Of Plato and Cicero, Cicero stands out as the most "realist" writer. The strictest realist theory of politics would entail adhering to that which is the most practical and practicable, while the most idealist theory would believe there is a highest form of perfection and justice to which all ends must strive toward. Daniel Guenther claims that "Plato is the most idealist" and "Cicero [is] the most realist." Based on what you have read in Plato's works and in Cicero's "On Duties," qualify or disagree this statement by your explanation.
Out of Plato and Cicero, Plato definitely seems to be more of an idealist. He is never settled for what is going on then. He always wants to change things for the better and is never satisfied. Especially in his Allegory of the Cave, Plato thinks that the world could be better. This is a very broad subject when you do not have a few aspects, but the whole world to change. According to this idealist, one must go out and experience the world and what it is by learning more about it. Nobody is ever done as long as they are living. They all have more to learn and do to change the world we live in.
ReplyDeleteMy dad is a good example of what it is to be a idealist in human standards. He is always doing something and he never relaxes. After he fixes one thing, something else always needs to be repaired. He is almost never satisfied with what he has and what his children all have. He needs to make things better.
Cicero is a person who is completely opposite from a idealist. He is considered a realist, or a person that deals with things and makes do with what they have. When he was writing his letter to his son in On Duties, Cicero told him exactly what was going on and what he was doing in order to deal with it. In one part of the letter, he spoke of a man by the name of Scipio who he considered to be great and wise. He mentioned that he could not even imitate Scipio because he was forced out by armed men. Cicero, being a realist, was okay with this. He would stay away from the public eye and live his life in that way. Cicero also said to take the evils and find the good in them. These are all the thoughts of a realist.
I find myself to be a realist. Even though sometimes I want to make things better, I am often too stubborn to change things around. I want to take things as they are and make the best of them. This can sometimes be bad and lead to close-mindedness. I can change who I want to be however, and I believe that it is better to be an idealist. David Guenther is correct when he classifies Plato and Cicero as idealists and realists. Under whatever category one is classified, he or she has to make the best of who they are.
I liked how you described Plato as someone who is "never satisfied". It seems, however, the elements of society which he wanted changed were very broad. It would take an incredibly drastic change to carry out some of the ideas which Plato had implemented into his writings. Some of these changes would be simply impossible. Plato frequently speaks of the errors of the human mindset, and how they could be altered. However, to simply modify the minds of every human to correspond to Plato's beliefs seems absurd. I think this could be a large reason as to why Plato is considered such an idealist. He was not satisfied because very little ever changed.
DeleteIn regards to Cicero, I also agree that he could be considered a realist. Rather than taking action as Plato did, Cicero simply accepted things the way they are, and prepared himself to deal with them accordingly. I think it is important to note, however, that Cicero did not merely sit back and do nothing. He, too had his own views on society and the way that it should behave. It is true that he did not take measures to alter these things the same way as Plato did. Through his writings, he made an impact nonetheless.
The thought of Cicero that one should find good in evil seemed idealistic to me. When most people have a bad day, they usually will not see the smaller amount of good things that also happened to them. They focus more on everything that went wrong. The injustice they suffered takes precedence in their thoughts. For a person to change their viewpoint so the bad things are of a lesser importance would require a drastic revision of their mindset. People are usually not open to change. Humans form their thoughts and opinions at a young age, and then fall into routine. Their thoughts stay the same and, when others challenge them, they back down or push those thoughts aside. This thought process can be seen in stereotyping. Due to the preconceived notations someone has about a particular type of person, they will not allow themselves to see the person as they actually are. Asking someone to open their mind to a new idea, to accept this idea, and then to act upon it is far more idealistic than realistic.
