Plato's political utopia as the first social theory. Plato's social utopia. The social meaning of Plato's utopia

Utopia about the ideal state of Plato.

The essence of Plato's work lies in the debate of the six wise men (Cephalus, Socrates, Thrasymachus, Glaucon, Polemarchus and Adimantus) on the question: “What is a state? Is it possible to create such a state that would meet all the aspirations of the people and lead society to prosperity? Plato in this work actually argues with himself, based on the types of states with which he had to get acquainted at that period of time (oligarchic, tyrannical, democratic), putting his words into the sayings of each interlocutor.

Of course, he is entirely on the side of Socrates, but Socrates must win with convincing arguments, inclining the participants in the conversation to his side. Here is how Socrates clearly formulates the need to create a state: “The state arises, as I believe, when each of us cannot satisfy himself, but still needs a lot. Thus, each person attracts first one, then another to satisfy a particular need. In need of many things, many people come together to live together and help each other: such a joint settlement is what we call a state, isn't it? ". Plato defines that the state appears from the division of labor and, in his opinion, should consist of three classes: 1) peasants, artisans and merchants; 2) guards; 3) rulers.

In principle, not a single state has existed and cannot exist without various estates or classes. Whether the merit of Plato is that he discovered this or perhaps took it from Eastern philosophy is unknown.

But at the same time, we know that in the 1st millennium BC. in India there were castes or varnas: 1. Brahmins - priests 2. Kshatriyas - warriors 3. Vaishyas - merchants, artisans, peasants 4. Shudras - workers, servants, slaves. We can say the same about other countries, for example in Japan: shoguns, samurai, etc. Even today, any state can not do without: managers (priests); army and police (warriors); producers of goods, services, housing and household items (artisans); firms and individuals distributing these goods (traders). The fact is that all classes or estates should be in a harmonious and balanced existence with each other - this is the only guarantee of the prosperity and development of any state.

When the balance is disturbed, a disaster occurs. The reason for the destruction and the possibility of preventing the collapse of the state and tries to find Plato in his work. In the words of Socrates, he says that philosophers should govern the state. A person not familiar with the translation will be surprised to imagine a “bespectacled man” with a volume of Kant or Nietzsche under his arm.

At the same time, the word "philosophy" means "love of wisdom", i.e. a manager must love wisdom, otherwise he must be a comprehensively literate, knowledgeable and reasonable person. And how can one disagree with Plato here? Those who are familiar with history can give hundreds of examples of the destruction of states from the mediocre administrations of rulers. Woe, when created by the hands of millions of ancestors, a state built for centuries under such rulers turned into dust in a few years, as if by magic.

If the ruler wanted to fight without measure, then he exhausted the state with human and material resources. After all, the best die in the war - strong, courageous, patriotic. There is no one to work in the fields - hunger, poverty, devastation begin. Wars were often accompanied by severe diseases and epidemics. A very rare community can recover from such cataclysms. If the ruler is a waste, then he will establish such taxes that it will become unprofitable to work and his producers will start to run away to another ruler or pretend that they are working, or they may take up arms. The French Revolution of 1789 actually began with the publication of the budget of the French court by the Minister of Finance.

When the people saw the amount going to amuse the courtiers, they were furious. If the ruler is essentially a merchant, then he will begin to sell off the state, counting the profits in his own pocket, such people do not give a damn about the interests of the whole people.

Therefore, Plato divides people into philosophers, ambitious people and money lovers. With regard to warriors, it is indicated that they should be strong-willed, vigilant and should avoid excessive luxury. Here, too, one cannot but agree. Most likely, Plato wanted to apply the Spartan system of educating warriors in an ideal state. And now we understand that a warrior must be a physically strong person, with a controlled self-preservation instinct, with persistent training, developing military skills in himself. Naturally, these people should be well maintained by the state and under its vigilant eye. They must have a high sense of responsibility for the security of their state and be patriots.

And are there no such examples in national history? Let's remember Kadetism in pre-revolutionary Russia, Suvorov Schools, Cossack formations. A well-bred, trained, well-equipped warrior from childhood is a true defender of the state. Does it make sense to draft everyone into the army? How many young scientists, inventors, musicians have been ruined and crippled during wars and conflicts in Russia since 1941? At the same time, we know about the actions of units of the "Alpha" type, when for hundreds of killed opponents the retribution was only 3-5 people. Returning to Greek history, one can recall how the Spartan king Agesilaus answered the Theban commander Epaminondas when asked why the Spartans always put up much fewer soldiers against an external enemy than the rest of the Greek policies.

