Philosophy Report

Compare, contrast, and evaluate Plato and move on the relation between the idiosyncratic and society. Two of the superlative minds in intellectual thought, Plato and Mill living in relatively different times, they both(prenominal) shared the same issues and concerns but with very distinct perspectives. Plato believed that freedom was arbitrator in the soul while Mill was defending freedom within a democracy. Is matchless freedom better than another freedom? Plato tries to show that individual justice mirrors political justice. He believed that the soul of every individual has a three part structure interchangeable to the three classes of society.Plato, beingness an idealist, he believed that his philosophers should be impeccable with knowledge. If performing abortions is lessonly offensive- in a Platonic society that debate wouldnt happen, be typesetters case it would be outright outlawed. So how would we know that it isnt moral? We would never know. And THAT is the kind of s uppression Mill disagrees with- isnt finding out the truth more important than morality? Or is ignorance better than understanding? Mills views in the individual and society completely differ from Platos. Mills view in the individual has the experience and environment that Plato considers unimportant.Mill also believed that a human could develop full potential only by offering the opportunity to define true ability in an individual. He was completely against forcing opinions from ace group onto the other. It was doing injustice to the individual. Mill was for the people. He understood societys struggles when it came to dangerous work stations to where the workers would be paid little to nothing at all. It was an injustice to them to be working so hard and not being appreciated for how hard of an effort workers put into their job. Freedom surely didnt pull through there and Mill strived for that to change.Virtuous and expert rules are possible if and only if the rulers may be philo sophers. Plato absolutely believed normal everyday people had no way in becoming a great leader because only intelligence and expertise is only found in Philosophers. He had the perfect picture of an ideal ruler. He also strictly believed ones abilities portray the certain opportunities given to the philosopher while Mill believed in the complete opposite from that. Each person is of course suited for a certain task. If you are gifted with intelligence, Plato believes it shouldnt be put to waste.For example, you are better off being a Doctor than being a construction worker. The good city is possible when experts are in charge of it. Only two human beings existed in Platos Theory of the Forms The visible world and the intelligible world. Knowledge comes down to having knowledge of the forms. You cannot know what is false. Opinion/belief cannot ever be wrong. Knowledge is about what is real or if you have facts to upgrade whether its true or false. Ignorance is separate from pinio n but is much clearer than ignorance. Its part truth, part ignorance.Mill thinks we should be free to do what we want, unless it doesnt cause harm to society. It would be then, that kind of freedom should be restricted but when can these freedoms be restricted? Should it come to physically harming an individual to their brink of self-destruction? Physical harm and verbal harm play two different roles in society but I definitely believe are both dangerous. On Liberty, Mill makes funs of Plato that anyone can have an ideal society. Mill also defines justice in a variety of ways before making it into one whole thing.