DeleteI think that many parents are realists. They are always working to make sure that their kids have a good life. When parents become idealists, I believe that this is where we run into problems. These parents often make sure that everything is perfect for their child. If this occurs, the child will become spoiled and not know what the real world is like. I think that as children, if we don't experience the hardships of the world we are not shaped into people that are well equipped to deal with real life. Many times, our parents try to shield us from this, giving us all we want and not letting us experience disappointment. If we do not experience these emotions when we are young, they are harder to deal with as we get older. I think it is better to have parents that are realists to shape us in to well-rounded people.
DeleteWhen comparing the writings of Cicero and Plato, the differences in their styles of writing is apparent. In Cicero's "De Officiis", he uses three books to express his views on various aspects of society. He included his thoughts about moral goodness, expediency, as well as the conflict between the right and the expedient. These books come together to create a collection of Cicero's thoughts and ideas about how society should function, without any real plea to correct or change the current ways of our world. I think that this is where Cicero gets his reputation for being considered a realist. He seems to accept the ways of our world, although he does not agree with them. Cicero has his own philosophies, but does not try particularly hard to impose them upon others, but rather, he attempts to enlighten them. He simply states his beliefs, hoping to sway the opinions of others. Cicero's writings are certainly more laid back, in the sense that the somewhat harsh vernacular included in Plato's writings was not present in Cicero's. Cicero simply proclaimed his thoughts and philosophies as opposed to speaking and teaching others to agree with his own beliefs.
ReplyDeletePlato, however, takes a different approach. In "The Allegory of the Cave", a variety of points are brought about regarding the way that society functions as opposed to the way he believes it should. Plato is active in his attempts to influence the opinions of those who oppose his way of thinking. These facts provide reason as to why Plato is said to be an idealist. He takes matters into his own hands, and works to change society with his philosophical interpretations.
I agree with your theory on Cicero's thoughts and how he enforces them upon others. Cicero simply writes his philosophies for his own purpose. He does not try, as you said, to enforce his beliefs onto others.Cicero states his realistic beliefs in hopes that people will become inspired. While on the other hand, Plato goes and teaches his beliefs to society. I know when I read Cicero's story "On Duties", certain parts were very realistic, but true. Cicero talks about family, friendship and success. He tells us our world is what is shown, and there is very little that can be done to change it. Cicero is showing us that yes reality is harsh, but we can strive to make the best of it.
DeleteI feel as though Plato uses more symbolism to get his thoughts across, look at The Allegory of The Cave. He does not directly say what he thinks, he chooses to give examples instead. Cicero, on the other hand, gives us straight up words and logic behind what he thinks. He does not try to code it. I however also feel like the essentially had the same idea of how they wanted the world to be seen, but Plato was more willing to make it that ideal way than Cicero is.
DeleteI agree with you saying a Cicero does not force his ideas upon others. Plato tries very hard to influence as many people as he can to change the world. He sets an impossible goal that has yet to be achieved 2400 years later. Cicero knew he could not change the whole world. They both wanted change, but they looked at the capacity differently.
DeleteCicero was a realist in the sense that his philosophies dealt with betterment through practicality. He was aware of all the higher principles that would create a noble society, but he concerned himself with how they were implemented. The end result was a lesser focus for him; simply focusing on how society should be would never get society to that point. If the means to this end could be found, society would finally reach the philosophical state of perfection. Perfection for every man may seem unattainable, but that does not mean men should not strive for it. In "De Officiis," Cicero outlined the duties of man so that it could be decided what was right. Using his reasoning would enable people to make the best choice possible when faced with a decision. If the best moral decisions were always chosen, society would take a monumental step towards a state of perfection.
ReplyDeleteThe idealism of Plato stemmed from his own beliefs about society's state of perfection, and his utopia was the main focus of his works. The way philosophies could be implemented did not seem as pressing as their substance. His philosophies ranged from how the best leader should be truly wise to how the real world can only be understood from an intellectual standpoint. These philosophies were all an integral part of the structure of the perfect society. He ties his philosophies together in his masterpiece, "The Republic," which detailed the necessary structure of a utopia.
