Since its publication in the early nineteenth century, Plato’s Republic dialogue has been regarded as one of the most widely read dialogues. Socrates, as in other Plato compositions, takes center stage in this one. Plato’s Republic is a structure that dates back to his middle age. Unlike previous dialogues, the main character does not agree with the exposition of the interlocutors with whom he is associated, resulting in the poems’ conclusion with no answers. However, the main character, Socrates, is seen developing the essence of justice and the relationship with power during the development of The Republic (Plato & Benjamin, 2008). Plato develops an extensive discussion and sound argument which promotes the exposition of living a just life and the connection it has with a happy life in the long run. According to the exposition by Plato, philosophers who escaped from the cave should have ruled the kallipolis.
The return of the philosophers to caves is an important strategy which can be used to refute the misunderstanding of the important issues which have been raised (Matassa, 2013). According to Socrates, the philosophers should not be given an opportunity to abandon their assigned role and responsibility of executing authority over the caves though they are on the point that they should be only on the side of the theoretical reflection with minimal interferences(Plato et al., 2015). The philosophers are justified to rule in the cave as they relate the ruling life as an abandoned strategy of determining the expression of progress and control in the long run. The philosophers are in the best position to rule as they can leave the feelings of personal happiness and endeavours to rule for the good of the others in the society (Plato & Benjamin, 2008).
Secondly, the philosophers should return to the cave to rule as if they do not fulfil themselves by executing the role in social as well as political obligations for a better society. Kallipolis cannot by any chance meet its intended purpose and substance as being an ideal society since, without philosophers ruling, the community cannot offer a situation whereby all the members of the society can identify their roles and capacity in the society (Matassa, 2013). In the dialogue, the expression of an individual being deemed incompatible with the well-being of the society in the long run. When Plato defines the expression of the private life of expression, they are provided with a situation of philosophers being compelled to rule the society. The Republic acts in defence of the philosophers from the long-kept manifestations of the polis (Plato et al., 2015).
According to Plato, the duty and the interest of the community as a whole were essential in recognising a just society where there are no limits regarding activation of the political will and philosophers are the best in implementing the standard. After the implications and the view of the Republic, there is a developed recommendation that kallipolis was a perfect society ruled by law and order (Matassa, 2013). Therefore, the philosophers were the best in uprooting the wrong part of the society through the implementation of philosophical views and developing a just society for the happiness of the community to be reborn. The Republic presents a society which is defined by the revelation of the limits of politics in a community where the entire community is exposed through revelation and by serving the common good for the community as a whole(Matassa, 2013).
The traditional view of the reason philosophers should engage in politics is that the philosophers are known to rule for the interest and obligations of the city in which they live as compared to the expression of the happiness. For the specific duties of the philosophers in kallipolis directed the philosophers towards a directive reasoning of the importance of ruling with logic as the primary objective in the ruling and using the strategy as a fundamental imperative (Plato & Benjamin, 2008). In the final case where the philosophers alienate themselves from the society regarding the ruling, the happiness is divided with the philosophers whereby they are divorced from the political roles in the community (Matassa, 2013). From the divorce, the justice of the city is negatively contemplated since the philosophers are not given the roles where they are supposed to rule with the psychic harmony through which each of the individual philosophers expresses (Plato et al., 2015).
Through the development of the analogy between the individual philosopher ruling and their soul expression relates to the roles where there is no inclination or expertise developed through the philosopher in context. When the philosopher has no stated preference to the expeditions and functions, the justice breakdown is no longer an expression of justice and ruling regarding happiness. The application of the just rule which is contemplated to reasoning is made achievable through the individual parties, but it cannot be done for the states. For the Justice ruling to be implemented, the philosophers should accept the obligations given to them to rule through the use of advanced philosophical expressions and theories to restore justice and happiness.
Matassa, G. (2013, April 17). Platos Argument for Rule by Philosopher Kings. Retrieved April 21, 2017, from E-International Relations students: http://www.e-ir.info/2013/04/17/should-philosophers-rule/
Plato, & Benjamin, J. (2008). Plato: The Republic. Charleston, SC: Forgotten Books.
Plato, Emlyn-Jones, C. J., & Preddy, W. (2015). Republic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.