A Rhetorical Analysis Of Plato By Karl Popper

Jazmin Lara

Professor Lehavi

Political Science 5

29 May 2018

Title

Karl Popper claims that Plato’s work “Republic” is a recipe for totalitarianism. For the reasons being that Plato believed in ideas such as the physical world being imperfect, instead of believing that “there is a god” he believes in “the perfect good”, and believing in how the happiness is achieved by doing justice. Plato believed in how many people could learn, but many do not choose to educate themselves because they simply felt no desire to do so. As well as Plato believing on how the truth will always come within one’s soul. When he was showing how a political system, the state hold total authority over the society and took control of all aspects of public and private

The general argument made by Popper, in the work, The Background of Plato’s Attack Ch. 10: The Open Society and Its Enemies, is that Plato tried to give himself a good reputation and wanted to hide his other, real side. More specifically, he argues that, “...Plato’s continuous efforts to make Socrates re-interpret himself are at the same time Plato’s efforts to quiet his own bad conscious. By trying again and again to prove that his (Plato) was only the logical development of the true Socratic doctrine, he tried to persuade himself that he was not a traitor”(196). Popper asserted that Plato really tried into making himself look like a better person by trying to bring down Socrates. Plato tried to prove to himself he was not one to betrayed anyone, but he actually did. In this part of the passage, Popper is suggesting that Plato was not a real and honest man. Plato was a fake to himself and to the people who looked up to him by pretending to be a good human being. In conclusion, Popper’s belief that Plato was a liar and he struggled in his own life to know himself. His own, real identity. However, Plato believed in how if people knew about “the good” then a person could be a good person. The general argument made by the article of, The Athenian Period Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E, is that Plato pretended to be such a good role model who brought lots of positivity. The article

The general argument made by the article, “The Background of Plato’s Attack” was that those who used Socratic language, would use that language just to be able to reassure themselves that they are very powerful. The author stated, “It became more necessary for them to assert their superiority by fighting against equality as they were (using Socratic language) misanthropists and misologists- incapable of that simple and ordinary generosity which inspires faith in men, and faith in human reason and freedom”(188). The author was asserting that the philosophers wanted to prove no one is ore superior than anyone else. The misanthropists hated other humans who believed that they were more superior than them. More specifically, the author argues that the misanthropists and misologists did not want to let anyone believe that they were above anyone else. Although, Plato would be admired for his power. The general argument made by, “The Athenian Period” Plato would be envied for having such a good control over power. The article claimed, “Even those philosophers who hated Plato’s philosophy such as Nietzsche, often admired his intellectual power- a power that even Nietzsche could not escape”(75). In this part of the passage, the author was claiming that philosophers who hated Plato’s philosophy was because of their admiration towards