Each of these men concerned himself with how to improve society. Does this not make them both realists and idealists? Each of them knew society was lacking the structure it needed, and each of them had higher precepts to which they believed society should adhere. Cicero may have focused more on the way to get there, but he also had thoughts about where society should go. Plato's philosophies did not completely obscure his methods. Labeling these philosophers as either a realist or an idealist would undermine their work. Philosophy itself is an investigation of principles. It is not just an investigation. Neither is it simply truth. The combination of these two is what creates a philosophy, and so they must be viewed together.
Ashley, I strongly agree with your statement that to constrict the philosophers' works to either idealist or realist cheapens them. I feel that labeling things sometimes demeans the value of whatever they may be. For example, when someone is labeled as a celebrity, they lose their humanity to the public eye. Though they are still just as human as the rest of the population, for some reason their stardom seems to lead people to believe that they are untouchable, invincible, and perfect. This could not be further from the truth.
DeleteIt always bothers me when someone of fame commits a minor crime or mistake that many others are also guilty of. We tend to forget that though they are in a position of influence, they are still just as flawed and prone to sin as the rest of the species.
That being said, labels sometimes narrow our views on topics. I honestly do not believe that Cicero and Plato would have wanted their works to be analyzed as close-minded as they are when they become one thing - realist or idealist. Both of their philosophies point to being accepting of differences, and this becomes difficult when their own philosophies are so confined.
Rachel, I agree with you comment about famous people coming a crime that others commit to. I agree that people need to realize that everyone even celebrities make mistakes just like everyone else. I think the main thing that celebrities need to realize is there are many kids that look up to them so when they commit crimes and do illegal things they are showing young fans. I know that most celebrities know the right and wrongs. I just feel that many of them need to know there are many little kids who look up to them, and when they do something stupid, it shows the little kids.
DeletePlato and Cicero are two distinct philosophers. Both have authored writings sharing their views on society. The two could not be more different. One is a realist and the other is an idealist. These two types of people are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. An idealist is someone who is lead by ideals instead of practicality. Plato is considered to be an idealist. Plato is never truly satisfied with the real world. He strives to change the world into what he thinks it should be. He does this through his writings. In the "Allegory of the Cave", the reader sees the world from two different perspectives. One perspective is the prisoners' and the other is that of the travelers. Through this reading, Plato shows that society can be shown in different ways.The philosophy Plato is teaching shows what reality truly is and what he feels reality should be. He is one to believe the world can be perfect. He shows that he will never be satisfied until society is perfect. The reader may feel as if Plato is striving for a utopia, free of the politics.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Cicero philosophy is based in realism. He sees the world through a political eye. Cicero comes to a realization that what occurs in the world is the way it is going to be. He believes there is no chance of change because the world can not be perfect. In Cicero's writing of "On Duties", he is writing a form of a letter for his son. The letter shows his son the truths of the world. The truths that will help his son survive the real world. Tips such as family values and politics are shown throughout the letter. Cicero was very involved with politics throughout his life. This may have caused Cicero to think the way he thinks. In politics, the person is to see the situation as it is presented. The situation should not be twisted around. One must deal with the true facts not perceptions of the situation. Many believe this is why Cicero is such a realist. He sees the world for what the world is, nothing more or nothing less. His focus is not on what could be but what is.
Sydney, I like how you mentioned the two perspectives of people when talking about Plato. I never put that much thought into that when I was reading the Allegory of the Cave. The travelers saw the prisoners sitting there chained and unable to see what they saw. The prisoners did not even know what they were missing because they knew nothing more than the wall of shadows. There are different ways to see things, and that is very important for us to understand.
DeleteAlso, connecting Cicero to politics was very intelligent. When people think of politics, it is very straight forward. People try to bring in their own opinions but they are often shut down by others who think differently. That is how it is to be a realist. Whatever you are given, you must make the most of it.
