Plato (428 – 7 BC) is one of the leading Greek philosophers. This student of Socrates and teacher of Aristotle was recognized for his thought work, which greatly influenced the tradition of Western philosophical thought. In fact, until nearly 2,500 years since the time of Plato’s life, Plato’s thought is very broad and covers a variety of fields, still a subject of study.
Although contemporary thinking is now highly developed, and a number of Plato’s thoughts seem outdated, some of the issues raised by Plato are still felt to be relevant to the current context, including those of us who live in Indonesia.
The thought of Plato, along with Socrates, Aristotle, and some other ancient Greek philosophers had become humus or early seeds, upon which grew various new thoughts, which colored various thoughts of humanity thereafter.
One of Plato’s monumental works is The Republic, which in Greek means “political system.” This work was written about 380 BC, and is seen as one of the most influential works of philosophy and political theory. This is also Plato’s most famous work.
Plato produced a number of works, related to political philosophy, such as Republic, Statesman, and Laws. However, Republic is the center of Plato’s political philosophy. Because, other Plato’s works – such as Apology, Charmides, Crito, Euthydemus, Gorgias, Protagoras, and Menexenus – can be understood by looking at their relationship to the main texts in the Republic.
This paper tries to raise a number of Plato’s thoughts in the political field. To simplify and facilitate discussion, the thoughts of Plato reviewed here are limited to certain topics. Plato’s thoughts will be analyzed by comparing them to the thoughts of other figures, and try to be placed in the present context.
In discussing Plato’s thinking, the writer uses a political philosophy approach. Political philosophy essentially demands that all claims ( legitimate authority ) for the right to organize the people (which are owned by the State Government) can be justified before the mind and heart of humanity. Public accountability ( accountability ) is an embodiment of rational responsibility for power.
Political legitimacy here is not always the same as moral (ethical-philosophical) legitimacy. Political legitimacy can be understood as social (sociological) legitimacy that has undergone an articulate process in representative political institutions. Whereas moral legitimacy questions the legitimacy of political power in terms of moral norms, not in terms of existing real political power, and not on the basis of certain legal provisions.
II. A Short History of Plato
Plato was born in Athens in 428 BC. Until Plato reached his mid-20s, Athena was involved in a long war and military conflict against Sparta, known as the Peloponnesian War.
Plato comes from a distinguished family. His father was a descendant of Codrus, one of the first kings of Athens. While his mother is a descendant of Solon, a prominent figure who reformed the constitution of Athens. So, Plato was naturally positioned to play an active role in political life. However, unfortunately this has never happened.
Although he hoped to play a significant role in his political community, Plato continued to feel excluded. As expressed in his autobiography Seventh Letter, Plato could not identify himself with any political party that existed at the time or with corrupt regimes that were constantly changing. Each of these regimes made Athena’s position increasingly degenerate.
Plato was a student of Socrates, whom Plato regarded as the most just and moral person of his time. Socrates was also the person who had the most influence on Plato in philosophical thought.
III. Plato’s work, Republic Plato’s work, Republic , in general is divided into three parts. The first part (Book I to almost the end of Book V) contains the formation of an ideal Commonwealth community. This is the earliest part of Utopia. One conclusion is that the ideal ruler must be a philosopher.
Because philosophers are seen as the most ideal figures to become rulers, Books VI and VII relate to the definition of the word “philosopher” itself. This discussion is the second part. While the third part mainly contains a discussion of various forms of practical governance, with various advantages and disadvantages.
The Republic’s nominal goal is to formulate “justice.” However, in the initial stages, it was decided that – because it is easier to see big things than small things – it is better to investigate what makes a country fair, rather than what makes an individual fair.
Because justice must be one of the attributes of the best State imaginable, the attributes of such a State must first be explained. Then it must be decided, which of these features of perfection is called “justice.”
3.1. Three Classes of Citizens
Plato begins by stipulating that citizens are divided into three classes: ordinary people, soldiers, and guardians . Only trustees have political power. The number of trustees is very small, when compared to the other two classes. For the first, it seems that they are led by legislators.
After that, usually they will be replaced by consanguinity ( Heredity ). However, in exceptional cases, a promising child might be promoted from one of the lower classes. Conversely, among guardian children, there may be one or two children who are unsatisfactory, so it is inherited.
The main problem with this system is how to ensure that trustees will actually carry out the legislators’ intentions. For this purpose, he has various proposals, educational, economic, biological, and religious. It is not clear how far these proposals go to classes other than guardians.
