Plato's Definition Of Happiness

Our definition of happiness has drastically evolved. With artificial poignant grins, the so called “happy” people float around the realm of ambiguity and confusion. The Western world’s modern has an inconsistency with the definition of happiness. It is difficult to precisely map out a path. There are twists and turns to get to the destination, all too confusing to comprehend. This issue stems from a lack of a singular origin. Some seek out a multitude of things like money, health, or even comfortability for the key. Yet, all these seemingly fantastic things cannot hold their own when it comes to achieving true happiness. It was not always like this. Happiness was not always an internal feeling that manifested out of simple actions or materials.

As such, he found the soul of a person to be far superior to their physical body because the organic material that decays after death is no competition for the eternal structure of a human. Plato separates three different kinds of souls that act as levels. On the top, there are gold souls, followed by silver and bronze. Evidently, gold souls are thought to be those of philosophers and only the top golden guardians of a polis have the true ability to achieve happiness. This is because gold souls are not concerned with the basic comforts of that of a bronze, and are substantially fuller in the aspects of knowledge than the silver. They have the ability to channel an innate part of the soul, virtue and wisdom, which Plato describes as the “the true blessings of life.” Plato uses Socrates character to explain that “of wisdom more than anything else contains a divine element which always remains, and by this conversion is rendered useful and profitable” unveiling wisdom as the key to it all. Therefore one can extrapolate that Plato’s thesis on happiness depended upon the acquirement of a greater wisdom. With this, Plato leaves the impression that the capability to escape is limited and

Discussed in The Republic, the allegory is brought up by Socrates. He explains how there are “human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets…the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.” Quite appropriately, the captives represent the citizens of a city, trapped in their own ignorance, and bound by the inevitable chains of conformity. With their backs to the fire, all they can know is shadows. They are literally, “with their legs and necks chained,” and figuratively stuck in the visible realm of opinion, unable to know the truth. Shadows are what can be perceive. They are mere outlines with no substance. One can only fallow intellect and leave behind ignorance when the true light shines. Here the gold souls of a city act as the escapers. Breaking their chains, they leave the cave,