While I agree with the differences that you discussed regarding the works of Cicero and Plato, I disagree with your statement that "The two could not be more different". In a lot of ways, Cicero and Plato present the same opinions on society. They both strive for the betterment of the world. They both propose ways in which the human mindset could be altered to improve humanity as a whole. I think that the difference is in the way they present their opinions. I agree that Cicero is a realist, but in the way he presents his philosophies. He is much more practical. As I stated in my own blog, it seems that Cicero is more prepared to deal with the world rather than to change it. He, too has his own ideas to improve the world, but is more reasonable about the ways he intends to implement them. Cicero decides that he will simply write his philosophies, allowing anyone to read them and either agree or disagree. Plato, like Cicero, has his own ideas and philosophies, but they are not entirely variant from those of Cicero. However, some of his ways are not necessarily practical. This does not suggest, however, that his ideas are impossible. For these reasons, he is considered an idealist. The philosophies of both Cicero and Plato are not entirely different, for they both seek to improve the world. They are not entirely the same either, which I believe is why they are referred to as idealists or realists.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen pondering whether Cicero is indeed the more realistic of the two philosophers, I have to agree that he is, but this does not classify him exclusively as a realist. Cicero does display realist qualities as made evident in his work "De Oficiis," though from my perspective, he, in a way, bases his thought on idealist principles. Though perhaps more subtle than Plato's "The Allegory of the Cave," Cicero does envision a vastly improved society. Although his means of achieving an improved world may be more practical and precise than Plato's vague and general instructions for utopia, one cannot argue that Cicero's views of the world are somewhat idealist. His belief that one can discover the good in everything is at least optimistic if not idealistic in nature.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that Cicero setting exact instructions for a better human race is nearly more idealist than Plato's broad guidelines for a perfect society. Cicero seems to have hope that most if not all individuals would be capable and willing to follow his advice. That is quite a lot of faith to invest in a species that has proved to be often stubborn and unchanging. Plato's unspecified directions leave room for people to grow and change on their own, something that seems much more plausible than a sudden switch to Cicero's principles. Is it not true that humanity better adapts with slow and interpretable changes than strict rules to adhere to and follow exactly?
Rachel, I strongly agree with your belief that Cicero gives guidelines to improve our society in his writings. He truly believes that if everyone does their part in becoming a better person, the world would become better. Cicero is fully aware that a perfect society is unsustainable, but he believes society can improve over time. Of course this would cause some difficulties because there would be a select few who would not participate in this improvement. This would be because some are not willing to accept change for the better or worse.
DeleteRachel I do not agree with your statements about Plato's broad guidelines for a perfect society. I believe that he just wants to have a perfect world with no problems. I would think mostly everyone would wish the world was a perfect place where nothing went wrong. Maybe if people followed Plato's guide lines for a perfect society, the world would be a different place with not as many issues as there is today. Maybe there would be small issues and disagreements, but war wouldn't exist. That would be my ideal society.
DeleteI agree with Maddison that Plato had just wanted the world to be perfect. I don't agree with Plato though. If the world was perfect, how would we all cope with there never being any difficulties or problems in the world? No one would ever have to rise above anything because there wouldn't be anything to rise above. Of course there are many problems in the world, but having and dealing with those problems are what makes us human.
DeleteI, too, agree with the idea that Cicero lays out a set of rules basically to improve society. I think that they are both trying to improve society to the point of an utopian society, but I believe that Plato is just more direct with his approach, while Cicero is just writing to help people. I think Cicero is also afraid of the judgement that comes with his ideas, people do not take lightly to the idea of opening their minds in this time period. Then, I come to think "Why would Cicero write this form of basic guidelines if he was not intending on using them to help people?" It is just the way they are presented that allows us to judge who is the realist and the idealist amongst the two.
