Introduction
Philosophical theories present rather interesting and sometimes controversial issues being applied in the context of modern realities. In this paper, I will initiate “traveling” to the three societies, namely, Platonic, Aristotelian, and Marxist, in order to reveal their nature, organization, and other peculiarities.
Platonic Society
Reflecting on Platonic society, I consider that it seeks to re-use the concept of ideas. The variety of human needs and the inability to meet them alone were an incentive for the creation of this state. According to Platonic society, the greatest good is justice, while injustice is evil (Crombie, 2012). This society refers to the following types of government: timocracy (owners’ power), oligarchy, tyranny, and democracy.
I observed that Platonic society citizens’ souls consist of three parts: rational, spirited, and appetitive. Some citizens are intelligent, wise, and they can, therefore, manage the state. Others are effective and courageous; they are destined to be strategists, generals, and warriors. Having a predominantly appetitive soul, third ones are to be craftsmen and farmers. In other words, there are three classes: rulers, farmers, and artisans. Furthermore, I noted plenty of concrete recipes, for example, how children should be taught and educated. In particular, it is supposed to deprive guard members of property or introduce different kinds of regulations for them as well as implement the commonality of wives and children (Crombie, 2012). Also, literature is subject to strict censorship, including everything that can discredit the idea of justice. As for the afterlife, Plato fellow citizens believe that the soul of man continues to exist after his death as the idea. At that, bliss is waiting for virtuous and terrible torture for perverse.
It seems that Plato mentally constructed an ideal state, which, in his view, could prevent many injustices. This society that was described above comes from the ideal, which could be as constant as his idea (Crombie, 2012). Plato wanted to achieve the ideal, but it turned out in utopia, in which researchers have revealed the idealization. In Plato’s teaching of society, I can discern duplication of the same philosophical idea that was expressed in teachings of nature: starting with ideas that are understood as generative models and, at the same time, as the ideals, he builds them speculatively based on limited historical knowledge. The result is utopia. This might be regarded as the main weakness in his theory. Plato starts with the idea that is right. Then he proceeds with ideal likewise other prominent philosophers using the idea and ideal (O’Connor & Netting, 2011). In turn, the idea of justice is appropriate, but the idea of freedom was, unfortunately, is alien to Plato. In addition, Plato specifies the ideal of justice is extremely speculatively without relying on real facts (O’Connor & Netting, 2011). Thus, the ideological basis of Platonic thought is highly commendable as it is impossible to imagine modern society without implications from Platonic society. Nowadays, it is essential to consider the ideas and ideals of Plato related to the community organization.
As for Plato’s errors, they should be adjusted to modern knowledge, and there is no need to follow them. Thus, I want to emphasize that the contribution of Platonic society to global civilization should be assessed comprehensively. On the philosophical balance, the positive aspects of Plato’s philosophy undoubtedly outweigh its negative aspects. Among others, there is, however, a virtue common to all souls, which Platonic society values very highly – measure (O’Connor & Netting, 2011). Nothing beyond measure is the principle shared by Plato with the majority of the Greek philosophers. This assertion might be considered as the one that should be applied in contemporary philosophy related to our community.
Aristotelian Society
The second society I decided to travel to was Aristotelian. In this society, people do not live exclusively for themselves but are created for public life by nature. Sex and blood ties, language, and moral instincts strongly unite them with others (Pack, 2010). People need each other to meet both immediate and social needs as well as for the most successful defense against the dangers. According to Aristotle, man is a political being who is also social and, therefore, carries the instinctive desire of joint cohabitation (Pack, 2010). I found the first reflection of the above statement in a family. Husband and wife, parents and children appeared due to the need for mutual exchange of communication leading to families, villages, and society formation. However, this state is not created in order to live yet to live predominantly happily (Pack, 2010). In other words, Aristotelian society arose when communication and collaboration were created for the sake of a good life between families and clans, for the sake of perfect and sufficient life.
It is essential to note that the nature of the society goes ahead of the family and the individual. Therefore, a perfection of citizens caused by the qualities of society to which they belong – a community that wants to create perfect people through the formation of committed citizens (Pack, 2010). I observed that people need to communicate with their own kind, and not only to maintain and improve their physical life but also to become humane society following the rules of life and the law. Moreover, people strive to find the ideal “mean” between their goals and failure to act. At that, Aristotelian society does not have an economic association, and its purpose is not to protect private interests (Pack, 2010). Instead, the purpose of the society is the highest good for all – so-called eudemonia or happiness of citizens in a perfect society socializing in a happy life. Therefore, the aim of the society is not in conquest or wars yet in virtue of citizens and the totality of the resources needed for its implementation. Likewise, Platonic society, Aristotelian society, values the humane education of citizens in virtue regarding it as the main task of the society.
