democratic society where the people are very involved in decision making.

 

Plato and More also do not see eye to eye when it comes to trusting the people. Plato believes that in his Utopia, the people in it cannot be trusted to live justly. Plato argues that the soul has more unjustness to it than justness, so the people have to be looked over more by the rulers. On the other hand, More argues that the people in society can be trusted and that the rulers do not need to oversee them.

 

In a society where everyone has to be watched over and observed, there is higher chance of tension between relationships when there is no trust. Mores Utopia is therefore more likely to have positive and strong relationships between the rulers and the ruled, as people are more free to live as they see fit and not only act as pawns in the society.

Comparing the function of location in More’s and Plato’s utopias

Posted on by

Both More and Plato, in synthesizing their utopian visions in Utopia and Republic, respectively, use location to physically isolate the citizens of their societies from the outside world. However, Plato incorporates a selective education system to mentally isolate his utopia’s citizens as well, thus allowing for the shaping of their minds to make them “utopia-worthy”—able to work together in order to maintain an efficient society. Nevertheless, both of the authors’ motivations to isolate their citizens are to keep them from outside corruption, thus keeping peace and harmony within their cities’ boundaries.

In More’s Utopia, the citizens of the titular nation live on an island, isolated from the rest of the world. A similar case of physical isolation can be found in Plato’s utopian vision in Republic. When the character Socrates explains his utopia to Glaucon in Book VII, he describes taking children of a select age from the nearby city and sending them into the country. These children, who would have been protected from the influences of their homelands and families, would be raised in a society in which physical isolation prevents outside ideas from filtering into its boundaries. In both authors’ visions, their societies are physically isolated, allowing the ideas within to remain constant and the people to exist uncorrupted from the outside world.

Unlike More’s Utopia, however, isolation is present in Plato’s utopia on a mental level as well. The physical isolation gives way to an environment where the government can effectively brainwash its citizens through a controlled system of education. Such a system is described in Book III of Republic, in which the citizens would learn nothing of the evils of the world, thus giving them protection from them, and would instead learn not only basic material such as arithmetic and logic but also the heroic acts of the mythical figures. As a result of brainwashing, the people would be protected from the influence of evil, thus being able to work together to promote an efficient society. By controlling the education of a society, Plato believes that the minds of its people can be controlled as well.

Location plays an important role in isolating the societies envisioned by Plato and More. Because of this isolation, the people of the societies are protected from the influences of the outside world, keeping them incorruptible. However, Plato incorporates the idea of isolation past the physical level, using mental isolation to brainwash the citizens of his vision. Thus, while location plays an important role in both visions, it is taken more advantage of in Republic as it allows for even further isolation, making it easier for Plato to shape his vision into a utopia through controlling its people.