DeleteI also agree with your statement. I think that Cicero gives us these strict guidelines to improve the world. And Cicero's belief was that if we did not do these things, the world would not get any better. That is one way to look at it. But I personally like Plato's way of improving the world. He gives us very vague instructions, and I like that. It gives us the opportunity to make choices on hiw we think the world can be better. And to answer your question, I know I adapt much better if change is brought on over time. And I think our world has slowly been changing for over two thousand years. The changes look to be for the better, but maybe that's just how we Americans look at it. I am sure there are other people who would disagree with me. But that is my opinion...
DeleteI consider myself to be a realist in a sense that I try to not spend my time on things that i know are not practical. A good example of this is when others around me say that we will all still be friends when we leave for college. I do not believe that things could stay the same when we all go in different directions in life. I don't like to entertain thoughts that I know are unrealistic in real life.
ReplyDeleteCicero was a realist in the sense that he knew that a perfect society could not be attained. He just wanted to work towards a better society, not a perfect one. Plato thought tried to attain a perfect society. In reality, there is no such way to do this. Throughout the years, many different leaders and groups of people have tried to develop a perfect society, or utopia. In fact, this weekend I was watching television and there was a TV reality show about trying to create a perfect society. All that these groups of people do is prove that a perfect society is not a real thing. Cicero realized this and just wanted to work to make a community better, while Plato wanted things to be perfect.
Many times idealist are never content with the way things are, working to always improve something. Realists work to get something as good as it can be and are content with it. Plato thought that perfection could be attained and wanted to work to make it possible. Cicero realized that this was unrealistic. In the letter he wrote to his son, he explained to his son how to survive and be happy in the real world. He accepted that the world was not perfect, but he wanted to be happy and thrive even in an unperfect world. In today's world, I believe that realists are usually the most successful people. They do not waste their time on goals that are virtually unattainable. Instead, they are able to work to get things accomplished. In Cicero's writing, he presents himself as a realist, explaining how to survive in the real world. Plato's writings are written in the standpoint of an idealist.He believed that a perfect society was possible, wanted to work towards. Many people have different standpoints on whether it is better to be an idealist or a realist. As long as these people are striving to better themselves and their communities, the distinction between the two does not really matter.
Abbey, I do agree with you when you say that realists are more successful. It is okay to try to fix the world to make it perfect, but it is never going to be that way. The world was not created to be exactly the way that someone wants it to be. We are often told that we have "crosses" to carry in everyday life. We will never be able to get rid of them because that is how we were made. Instead, we need to take whatever is imperfect and use it or share it as it is. Others need to learn that what may be imperfect to them is exactly what someone else was striving for.
DeleteYour point regarding the nonexistent of a perfect society seemed very true. The media itself has covered utopian worlds extensively, and the one thing they all have in common is their disfunction. In the search for perfection, people lost their humanity. Emotion, differences, and viewpoints were all refined to their simplest forms. In many of the media's renditions, someone who is different allows for or leads the revolution of the people. The "perfect" society is obliterated beneath the celebrated qualities of humanity. For this reason, one could argue that idealistic philosophies should only be sought after, not implemented. Implementing an idealist philosophy would not function well in the real world. The ideas are too transcendent of what is actually there. That is why it is idealist and not realist. Realism works in the real world because that it what it is designed to do.
DeleteI disagree with the realism in general. I don't think that it is wrong to dream of someone doing anything that they would like to do with their life, no matter how unrealistic it sounds. Many people thought my lifetime have told me that I should start thinking of more realistic options for my life. However, if we all look at life as if we are suppose to be more realistic, then how would human beings ever advance in the world? What if we had not dreamt of building the tallest building in the world? If everyone would think in terms of realism, I fell that no one would ever dare to do the impossible and accomplish the unthinkable.
DeleteIf you put Cicero and Plato in the same room for an argument about how they see they world, one might say the discussion would never cease. Cicero is considered an realist. As Plato is a idealist. I would have to agree on many terms. Cicero works with the things that are given to him, he doesn't ask for more or to make it better. He deals with many obstacles in one way. Cicero doesn't make up many plans, he tries to stick to one plan. One could describe Cicero as a mule that is stubborn. He is very close-minded and not open for other opinions unless they deal with himself. At least that is the way I interrupt him as.
