Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
• argues that the just city and the just human being as he has
sketched them are in fact good and are in principle “possible”
• concludes that the just person is always happier than the unjust
• claims that the just city should be ruled by a just individual: the
philosopher-king
• argues that philosophers make the ideal rulers for two main
reasons. First, they know what is good. Second, they do not want
to rule
• suggests that the problem with existing cities is: they are ruled
by people who are ignorant of what is good and just
• argues that cities suffer from strife among citizens all of whom
want to rule (These flaws are connected: the ignorant are
marked by their desire for the wrong objects, such as honor and
money, and this desire is what leads them to seek political
power.)
Summary: First, the best rulers are wise. Second, the best rulers rule
for the benefit of the ruled, and not for their own sake. Third, a city is
highly unlikely to have the best rulers, in part because there is a gap
between the values of most people and the values of the wise. Fourth,
the greatest harm to a city is disagreement about who should rule,
since competing groups create civil strife. So, fifth, the goal of politics
is harmony or agreement among the citizens about who should rule.
Last, harmony requires that the city cultivate virtue and the rule of
law.
• suggests that the most important task for the politician is, in the
role of lawgiver—to frame the appropriate constitution for the
city-state
• suggests that the city-state comes into being for the sake of life
but exists for the sake of the good life—and life or happiness is
the proper end [product] of the city-state