As I stated above, Aristotelian citizens believe that society stands above family and individuals, referring to its members as a whole. Nevertheless, chronologically, family and community preceded the state (Morrell, 2012). A human family formed first under the influence of the natural attraction, then under the pressure of circumstances family rallied to the community (choruses). At the same time, Aristotle taught that selfishness is natural within certain limits; there is nothing wrong with it. People are more concerned with their problems rather than with the general ones (Morrell, 2012). Nevertheless, normal love of family has some moral principle that serves as a basis for society.
As for the society organization, Aristotelians consider that it is necessary to look for not a perfect constitution but one that better suits to certain conditions. It is also important to reckon with social, political, economic, and cultural factors (Morrell, 2012). Therefore, if monarchy and aristocracy are considered as the rule of the best, in practice, the moderate democratic republic is recognized the most appropriate model of state and the rule of virtue. As far as the best is the middle, Aristotle believes that happiness is more secured in the society where no excessive wealth or extreme poverty exist (Morrell, 2012). Life without extremes is a better life, and the power of the middle class is the best of the existing political forms. All in all, the existence of the state is not based on revolutions and coups as the elements of society are more balanced than in the other forms of society organization.
Speaking of the reflection of the described society in a modern perspective, I want to emphasize that respect for the law is an important moral imperative of modern society as only the law can protect the freedom of the individual, ensure equality, and human security. On the other hand, the desire to subjugate another humiliating someone’s dignity is the most shameful action. In this regard, it is possible to follow the teaching of Aristotle concerning modern community organization.
Marxist Society
According to Marxist society, political ideology, law, religion, the institution of family, education, and government constitute the superstructure of society. The economic basis of society is the mode of production of material wealth while class structure affects the formation of all social institutions (Gandy, 2012). When one class owns the most vital means, by which people pursue their existence, this class tends to maintain all the interests and aspects of institutional life. However, the economic system that affects the superstructure is not one-sided. Superstructure, in turn, has an impact on the economic base and might change it (Gandy, 2012). Marx fellow citizens believe that the working class armed with a revolutionary ideology can raise the class consciousness, overthrow the existing social order, and establish a new genuinely humanistic system of communism.
An important negative consequence of the socio-cultural capitalist relations is alienation – the loss of the fullness of the human, cultural and personal life in the face of capital accumulation (Gandy, 2012). This alienation applies to both the employee – the proletariat that alienated the product and labor as well as the human nature, and of the capitalist, for whom all the richness and diversity of cultural and social life is reduced to the pursuit of profit.
Marxist society citizens view their society as a historically established system of living. The main factors of its operation and development are economic. Nature is largely the subject of work that society converts into wealth with the help of developing technology. Consciousness, morality, religion, and other spiritual features are regarded secondary depending on the economic life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, it is their social being that determines their consciousness. Other provisions of Marxist society follow from this principle. In particular, materialistic-economic approach to society was developed by Marx and his followers in the concept of the socio-economic system. Burke, Crocker, and Legters (2011) claim:
Development of the forces of production was turned into a sort of universal panacea for all the ills and contradictions of society, and from this, it followed that for a socialist society the highest and overriding objective must be the most rapid attainable development of the forces of production. (p. 215)
A method of production of material goods is the unity of the productive forces such as people and means of production and industrial relations including production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of material goods. Thus, the leading role played by the economy caused economic classes to combat making it the driving force of social development. Spiritual life was assigned to a subordinate role. Marxism tries to find a semantic structure of society on the basis of the proletariat (Burke et al., 2011). At the same time, Marxist methodological principle is not complicated and might be identified as follows: the proletariat is the class of the progressive post-capitalist world, and its interests are progressive and are the criterion of the truth of different ideologies and social action.
The main argument against Marxist society is that it proved to be the collapse of the Soviet model of socialism in the USSR and other countries, as well as the development of the path of bourgeois socialism in the countries where the driving force is the middle class (Burke et al., 2011). The seemingly great experiment of proletarian socialism, social equality, and better life for all failed. However, it is still possible to use some provisions of Marxist theory, for example, the idea of social equality.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it should be stressed that I investigated the three philosophical societies pointing out their strengths and weaknesses as well as relation to the modern community. Platonic society was presented as one where people concern about themselves rather than about society as a common issue. Aristotelian society was identified as one seeking for middle between the two extremes. In turn, Marxist society demonstrated its rejection of class inequalities and struggled to establish social equity.
References
Burke, J. P., Crocker, L., & Legters, L. H. (2011). Marxism and the good society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Crombie, I. M. (2012). Examination of Plato’s doctrines: Plato on man and society. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gandy, R. (2012). Marx and history: From primitive society to the communist future. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Morrell, K. (2012). Organization, society and politics: An Aristotelian perspective. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
O’Connor, M. K., & Netting, F. E. (2011). Analyzing social policy: Multiple perspectives for critically understanding and evaluating policy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Pack, S. J. (2010). Aristotle, Adam Smith and Karl Marx: On some fundamental issues in 21st century political economy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.