ReplyDeletePlato is an idealist. An idealist never settles even with something that can not be changed. Plato will go to extreme measures to make sure something is better than they way it was before. The one writing that really shows Plato being an idealist is the Allegory of the Cave. I'm this writing, he shows how one may see the world everyday and think of it as a terrible place. Then when he takes the prisoner out of the cave, he shows that one that has been locked away forever might find the world fascinating or not up to their expectations. An idealist would think the world is different depending on the different people and how they think.
I would have to say I would be an idealist. I always want to make the better out of everything. Even the things that I can not control. It hard to always see the positive or negative to the situation. I feel bad for people the have to suffer with cancer. I hated the fact that I didn't exactly know what they were going though, or their thoughts. I then took a stand to raise money for the American Cancer Society that way I could help in the fight and try to make the disease better than it was before. Just like an idealist would do.
I agree that Cicero would be the realist. He looked at what he had and what he could do and worked with that. I would also agree in say Plato would be an idealist. He say something bad, the court, and he wanted to change it. No one "crazy" person with a "crazy" idea, as it was called in his time, can change a government but he tried. Cicero worked to make things better while Plato did the same but wanted more, he wanted it to be perfect. Both standpoints are good in most senses but I would agree with an realist more.
ReplyDeleteI myself am a mixture of both. I like to think realistically about things, but at the same time I like to look at things from an idealist point of view. That's not saying I would only hang out with Cicero. I would not like a realist all the time but I would not like an idealist all the time either. I want to be surrounded with people from both categories. I do not think that one mindset can achieve much in this world. You need both point of views working together to advance anything. I like the ideas of both and I think that's what this world needs. We need a thought process that include two ways of thinking not just one.
Elric, I agree that it is best to be both a realist and idealist. Having both opinions to draw from leads to a more diverse and accepting mindset. When an individual keeps their mind open to all types of ideas and the people that think them, it becomes easier to understand differences. Is it not ignorance and misunderstandings of others that leads to war? If all people adopted an "ideal-realistic" frame of mind, civilization would be that much closer to the utopia Plato dreamed.
DeleteElric, I like how you said that. That thought never even occurred to me. I guess I have always been idealist. But I never even thought about including realistic thoughts in my life. I have always tried to force my view on others, but maybe I should stop doing that, and listening to what others have to say. But anyway, I like your thoughts, and they certainly made me think harder about my life.
DeleteI disagree with your statement that one person cannot change a government. I believe that if one tries, they can change it. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. worked very hard to change segregation. Many other leaders have worked hard to make improvements to our country that has shaped it to what it is today. I think that if anyone has a crazy idea and sets their mind to it, they could achieve greatness. I would like to think that anything is possible if you have a crazy idea and dedication. Therefore, I disagree with your statement that someone cannot make a change in this world with a crazy idea.
DeleteI agree that Plato is an idealist, while Cicero is a realist. It is obvious in their different types of writing. Though both philosophers, their opinions vary within their works.
ReplyDeleteThough a follower of Plato and his works, Cicero can see the world for what it is: a glorified mess of people's opinions and unneeded rules and restrictions. In his work, On Duties, he makes a list of rules and ideas for his son, Markus, to live by in order to avoid the same kind of fate as Socrates. He knows that the world at this time is closed from free thinkers (even though Plato and Cicero were from different societies, one was Greek and one was Roman, the ideas were the same).
Plato, however, wants to envision the world as something that could be compared to a utopian society. He wants to think of the world as being a majority of good, and I do believe that the world is more good than evil, but the world is so far from being perfect. He saw what he wanted to see rather than what what really there. He saw an IDEAL world.
