by digital.democracy

The Interaction Between Philosophy And Justice – A Study By Artur Victoria

Moreover, in the field of politics, the Roman “jusfilosofía” Cicero seems to be the consummation of the facts and truths that tend to confirm the victory of the democratic republic in monocracy of emperors, which would make the republic more just and more virtuous, as is popular is its merits. Monocracy on the contrary, the foundation is the will of the sovereign. With a wide field of Greco-Roman history, Cicero concludes that only the courts can make the government of the republic.

Clearly, however, have common concerns: Cicero discusses the works of the two Greeks. Aristotle is a critic of Plato, Cicero is implicit criticism of both.

With distance, communication and transport difficult, far from the complex problems facing states today, ensuring a reduction to the philosophical principles that are insurmountable, and are being studied as bridges for access to modern and contemporary theories justice. In conclusion, two of these principles is found in Plato and Cicero as a most important element of the concept of Justice of the stability of the state. Aristotle, in turn, establishes the concept of justice (Nicomachean Ethics) in equity. The two will join the Democratic Justice, updated, of course, their content.

Bertrand Russell, reports that the main purpose of the book The Republic, Plato, is to define the concept of Justice. The word justice has much more content than Socrates and Plato joined the Justice, equality (democracy), the other used as a synonym of Justice Act (Act). In fact, Plato introduces a new version of Justice, which is not based on the Socratic principle of equality, as the Platonic ideal of equal opportunities to different powers among the different individuals belonging to the Hellenic Republic, to see that is not an injustice, because the power and privileges of guardians (rulers) and the other citizens would be established by a law first. There would only be wrong when someone wiser than the guards was away from the direction of the power of the government of the Republic or if the citizen does not agree with decisions affecting the Republic. Therefore, Plato created a system of low social mobility, but to allow promotion and demotion of citizens in its merits. Portrait of a form of meritocracy, which can be treated as the first criterion of justice of the republican city-state also used as a criterion to occupy the places mentioned in the society, the natural capacity of each individual by measuring skills with the skills developed in each state or private. Therefore, in accordance with this concept, the Platonic Justice proposes that man is devoted to his work, and the fundamental principles of division of labor (social skills) were present from the formation of the city-state. He highlighted the commitment to equality in Plato’s intention, the main premise of his concept of Justice. Maintaining the stability of the State, by legal standards to ensure the effectiveness of the division of tasks that could be interrogated by the principle of freedom, ends up being suffocated by law.

Kelsen identifies an insurmountable problem in the theory formulated by Plato, the absence of a material content of the law, i.e. the notion of justice is based on metaphysical criteria. The material law is absent in the thinking of the Greek philosopher and is not intended to justice Kelsen, therefore, a simple rule of evidence in the Constitution is not sufficient to achieve justice alone. Kelsen shows that the Constitution did not represent Plato’s law, but only the production method to govern on the basis of education. The Constitution is an educational content more Platonic than legal or political. After is also the case dual between “good” and “wrong” Plato is a tonic to define his idea of justice as well as Kelsen points out, Plato is not recognized through the sense perception. The object of knowledge is beyond the senses, or is outside the scope of the dialectic experience.

Created by Plato as a philosophical method to improve the Socratic project and intuition of the idea and the effort to find room for criticism about the essential nature of intuition of the idea. The debate is about the dialectic between insights and conclusive on the idea.

He was also the pioneer in the defense of objectivism. The development of a pioneer of the theory of ideas is the first design of the object as a decisive factor between the two members of the training.

It’s hard to disagree with the analysis concluded that there is a conceptual error in Kelsen in the construction of the theory of justice, Plato, the principle of equality, which is part of an initial arbitrary discrimination that is not rational . Thus, while legal, Plato’s Republic would not be legitimate. What Kelsen not realize is that not only the content of the substantive law of the State Constitution that would lead to the decline of the Platonic Justice, but above all, the importance indefinitely regardless of the mechanisms of understanding in the sense of that gives priority to the natural possibility of rationality, which has no religious content decisively. The greater the intelligence would be the prerogative of a few individuals (scientists and philosophers), who naturally become the leaders of the republic. In this regard, received partial recognition of the Republic of Utopia, Thomas Morus, where he admits that, instead of just listening to the philosophers, the king must be a philosopher. With this, Morus said he understood the negative consequences of advice on the condition that the king receives from philosophers (the counselors). I should say that Plato suggested that if the wise abstain from political activity, reaffirming that the king would be the only true philosopher.

Cannot agree with Morus fully, especially in detail, once we accept as definitive proof of the intelligence of the Republic, and Plato enough to see that only indicates the nature of the correct positions to be filled by individuals its environment (which was mentioned by Morus), and philosophy means being able to identify these individuals through the dialectic of rest (the emphasis is on the political importance of the method developed by Plato). So the obvious conclusion, that went unnoticed for Morus, who was the full realization of the Republic can only be explained as a philosopher or a group of them become leaders in the city-state, which leads us to believe that the implementation This project would result in short term, under a totalitarian state. Therefore, freedom, social mobility guarantees the Platonic Republic is limited to individuals, governments (and citizens of the tutors) who have control of a philosophical method. If the person was able to assimilate and use, would have a position in government.

However, all the criticism raised by the identification of faults in Plato’s Republic, with regard to equality of opportunity and democracy, there is no possibility of seeing some of Plato’s ideas that portray very well a universal truth, as detected with the aid of intuition, because they are involved with the progress of the world and society is a task that involves the permanence of actions to ensure a balance (or medium virtus) of the city-state, which in basic terms, he called and absolute. This is probably the principle of Justice, mentioned by Plato, later defined as stability Cicero by the State.

In the Republic, Book IX, we saw a metaphysical thought explained by a metaphor that is related to the knowledge of the stability of fundamental importance for the understanding of the Platonic Justice. Plato says the tyrannical man, as man of democratic causes, which, once formed, and how is your life, happy or unhappy. By analogy with the division proposed by the study of Democratic Justice, Plato leads (as transcendental condition) which represents himself (as positive) and what her life is a manifestation of ethics (and functional). However, it explains the stability of a clear and rational. The metaphor seems sufficient to maintain the effects of right or wrong behavior. Chimera, Squill, and Cerbère fable with multiple forms of a single body, a body and can be interpreted as representing the State. Plato, projecting a kind of surreal discussion genetics, said that this organism is a species of animal multiform, with many heads, arranged in a circle of animals docile and fierce, and able to change and take everything of him this second Glauco job that requires a skilled sculptor. It seems that when the stability of the key issue will always be more stable than through a government, to bridge the gap between the various behaviors that develop in society, and can also be called a just state. Furthermore, any concern of the Greek philosopher with a system of government adequate for the republican and the second rigid structure of social norms with little or no mobility, combined with an elitist system focused solely on state interests, are questions about existence a principle of stability to ensure the effectiveness Platonic Justice. Not enough to be a State, should be a state fair in the way of the values of the time he eventually supported by an appropriate government established power relations in this society.
In conclusion, we highlight two points.

- The first concerns the dichotomy of law in Plato’s Republic, severely criticized by Kelsen, who denies the Platonic justice – the critical as well as the Vienna Circle, for those who recognize unacceptable.

- The second point is characterized as identified in the work of Plato, an ideal state of stability, based on criteria of justice of a transcendent, especially in regard to citizens, who in a position to participate in the selection for the government of the city-state.

More Democracy Project Articles