Agesilaus told him that your troops consisted of shoemakers, potters, farmers, and only Spartans were professional warriors.

Epaminondas took this answer into account and began to intensively train his army. In the Battle of Leucrah (371 BC), using the new “oblique wedge” formation, the Thebans defeated the Spartan army and their allies. More than 1000 Spartans and their king Cleombrotus perished. Sparta never knew such a defeat of the army. We often say among ourselves that the state should be fair, but our grandparents, and our parents, and we now and all thinkers of all ages throughout the existence of mankind say that the time in which they lived is unfair and unworthy.

Therefore, hypocritically speaking about justice and injustice, Isn’t Thrasymachus right when he says about the state “Justice, I affirm, is what suits the strongest. In every state, the one who is in power has the power.

Every power establishes laws in its own favor: democracy - democratic laws, tyranny - tyrannical, as well as in other cases. Having established the laws, they declare them fair for the subject - this is exactly what is useful to the authorities, and the one who transgresses them is punished as a violator of laws and justice. So I say, most venerable Socrates: in all states the same thing is considered justice, namely, what is suitable for the existing government. Well, how can you argue! Here is a phrase that blows all thoughts about an ideal state to smithereens! Really.

There was autocratic Russia, where power was in the hands of the aristocracy, the revolution did not like it. The Soviet government praised itself, there is nowhere else to go. Under the auspices of the movement towards a brighter future and the moral code of the builder of communism, the 58th execution article was introduced into the legislation and millions were ruined. In 1991-93, to introduce democracy, they shot and killed fellow citizens. They deceived the people during privatization, created “air sellers” by giving resources into private hands, etc. and so on. And everything is legal, the mosquito will not undermine the nose.

So where is this virus that is destroying states? Why is it impossible to create an ideal state? It would seem that everything is so simple. There is a community of people: the first - wisely govern the state (priests), it is impossible to get into this caste just like that, it is necessary to pass the most difficult exams for the flexibility of the mind; the second - magnificent warriors, from generation to generation passing on military skill and art, standing with their breasts in defense of the fatherland; the third are excellent artisans, supplying goods, tools of labor and military affairs to fellow tribesmen; fourth - successfully sell goods not only within the state, but also outside it, spreading the glory of the craft of their native country around the world. Why not an ideal state? Meanwhile, more than one country ancient world, and the Middle Ages, and later experienced such an upsurge.

And this happened, oddly enough, precisely under the conditions of the ideal state of Plato.

Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Persia all had worthy rulers under whom the flowering of the state began. Later, Rome, the Arab Caliphate, the Golden Horde, the Ottoman Empire, Peter's Russia, England, France, Germany - everywhere the impetus for development was wise rule and the revitalization of society. Where the laws established by the “wise men” lasted the longest, the society lived in prosperity for the longest time. So, where is the rust that devours the state? Plato knew the reasons.

A person is, first of all, a pragmatist, therefore the desire for laziness, bliss, pleasures is not alien to him. Life is desires, the desire to satisfy desires leads to seven sins, and "he who is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at me." Desire, reason and passion are the three faculties of the human soul. For about four hundred years, the Spartans did not violate the laws of Lycurgus. They did not pursue the enemy when he fled the battlefield, did not loot, did not wear gold jewelry, did not invade foreign lands for no reason and for enrichment. Lysander broke the laws of Lycurgus by tasting the forbidden fruit of luxury and wealth.

From the moment of the occupation of the Greek states under him, the gradual decomposition of Sparta began. While Athens waged a defensive war against Persia, creating the First Athenian Union on the voluntary unification of the Greek policies, everything went fine. But as soon as Athens began to pursue a policy of squeezing money in relation to policies, this served as an impetus for the “beginning of the end” of Athenian democracy.

The Persian wars and the Peloponnesian war completed the decay of society and the decline of morals in the state. But almost at that time in Rome, the laws of Oppius forbade women to wear jewelry, all comedians were put out of the gate, a law on luxury was issued. By the way, the father of the future emperor Sulla, who was convicted, fell under him. His "luxury" exceeded 10 pounds of silver. And then there were the so-called Lucullus feasts, Sallust's letters to Caesar (who spat on them, in fact, he paid for it) about the decline in morals in Roman society and an almost thirty-year civil war.