It is clear that part of the proposal applies to the soldiers. In general, however, Plato only paid attention to the trustees, who had to be a separate class, such as the Jesuits in ancient Paraguay, the ecclesiastics in the Church State until 1870, and the Communist Party in the Soviet Union.
Plato assumes these guardians are philosophers, wise people, who are not selfish. Therefore, they are not only worthy of privilege, but they should be for the good of the whole community.
3.2. Educational Format
In terms of the formation and survival of the trustees, the first thing Plato considered was education. This education is divided into two parts: gymnastics and music. Gymnastics and music here have a broader meaning than today’s understanding.
“Music” means everything that is under the care of the muses  , and “gymnastics” means everything related to training and physical fitness. “Music” is almost as broad as what we now call “culture,” whereas “gymnastics” is broader than what we now call “athletics.”
Culture must be dedicated to shape people into gentlemen , in a sense similar to those in England.  The Athenians of his day were, in a sense, similar to England in the 19th century. In each of these places there were aristocracy (aristocrats) who enjoyed prosperity and social prestige, but did not have a monopoly on political power.
Each aristocracy must gain as much power as possible by showing impressive behavior. In Plato’s Utopia, these aristocrats came to power without counterweight control.
Dignity, propriety, and courage seem to be qualities that try to be grown through education. Body training for students must be very hard. No one can eat fish or meat, which is cooked except by grilling. Also, no additional sauces or snacks. Thus, people who grew up in his regiment would not need a doctor, said Plato.
Until a certain age, young people should not see bad things. However, at the right time, they must be exposed to “shackles,” both in the form of terror that should not make them tremble, and bad pleasures that should not tempt their will. If they are able to withstand this test, then they are considered worthy of guardians. Youth, before they grow up, must have seen war, even if they did not have to go to war.
3.3. Restrictions on Art and Drama
There are strict censorship since the earliest years of growth, about what reading can be accessed, and about music that young people can hear. Mothers and nurses can only tell certain stories to their children.
The story of Homer and Hesiod is not permitted, for some reason. First, the story presents the story of gods who sometimes behave badly, who do not educate. Young people are taught that evil never comes from the gods, because gods only create good things.
Second, there are things in Homer and Hesiod that are thought to make readers afraid of death, even though everything is given through education for young people, to be willing to die on the battlefield. Third, appropriateness requires that people should not laugh loudly. Though Homer was among those who liked to laugh a lot among the other gods.
Fourth, there are sentences in Homer that praise excessive binge eating, and others describe the lustful desires of the gods. That sentence discourages restraint. Nor should there be a story in which the wicked are happy, while the good are not happy. Its moral impact on the soft minds of young people, is considered likely to be unfavorable.
Plato made an interesting statement about the drama performance. Good people, he said, must refuse to imitate bad people. At that time most of the drama contained evil roles. Therefore, playwrights and actors who play evil roles must imitate those who are guilty of various crimes.
Not just a criminal role. Men who excel are also not allowed to imitate women, slaves, and the lower classes in general. Therefore, if drama is fully permitted, he must not play any character except male hero characters who are never wrong, and born from good offspring. The impossibility of this was so proven, that Plato decided to ban all drama players from his ideal city.
The censorship of music (in the modern sense) also applies. Lydia and Ionia harmony or music is forbidden, because it expresses sadness, and because it gives rise to leisure. Only Doria’s music (expressing courage) and Phrygia (calling for restraint) are permitted. The type of music that is allowed must be simple, or that expresses courage and a harmonious life.
3.4. Economy and “Communism”
As for the economy, Plato proposed the adoption of “communism” as a whole for saints. They can only have small houses and simple food. They must live in a tent or temporary shelter, eat together, and may not have personal possessions beyond what is truly indispensable.
Gold and silver are declared forbidden. Even though they are not rich, there is no reason why they cannot be happy. But the goal of Plato’s ideal city is good for everyone, not just the happiness of one class. Both prosperity and poverty are destructive, and in the city of Plato neither of these two things is permissible.
“Communism” is then applied to the family. Friends must have everything together, including women and children. This is admitted by Plato that it will indeed cause difficulties, but it cannot be overcome.
First, girls must get exactly the same education as youth, including studying music, gymnastics, and the art of peang with youth. Women must have complete equality with men in everything.
