On the other hand, a good individual will be open towards knowledge and learning as a premise to making a contribution and using his knowledge in order to improve the society in which he leaves. Plato does not make this remark, as his main focus is the individual rather than the integration of the individual into organizational forms as a society would be. However, connecting this with the discussion at hand, wisdom, knowledge and truthfulness can be melded not only into an individual product, but also into one at societal level.
Finally, a good individual will need to be harmonious, not necessarily only in his own construction and build, but rather in his perceptions, his approaches towards the surrounding world and his capacity to pass things through his mind before reacting to them into society. Such a harmonious approach, at society level, will bring about a moderate perspective on things and a moderate behavior of society itself, through the presence and participation of the individuals forming it.
At the same time, a good society will be formed of individuals that sum up all these characteristics. Their role will also be that of guardians of the state and government, seen as purely an administrator with only controllable power of the activities in the society. If in the case of Confucius, his belief was in a cooperation between individual and state for the creation of a good, functional society, Plato's center of the world is the individual, with the state having a merely secondary function.
As such, in Plato's belief, the responsibility for a good society relies almost exclusively on the individual, because he is entrusted with all the necessary characteristics and instruments that empower him. Since he is created as the central of the world, in Plato's view, he must also assume the fact he is responsible for the way things are going in society, including by guarding over the state.
Nevertheless, Confucius's perspective...
" [II:15] "Yu, shall I teach you what knowledge is? When you know a thing, say that you know it; when you do not know a thing, admit that you do not know it. That is knowledge." [II:17] "A young man's duty is to be filial to his parents at home and respectful to his elders abroad, to be circumspect and truthful, and, while overflowing with love for all men, to associate
Confucianism, in other words, provided structure to various sets of ideals existing at the time. Central to this structure was compassion in human relationships. According to the Religious Tolerance Website, social harmony was achieved by means of regulating human relationships upon the basis of compassion. Most interesting in these terms is the political aspect of such relationships. Confucius held that internalized human behavior was a better regulator of the law
Comparison between Aristotle and Confucius on Virtue, Good Ethical Character and Conduct Yu (1998) says that the word 'virtue' is derived from the Latin word 'virtus'. 'Vir' means manhood in literal translation from Latin. Consequently, Latin authors used it to translate 'arete'' from Greek, which referred to the perfect qualities of man. Any human action that completes and undertakes its function flawlessly can be said to be a virtue. Virtue is
Political thinkers throughout the ages have considered the meaning of citizenship and the relationship that does and/or should exist between the citizen and the state. The meaning of citizenship has been addressed in different ways by various schools of thought, beginning with the Greeks. Citizenship means the state of belonging to a collective, a state, and an important element that emerges from Greek, Roman, and early Christian thinkers is that
Plato: Ok then maybe it does not matter if people are inherently good or bad, but how does all this matter into the things in life that matter? Confucius: But this does matter because the way people act towards each other- the way people govern or treat others with selfishness is what matters in this world. Plato: But how can virtue then be taught if people are selfish, or dictatorial leaders. Confucius: What do you mean? I
'" (p. 42). This clearly indicates that Thrasymachus was not won and while Socrates ended the argument on a good note but it was more his own approval of his views than Thrasymachus'. We can thus say with confidence that Thrasymachus was also a wise man of considerable sagacity. He knew that Socrates could move people with the power of his speech and was thus completely prepared to meet his barrage
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now