The two philosophers both had the same ideas though, they thought about being outspoken and being leaders. Plato was more spoken about it while Cicero feels like it would be a bad choice on his part to tell about his ideas. He feared of not being accepted and he wanted his son to feel the same way. Both of the philosophers had different ways of showing their beliefs.
I do agree with almost everything you wrote! Their lives were full of close-minded thinkers where those who thought differently could not express themselves in order to keep their lives. Plato did not protect himself from an execution by reaching our to influence the vast majority of people. Cicero kept his thoughts more in check to avoid the same fate. Cicero wants his son and readers to be content with their life and to accept life for what it is. Plato wants his followers to turn the world upside down and shake the evil out. This is impossible in every aspect. People will think however they want for the rest of their existence. Plato thought he could change it, but that is not possible or realistic.
DeletePlato is definitely the idealist. He thinks the world as it is is not very good. There are so many things that could be better. If we would just open our eyes and see everything that is going on, then everything would apparently be great. But the jurors could not open their eyes and see all the good things Socrates had. Plato does a great job showing us that Socrates was a good person. He also shows us in "Allegory of the. Cave" that what we see may not be right. So it goes back to just opening your eyes, and seeing everything for what it actually is.
ReplyDeleteThat means the realist is Cicero. He basically thinks the way the world is today will be same tomorrow. He accepts this fact. So he tries to help his son by telling him everything he needs to know in order to succeed. What he says in his letter is actually pretty good advice. I believe most of what he says still applies today. So to recap, Plato is the idealist, and Cicero is the realist. So I agree with the above statement.
have the same opinion that Plato is an idealist and Cicero is a realist. Cicero is more of a realist because he has supportive facts of which his philosophies are based upon. Plato is more of an idealist because his philosophies are based more on what he believes to be true. Plato is also an idealist because he gives very vague opinions to people without focusing on a main topic, unlike Cicero. Cicero was involved in politics for many years where he gained many years of realistic beliefs. Cicero studies in the practices of realism by his political career.
ReplyDeleteI would definitely label Cicero as a realist. While Plato seemed to have the goal of achieving a perfect world through his philosophies, Cicero's can be taken as mere encouragement. Ideally, we would be able to change the world with a stroke of a pen or the sound of our words, but in reality we can lead a horse to water, but we cannot make the horse drink. Plato seems to want to tug on the horse's neck all day. Cicero simply is leading the horse to water and giving the horse the resources it needs.
ReplyDeletePlato set his goals high, while Cicero left them reasonably. Plato started an academy to teach youth. This shows that Plato wanted to change as many people as he could into believing in the society he thought to be perfect. Cicero simply wrote a letter to his son, although it seems he had the intent of it going beyond that, he did not bite off more than he could chew. He set his goals to a reasonable place, but did not set himself up for failure.
While Plato seems to expound on us how society needs change, Cicero accepts it without exactly liking it. Cicero does not try to make us think in a way we do not want to. He simply shows us his way of thinking and leaves it to us to take it or leave it. That is very realistic, because he realizes not everybody is going to reach an intellectual enlightenment and see the evils of the world. Plato looks upon society as something that can change. He thinks we can create a world full of utopian societies. Although that would be great, it is not realistic. That would require the world to see situations the same, but we all have a different mind set and way of dealing with problems. I do not believe the evil can be taken out of someone who is truly nefarious.
Plato focused on changing each individual into a state of perfectness. Cicero focused more on society as a whole. He realized it would not be possible to change every single person. Plato aimed for an impossible goal with the hopes of achieving it. A society can be good without every single person being the best they can be, and that is what Cicero saw.
I agree Lauren. We need to know our limits. We as a people need to stop thinking we can change people. We as a people need to do what we can and what is best to help others change, not force them to. Too many times people think they know best and they can treat everyone as they need to listen to them. We need less of that. We need more people who present their ideas, but respect the ideas of others. We need more Ciceros and less Platos.
Delete