“The same education, which makes men a good guardian, will also make women a good guardian; because their original nature is the same, “Plato said. Of course there are differences between men and women, but those differences have nothing to do with politics. Some women are philosophical, and fit to be guardians. Others like war, and can be good warriors.
The legislator, after selecting trustees consisting of several men and women, will ordain that they will share a house and food together. The institution of marriage, as we know it today, was changed radically by Plato. These women, without exception, will become wives with men, and no one can have a wife for himself.
At certain festivals, the bride and groom, in a certain amount determined to keep the population constant, will be paired through the draw. However, the actual authorities of the city will manipulate the lottery on the principle of science to “improve descent.” They will arrange for the best father to have many children.
All children will be separated from their parents from birth, and will be taken seriously so that parents do not know who their child really is, and also no child knows who their parents really are. Children with disabilities, and children of inferior parents, “will be taken away to a mysterious lonely place, as appropriate.”
Children who are not raised from a collection carried out by the State are considered illegal. Mothers will be between 20 and 40 years old, while fathers are between 25 and 55 years old. Beyond this age, sex is free, but childbearing is not permitted (abortion or infanticide is an obligation). In “marriages” regulated by the State, people do not have a voice. They must be moved by thoughts of obligations to the State, not by the general emotions commonly celebrated by poets.
Because no one knows who his parents are, he must call everyone whose age is roughly equivalent to his father’s age as “father”. That kind of thing also applies to “mothers,” “brothers”, and “sisters.” There should be no marriage between “father” and “daughter” or between “mother” and “son.” In general, but not absolute, marriages between “brothers” and “sisters” are also prevented.
The sentiments associated with the terms “father,” “mother,” “son,” and “daughter” are thought to remain inherent to them under Plato’s new arrangements. A young man, for example, will not hit his parents, because he might hit his own father.
The advantage sought from this arrangement is to minimize individual possessive emotions, and thereby remove obstacles to the dominance of the public spirit (public interest). Also, to make it easier to get an agreement, because there is no private ownership.
3.5 Lies, Myths, and Government Prerogatives
There are several myths taught by Plato. Lying, for example, is considered by Plato as the prerogative of the government, as is the right to give medicine to doctors. The government may deceive people, by pretending to arrange marriage by lottery. However, this is not a religious issue.
There are types of “honorable lies” which – Plato hopes – might deceive the authorities, but surely these lies will deceive the citizens of other cities. The most important part of this is the dogma that God created humans in three types: the best man made of gold, the second best of silver, and the usual ones made of brass and iron.
Those made of gold deserve to be guardians; those made of silver must be warriors; and the others have to do menial work. Usually, children will be put into the same class as their parents. If this is not the case, they must be promoted or lowered according to their own capacity.
Plato assumed, although initially it was difficult to get the early generations to believe in these myths, later generations would be so “educated” that they would not doubt it. What Plato did not seem to realize at the time was that teaching such myths was incompatible with philosophy, and involved education that inhibited intelligence.
3.6. “Justice” According to Plato the
definition of “justice”, which is the nominal goal of all discussions, is achieved in book IV. Justice is realized when everyone does their work and does not interfere in other people’s business. The city is fair when traders, helpers / supporters, and guardians, each carry out their own duties without interfering in the affairs of citizens of other classes.
The definition of the word “justice” in Greek in Plato’s book has a different meaning, and there is no equivalent to a suitable translation. To understand this, we need to look to ancient Greek theories or views about the universe, which we might call religious or ethical.
According to this theory, everyone and everything has its own place and role assigned to it. This condition does not depend on the approval of Zeus (the highest god), because Zeus himself is also bound by the same natural law rules. This theory is related to the idea of destiny or submission to reality. This law also applies to space objects.
However, where there is energy, there is a tendency to break that boundary; then a dispute arose. A kind of impersonal super-Olympia law which punishes arrogance, and restores the eternal order that aggressors try to break. This whole perspective may subconsciously infiltrate philosophy. This perspective is a source of trust in natural law and human law, and this clearly underlines Plato’s concept of justice.
The word “justice,” as it is still used in law, fits the Plato concept more than what is used in political speculation. Under the influence of democratic theory, we have associated justice with equality , whereas for Plato justice has no such implications.
“Justice” in the sense that it is almost synonymous with “law” – when we talk about “court trials” – pays particular attention to ownership rights, which have nothing to do with equality. The first thing related to “justice” at the beginning of the Republic consisted of paying the debt. This definition was immediately abandoned because it was inadequate, but still left in part.