So, it becomes clear that the human ego, the desire for a sweet life, undermines the foundations of the state. The appearance of "extra" money, the ostentatious wealth of some and the poverty of the other side of society leads to the collapse, and then the complete cessation of the existence of the state. The personal begins to prevail over the public, patriotism is seen as something insignificant. Why do you need to go to fight for the "oligarch"? The companions of luxury and wealth - debauchery and the decline of morality in society complete the fall of the state.

Then it is conquered by the stronger this moment time state and the process is repeated. Man, unfortunately, does not learn the lessons of history. His life is relatively short and he strives to take everything from it whenever possible. Statesmen are the same people with their weaknesses. The skillful monetary policy of the Persians during the Peloponnesian War (helping one side or the other) completely weakened Athenian Greece and prepared it first for conquest by the Spartans, and then by the Macedonians.

The Americans are doing the same. They quickly realized that it is always better to buy one ruler than to conquer the whole country. By bribing the top officials of states and creating "banana republics", American politicians open the way for easy penetration of their capital into these countries. By 245 B.C. (reign of King Agis) Sparta was a miserable state and had only 700 citizens.

Rome soon conquered all of Greece. And then it was Rome's turn. Luxury, depravity, the fall of moral standards ruined the great state. But let's return to the ancient Greek policies and try to analyze the reasons for the collapse of the democratic state of Athens and the oligarchic Sparta. 4.

End of work -

This topic belongs to:

Political views of the ancient Greeks

Settlement of the Greeks along the shores of the Mediterranean and Black Seas (Great Greek colonization). 3. The classical period of Greek history (V-IV centuries BC.. It was the third period that has always been of interest for the study of historians.. Studying, the author of this essay deliberately did not study all three issues of the topic of political ideas of the ancient Greeks..

If you need additional material on this topic, or you did not find what you were looking for, we recommend using the search in our database of works:

What will we do with the received material:

If this material turned out to be useful for you, you can save it to your page on social networks:

Platonic ethics is originally a development of the ethics of Socrates. Plato's ethics is built on the recognition of the unity of command of the world. According to Plato, everything that exists has one beginning, and not two, as Empedocles believed, and not countless, as the Epicureans thought; this beginning is not a body, as the Stoics believed, but incorporeal; and being incorporeal, it is not life - otherwise only living things would exist - and it is also neither soul, nor mind, nor being, since all these assumptions lead to similar absurd conclusions; this beginning is one, which Plato also calls good.

He believed that the most precious and greatest good is not easy to find, and once found, it is difficult to explain to everyone. This he stated in the conversation "On the Good" to his chosen and especially close disciples. As for the human good, it is clear to the attentive reader of his writings that he considers it science and the contemplation of the first good, which can be defined as God and the first mind. plato philosopher idea epistemology

Everything that is considered a human good deserves such a name to the extent of its participation in the first and most precious good. In us, a kind of semblance of it is the mind and the faculty of reason, by virtue of which our good is so good, sublime, attractive, proportionate and divine. As for the rest of the so-called goods, such as health, beauty, strength, wealth, and the like for the majority, then all this is not unconditionally a good, but only when the use of this is inseparable from virtue, without which it remains only in the category of material things and, if used badly, turns out to be evil; in this case, Plato calls all these corruptible goods.

Plato does not include happiness among the benefits available to a person: the latter is available to a deity, and to people - only in the form of afterlife bliss. That is why Plato says that essentially philosophical souls are filled with great and wonderful things, and after renunciation of the body, they become companions of the gods and contemplate the meadow of truth, since even during their lifetime they desire knowledge of it and above all they value striving for it. Thanks to this, they, as it were, purify and restore a certain vision of the soul, dimmed and weakened, which, however, should be protected more than a thousand bodily eyes, and are able to ascend to everything rational. And the unreasonable, according to Plato, are like the inhabitants of underground caves who have never seen a clear light: they see some obscure shadows of our bodies and think that this is a true comprehension of being. And just as those, having got out of the darkness and found themselves in the pure light, understandably change their opinion about what they saw before, and first of all understand their own delusion, in the same way the unreasonable ones, having passed from the darkness of this life to the truly divine and beautiful, begin to despise what they once admired, and are filled with an irresistible desire to contemplate what is there, for only there the beautiful is identical with the good and virtue is sufficient for happiness. That the good is the knowledge of the first and that this is the beautiful, Plato explains in all his writings.

When a certain separate thing, not participating in the essence of the first good, is also called good by misunderstanding, the possession of it, says Plato in Euthydemus, is the greatest evil.

