Kant Vs Plato

In Plato’s The Republic, the philosopher attempts to explain the process of time and decay, their connections to the evolution of regimes, and how inevitably bad this all is for the people of the city. In an Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose by Immanuel Kant, he discusses that time is a tool for man to evolve until their destined end, and as he discusses in the First Thesis of his essay. Both of these philosophers discuss the idea of a something that could be called a utopia, but they both also acknowledge the fact that this ideal society is impossible. In The Republic, Plato talks about this ideal society, where the ruling class are the philosopher-kings, and although he believes in this “ideal society”, he also acknowledges

Although they do agree that man’s end comes after a certain political regime has come to power, they disagree to the point that they are almost opposites. In Plato’s view, once man turns to their perfect aristocracy, they also turn to the inevitable end. Because time passing for Plato is also decay, this means for Plato that humans will turn to worse and worse governments, including what he believes is the worst type, tyranny. Kant, in turn, believes humans will begin to see, after destroying and after war, that the most effective way to run a civil society is through a league of nations. They both agree that at one point, human society will reach a certain utopia, but it will end. They both also accept that the idea of these utopias are impossible for the human idea. Kant does not reject it in it’s entirety, because he is hopeful that the future man will appreciate such a philosophical history in the

I think Plato was encouraged to write that democracy is one of the worst regimes because of what was happening at the time. It is convenient for Plato to say that an aristocracy would be the best regime to come to power, because since it is the philosopher-kings that are most wise to rule, does that not make him a possible ruler in this regime? And to say that time will decay into a tyrannical regime is basically ignoring what the normal society might want for themselves. This, in my opinion, is a very straightforward view of something that does not calculate how the human being can react to this. They can, as a society, choose to stay in a democracy, or choose to go back to another type regime, that although not perfect, the citizens can accept its flaws, and attempt to fix it, while still staying in this