IV. Discussion of Plato’s Political Thought
4.1. The Reign of Philosophers
From most of Plato’s works, it appears that Plato’s political thinking is very far from the assumptions that are considered central to the tradition of liberal and democratic thought. Even though the liberal and democratic tradition itself is precisely what now dominates political philosophy.
Plato clearly criticized democratic equality and freedom in Book VIII Republic . Similar criticism is seen in Book VI, in the analogy between citizenship and marine skills, a theme elaborated through the investigation of political skills in Statesman .
One must strive to find Plato’s friendly attitude towards things like equality of humanity, freedom of consciousness, the right of participation in politics, limited government, constitutional channels, and so on. Plato’s main ideas were: governance by philosophers, the abolition of family institutions and property, and noble lies .
By giving special treatment to one particular group for power – that is, trustees and philosophers – clearly Plato’s choice is contrary to the spirit of freedom and democracy, which demands equality for all citizens.
Can the government or the authorities lie to the people, by creating false myths, and cramming them to the younger generation through indoctrination in educational institutions, is also not acceptable in the tradition of democratic thought.
In America and a number of European countries, there is the right of citizens to obtain correct information. Deliberately giving false information to citizens will be seen as a violation of political ethics, and it is morally unacceptable. The case of President George W. Bush, who lied to the American people about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as a pretext for a military invasion of Iraq, until now continues to lash out harsh criticism.
In addition, educational institutions that are deliberately functioned to teach lies, are not only contrary to the democratic rights of citizens, but also contrary to the spirit of philosophical science to seek the truth.
However, governance by philosophers is not an impossible idea to realize. The Republic of Plato, unlike modern Utopies, seems to have been intended to be truly realized. At that time, maybe Plato’s dream was not as fantastic as we imagined, if you look at the example that Sparta had done. Power by philosophers has been exercised by Pythagoras. In Plato’s time, Archytas, who followed Pythagoras’s teachings, was also politically influential in the Taras region, when Plato visited Sicily and southern Italy.
It was common practice for the cities at that time to employ a wise man (philosopher) to draft their laws. Solon had done this for the Athenians, and Protagoras for Thurii. The colonies at that time were completely free from the control of their parent cities, and this condition would be sufficient for a group of followers of Plato to establish a Republic (with the government of philosophers) on the coast of Spain or Gaul.
Unfortunately, Plato just happened to go to Syracuse, a trading city that was involved in a prolonged war with Carthage. In such an atmosphere, no philosopher can accomplish many things. In the next generation, the rise of Macedonia made all small countries obsolete, and caused fragility in every political experiment in a miniature version.
It is noteworthy, Plato’s own political thinking also actually experienced a shift. In his Laws, for example, Plato later became more friendly to democracy, because he adopted a metaphysics about values, which recognized epistemological sources from non-philosophers.
4.2. Equal, Equivalent “Communism” Society
Plato’s idea of a commonwealth, which lives together, with restrictions on property rights and the abolition of family institutions, has been tried within certain limits in communist countries, such as the Soviet Union and countries in Eastern Europe. The experiment had failed, with the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
Plato’s pupil, Aristotle, also criticized Plato’s thought. Aristotle said, Plato’s goal – where all citizens can feel all the joy and sadness together – it will not be realized.
However, Plato’s idea of a community that is “equal and equal” can also be understood as an effort to create harmony. Plato’s way of creating harmony is to get rid of potentially damaging elements of democracy or individual freedom.
Plato tried to show the weakness of the idea of democracy, by putting democracy into an extreme form. Democratic freedom, if treated as such, will encourage an all-round permissive ethos, which is essentially anarchic. So Plato wants to say that democracy inherently leads to a plurality of corrosive ways of life. It is this kind of impact that Plato wants to avoid, by forming a society that is “equally and equally taste”.
Plato’s ideas did not necessarily die or lose relevance. The terrible economic crisis that hit the American economy and other parts of the world, including Indonesia, at the end of 2008 was seen as starting from greed and greed, inherent in the values of capitalism and uncontrolled freedom.
Therefore, the ideas of Karl Marx, socialism, and restrictions on freedom began to emerge again, and again discussed in a new perspective lately. In such a climate, Plato’s thought of a society of “equal and equal taste” gets wind as an alternative, although it does not have to be realized in its extreme form as in Plato’s time.