His proposition that the virtues are beneficent in themselves must be understood as a conclusion from his proposition about the beautiful as the only good: he speaks about this in great detail and best of all in the Republic, in all the books of this dialogue. The owner of the knowledge that was discussed above is a great success and a lucky man, and not only in the case when he is honored and rewarded for this, but even when none of the people know this and he is haunted by so-called troubles: dishonor, exile, death. And one who possesses all that is considered good - wealth, power over a great kingdom, strong bodily health and beauty, but is deprived of that knowledge, is by no means happier than him.

From all this, Plato's position naturally follows that the goal is to become as close as possible to a deity. He expresses it in different ways. Sometimes he says that to become like a deity means to be reasonable, just and pious - so in Theaetetus. Therefore, we must strive to run from here to there as quickly as possible: flight means as much as possible likeness to a deity, and likeness lies in that. to become just and godly through meditation. He may confine himself to justice, as in the last book of The State; in fact, the gods will not leave with their care the one who is devoted to the desire to become just and, to the best of human strength, become like a god, leading a virtuous life.

Virtue is a divine thing, which is the perfect and best disposition of the soul, thanks to which a person acquires goodness, balance and solidity in speech and deeds, both in himself and from the point of view of others. The following virtues are distinguished: the virtues of the mind and those that oppose the unreasonable part of the soul, such as courage and restraint; of these, courage is opposed to ardor, temperance to lust. Since reason, ardor and lust are different, their perfection is also different: the perfection of the rational part is prudence, the ardent part is courage, the lustful part is restraint.

Prudence is the knowledge of good and evil, and also of that which is neither one nor the other. Temperance is the ordering of passions and inclinations and the ability to subordinate them to the leading principle, which is the mind. When we call temperance orderliness and the ability to subdue, we represent something like a certain ability, under the influence of which the impulses are ordered and subordinated to the natural leading principle, that is, reason. Courage is the preservation of the idea of ​​duty in the face of danger and without it, that is, a certain ability to maintain the idea of ​​duty. Justice is a kind of harmony of the named virtues with each other, a faculty by which the three parts of the soul are reconciled and come to an agreement, each taking a place corresponding and proper to its dignity. Thus, justice contains the fullness of the perfection of the three virtues: prudence, courage and temperance. Reason rules, and the other parts of the soul, suitably ordered by reason, are subject to it; therefore the proposition that the virtues mutually complement each other is correct. Indeed, courage, being the preservation of the idea of ​​duty, also preserves the correct concept, since the idea of ​​duty is a certain correct concept; and the right concept arises from rationality. In turn, rationality is also connected with courage: after all, it is the knowledge of the good, and no one can see where the good is if he looks, obeying cowardice and other passions associated with it. Similarly, an unbridled person and, in general, one who, overcome by this or that passion, does something contrary to the correct concept, cannot be rational. Plato considers this the effect of ignorance and unreason; that is why one who is unbridled and cowardly cannot be reasonable. So the perfect virtues are inseparable from each other.

Virtues can also be spoken of in another sense, calling, for example, giftedness or successes leading to virtue by the same name as perfect virtues, by resemblance to them. This is how courageous warriors are called, and sometimes it is said that some are brave, although they are foolish. Obviously, perfect virtues do not increase or decrease, but vices can be stronger and weaker, for example, this one is more unreasonable or more unjust than that one. But at the same time, vices are not interconnected with each other, since some contradict others and cannot be combined in the same person. So, insolence contradicts cowardice, extravagance - stinginess; moreover, there cannot be a person possessed by all vices, just as there cannot be a body that has all bodily defects in itself.

Still, a certain intermediate state between licentiousness and moral strictness should be allowed, since not all people are either impeccably strict or licentious. Such are those who are content with certain advances in the moral field. But it is indeed not easy to pass from vice to virtue: the distance between these extremes is great and difficult to overcome.

Of the virtues, some must be considered the main ones, and others - secondary; the main ones are connected with the rational principle, from which the rest receive perfection, and the secondary ones - with the sensual. These latter lead to the beautiful thanks to the mind, and not by themselves, since they themselves do not possess the mind, but receive it thanks to the rationality with an appropriate lifestyle and upbringing. And since neither knowledge nor art can be formed in any other part of the soul than the rational, it turns out to be impossible to teach the virtues associated with sensibility, since they are not arts and not knowledge and do not have their own subject. Therefore, rationality, being knowledge, determines what is characteristic of each virtue, like a helmsman, prompting rowers what they do not see; and the oarsmen obey him, just as a warrior obeys a general.

