One unique characteristic of the Republic is that it is a literary work written as a dialog. Despite this work of Plato being the most influential one in the field of political thought, and as Smith notes, all the works written after the Republic can be viewed as an answer to it, it is not written in a textbook form or as a description of Plato’s own view of the ideal state. Instead, the author uses the form of a dialogue as a way to disclose the topic of interest (YaleCourses, 2008). This contrasts greatly with the many modern-day works of political science.
Smith mentions several points of criticism attributed to Plato’s Republic. Mainly, Plato describes a form of political design that is somewhat authoritarian and non-democratic. As opposed to the popular views of the proper forms of state development, which emphasize the need to incorporate the people’s thoughts and ideas when making important decisions, Plato focuses on the idea that kings should be philosophers and philosophers should be kings. This is because being a philosopher implies that an individual has an advanced level of knowledge and, therefore, they are able to make decisions that will benefit society, as opposed to listening to the ideas and thoughts of the people, which is the key idea of democracy.
The characteristics and circumstances that affected Plato’s perspective include the events of the Peloponnesian War, which took place during Plato’s life, and his family’s involvement in political life. Plato came from a noble family; however, he himself never took an active part in political life. Instead, he was a witness to the corrupt and unqualified political leaders ruling his state, which in part affected his idea of rules being philosophers and vice versa. Hence, his perspective and the utopian view of the state were affected by the author witnessing the insufficiencies of the sociality and political thought of his time, as well as the need to address these issues.
A significant point regarding Heidegger’s approach to teaching the Republic is the alignment of his views with those of Plato regarding the importance of philosophy and the need to emphasize philosophical thought as the basis of human development. While Plato discussed this factor from the viewpoint of state rules being philosophers, which means that they can approach decision-making in a more advanced manner, Heidegger focused on the importance of philosophy in education and the overall development of human beings.
The sources of tension that this lecture foreshadows about the Republic are the utopian views that Plato puts forward and the ability to apply his philosophy in real life. This utopia creates harmony between human beings and the state; however, it is achieved through an authoritarian approach to managing the city-state, which creates tension between the general view of harmony and Plato’s idea of it. The key takeaway from this lecture is that if one was to want to learn about political science truly. Moreover, Plato describes the approach to building the city as a way of creating harmony between the person’s soul and the structure of the surrounding area.
This view is unusual since it points out the factors that are typically omitted by contemporary political theories. In summary, this discussion board post is an analysis of Smith’s lecture about the Republic.
Reference
YaleCourses. (2008). 4. Philosophers and Kings: Plato’s Republic, I-II [Video]. YouTube. Web.