4.5. Problems with Plato’s version of “Justice”
There are several noteworthy points about Plato’s definition of “justice.” First, there is the possibility of inequality between power and privilege (special treatment) without justice. Guardians have all the power, because they are members of the community that is considered the wisest.
Injustice will only occur – according to Plato’s definition – if there are people from other classes of society who are wiser than some saints. This is why Plato provided the possibility of promotion and degradation of citizenship, even though he thought that double superiority – due to birth and education factors – in most cases would make children from guardian families superior to other children.
If there is a solid science of government, and there is more certainty that people will abide by this recipe, much more must be commented on from the Plato system. Nobody thinks that it’s an injustice if we put the best person in a football team, even though that person has great superiority there. Conversely, if football is managed democratically in the style of the Athenian government, students who will play on behalf of their universities will be selected by lottery.
However, in matters of government, it is difficult to know who has the best skills. In addition, it is very difficult to ensure that a politician will use his skills solely for the public interest rather than for his own interests, or the interests of certain class, party and religious beliefs.
The next thing is whether Plato’s definition of “justice” requires an organization by the state, either traditionally or – to realize in its totality an ideal condition – ethically.
According to Plato, justice will be realized when everyone does their own work. But what do each of them do? In a country like ancient Egypt or the Inca empire, one’s work was the work of his father, and so it was passed down from generation to generation, and no one questioned that.
The problem is, in Plato’s country, nobody has a legitimate father. Therefore, the work must be determined by his own taste or regulated by the State based on talent and intelligence. The latter was what Plato coveted. However, some types of work, even though they require skills, may be seen as evil or destructive. The art of poetry, for example, is not seen as noble in Plato’s eyes.
The Government’s goals are therefore important in determining one’s work. Although all rulers are philosophers, forever a philosopher seems to be someone who understands and agrees with Plato.
4.6. The “Ideal” and Utopia in the Republic of Plato Plato’s
political thought as outlined in the Republic provoked many thinkers in later generations to respond. Many praised Plato’s thoughts here, but not a few of them criticized him.
Two Victorian thinkers, John Stuart Mill and Benjamin Jowett, gave Plato special appreciation. What Mill of Admiration from Plato was not only about Plato’s opposition to general and conventional matters, but also the idea of scientific governance, manifested in the core of professionals, from among liberally educated citizens.
Jowett, in contrast, sees the skills demanded by Plato from the ruling elite to be metaphysical in other worlds. Plato assumed that the best rulers were those whose political lives contradicted their true personalities and interests. There is an unresolved tension in Plato’s thought, between the appeal of philosophy and the demands of justice.
Malcolm Schofield defended utopianism, as Plato described it, as a coveted and inevitable element of systematic political reflection. Schofield defines utopia as “thinking about a blueprint for the coveted world, which – despite being placed in current concern, with its various questions about practicality and legitimacy – (utopian thinking) should not be set aside, but can be seen as (an alternative) secondary.”
But what will the Republic of Plato achieve? According to Bertrand Russell, the answer to this question is rather tedious. The Republic will achieve success in the war against populations of roughly equal numbers, and this country will secure a living for a small number of people. However, this Plato state also clearly will not produce works of art or science, because of its rigidity.
In this case, the country of Plato will resemble Sparta. Even though there was a lot of talk about other things that were grandiose, all that would be achieved was skill in war and enough food to eat. Plato had experienced a period of famine and defeat in Athens, so perhaps he subconsciously thought, avoiding such a disaster was the best achievement statesmen could achieve.
A Utopia, if it is seriously intended, will clearly realize the ideals of its creator. In this case, Russell tries to explain the meaning of “ideal.” In the beginning, “ideal” is something that is desired by those who believe it. However, the “ideal” is not coveted in the same way as people want personal comfort, such as food and shelter.
What distinguishes an “ideal” from an ordinary dream object is the first which is impersonal. “Ideal” is something that – we consider it – does not have a specific reference to the ego of the person who feels the desire, and therefore theoretically can be coveted by everyone.
So, we might formulate an “ideal” as something that is coveted and not egocentric in nature, so that those who crave it deserve hope, other people will also crave the same thing. In this way, the person can build something that seems like an impersonal ethic. However, the fact is that the “ideal” is founded on a personal foundation, in the form of the desires and desires of the person concerned.
In addition, there may be conflicts between ideals that are purely impersonal. Her hero Nietzsche was different from the figure of a Christian saint, although both of them were impersonally admired, the first by supporters of Nietzsche’s thought, and the second by Christians. How can we choose between these two hero figures, except based on our own desires?
If there is no other basis for consideration, then an ethical disagreement can only be decided through emotional appeal or power. Regarding facts, we can expect scientific assistance and scientific methods of observation. However, about the peak questions of ethics, there seems to be nothing analogous. So, if this really happens, ethical disputes will be resolved through power struggles, including through the power of propaganda.
This perspective, in its crude form, was proposed in the first part of the Republic’s book by the character Thrasymachus, who – like other figures in Plato’s dialogues – was a real figure. He is a Sophis from Chalcedon, and a famous rhetoric teacher. Thrasymachus stated, “Justice is none other than the interests of the stronger party.”
This Thrasymachus utterance raises a fundamental question in ethics and politics: Are there standards regarding “good” and “bad,” except based on what the coveted person uses these words for? If there is no such standard, many of the consequences of Thrasymachus’s remarks cannot be avoided.
At this point, religion at first glance gives a simple answer. God determines what is good and what is bad. People who will be in harmony with God’s will are good people. But this answer is not very orthodox.
Theologians say, God is good, and this means that there are standards of goodness independent of God’s will. So we are forced to face the question: Is there an objective truth or error in statements such as “enjoyment is good,” in the same sense as the statement “snow is white?” To answer this, a lengthy discussion is needed.
Some people might think that for practical reasons, we can avoid that fundamental question, by saying, we don’t know what is meant by “objective truth.” However, we will assume something is true, if all – or apparently all – investigators agree on it.
However, then we then face the question of facts: Are there statements like that agreed on ethics? If there are, then these statements can be used as a basis for the rules of personal behavior, or for political theory.
Conversely, if there is none, then we are forced to enter the realm of practice. Without further questioning philosophical truths, we will clash with power or propaganda or both, whenever there are unacceptable ethical differences between the ruling groups.
For Plato, this question does not really exist. Although his dramatic taste led him strongly to the position of Thrasymachus, he was not very aware of the power of the position of Thrasymachus and allowed himself to unfairly oppose that position. Plato was convinced that there was such a thing as “the Good”, and that the nature of the “Good” was certain. If there are people who disagree with him, one of them has at least made an intellectual mistake. The same is true if disagreement is scientific, about a number of matters related to fact.
The difference between Plato and Thrasymachus is very important. However, for historians of philosophy, this is just a note. Plato thought he could prove that his ideal Republic was good. Conversely, a democrat who accepts ethical objectivity might think that he can prove the Republic is bad.
However, anyone who agrees with Thrasymachus will say: “The problem is not about proving or not proving. The only question is whether you like Plato’s coveted country. If the answer is yes, that means it’s good for you. If you don’t like it, it means it’s bad for you. If there are many who agree and many also disagree, decisions cannot be made based on reason, but only by force, either openly or covertly. “
V. Closing Remarks
It must be admitted, it is not an easy job to stretch and express Plato’s vast philosophical ideas, especially his political thoughts, in short papers like this. So, this article only tries to display a small amount of its core thoughts, which hopefully can be understood.
From a number of comments and criticisms from other thinkers in subsequent generations, it appears that in fact there are still many Plato’s thoughts that are relevant, if related to the context and development of the world today.
Of course, Plato’s thought cannot be applied just like that in the context of the present world situation, which is already very different. It must be noted, Plato’s thought was created around 2,500 years ago, in a world of extreme extremes. So in making judgments, we must also be fair to Plato.
Various contemporary developments now – such as the terrible economic crisis that hit the world, re-questioning the basic assumptions of liberalism and capitalism, the impact of damage due to uncontrolled freedom, the role of government that is trying to be revived after being shut down by the neoliberal economy – has opened new opportunities, for the application of Plato’s thought.
In his work Plato Republic has recognized that utopia might never be achieved. While his work Laws provides a blueprint for an approach (approximation) of these ideal conditions, which is still within the reach of ordinary people. Namely, ordinary people who want to play a role in political life, own land, and live in conventional ordinary households.
That is, Plato himself from the beginning had realized the limitations that might appear in an effort to realize his dream of an ideal society. So, from there, Plato’s thoughts about Utopia and the ideal society can be placed in a new perspective, to provide a different worldview, for the possibility of alternative alternative actions.
This kind of contribution is perhaps what Plato thought. Not a donation that must be taken for granted, but merely as seeds and humus that we must fertilize and we further develop, to realize a better society and world order, which we aspire. ***