Viciousness may be greater or lesser, and the crimes are not the same, and some are greater, others lesser; therefore it is right that the legislators give them sometimes more, sometimes less punishment. And although the virtues are, of course, something limiting by virtue of their perfection and resemblance to justice, they can be considered from another point of view as something in between, since if not each, then most of them correspond to two vices, one of which is associated with excess, and the other with deficiency; for example, generosity is opposite: on the one hand - pettiness, and on the other - extravagance.

But so is virtue, since it is also something that is in our will and is not subject to anything. In fact, decency would not be something laudable if it arose from nature or was inherited from God. Virtue must be something voluntary, because it arises from some ardent, noble and persistent aspiration.

Friendship in the highest and proper sense is nothing but a feeling arising from relative position. It appears in the case when each of the two wants the loved one and he himself to be equally prosperous. This equality is preserved only when both have a similar disposition, since like is friendly to like as proportionate, while disproportionate objects cannot be in agreement either with the other, or with proportionate objects.

Kind of friendship is also a feeling of love. Love is noble - in the souls of exacting, low - in the souls of vicious and average - in the souls of mediocre people. Since the soul of a reasonable person is of three categories - good, worthless and average, therefore there are three types of love attraction. Most of all, the difference between these three kinds of love can be judged on the basis of the difference in their objects. Low love is directed only at the body and is subordinated to the feeling of pleasure, therefore there is something bestial in it; the object of noble love is a pure soul, in which its disposition to virtue is valued; the average love is directed both to the body and to the soul, because it is attracted by both the body and the beauty of the soul.

The state has always been in the center of Plato's attention. Plato says that among the states, some are ideal - he considered them in the "State", which first describes a state that does not wage wars, and then - filled with militant fervor, and Plato explores which of them is better and how it can be implemented. Like the soul, the state is also divided into three parts: guards, warriors and artisans. To some he entrusts management and power, to others - military protection if necessary (they should be correlated with the ardent beginning, which is, as it were, in alliance with the rational beginning), the third are engaged in crafts and other productive labor. He believes that philosophers and contemplators of the first good should have power.

Civic virtue is both theoretical and practical; it includes the ability to ensure prosperity, happiness, unanimity and harmony in the city; being the art of ordering, it has under its control the military, general and judicial arts, and besides, it is busy considering a thousand other cases, in particular, determining whether to wage war or not.

Thus, the ethical permeates all of Plato's philosophical work. Ethical ideas are inseparable from psychological, political, epistemological ones. The difficulty of analyzing the ethical content of dialogues is revealed in the next chapter.

Based on the foregoing, the following summary conclusions can be drawn:

• - according to Plato, in order to achieve the goals of education and enlightenment, it is necessary to develop a practical philosophy, including political, ethical and psychological ideas;
• - The theory of ideas - the basis of Plato's philosophy;
• - Platonic ideas can be "felt" with the mind's eye. The Greeks believed that with the eyes one could think, and with the mind one could see;
• - Matter by itself does not generate anything. She is only a "nurse", a recipient of ideas;
• - the highest of ideas, according to Plato, the idea of ​​Good or Good. She is the beginning of all beginnings;
• - the thinker's moral outlook developed from "naive eudemonism" as a striving for happiness, bliss;
• - the transitional and mature period in Plato's work is characterized by the transition to the idea of ​​absolute morality;
• - Almost all of Plato's dialogues allow ethical reading.

To understand Plato, you need to have some knowledge of Sparta. Sparta had a double influence on Greek philosophy: through its reality and through myth. Both are important. According to the state structure of Sparta, there should not have been either the needy or the rich. It was believed that everyone should live on the products from his site, which he could not alienate, with the exception of the right to donate it. No one was allowed to have gold or silver; money was made of iron. Spartan simplicity has become proverbial.

The state structure of Sparta was complex. There were two kings, belonging to two different families, and their power was inherited. One of the kings commanded the army during the war, but during the peace their power was limited. The kings were members of the council of elders. The Council of Elders decided criminal cases and prepared questions for consideration at the meeting. The assembly consisted of all citizens; it could not take the initiative in anything, but could vote "for" or "against" any proposal made. No law could come into force without the consent of the assembly. Elders and officials had to proclaim their decision in order for the law to become valid.

In addition to the kings, the council of elders, and the assembly, there was a fourth branch of government that was exclusive to Sparta. These were five ephors. The ephors were the "democratic" element in the government of Sparta. Every month, the kings swore an oath that they would support the state system of Sparta, and the ephors then swore to support the kings as long as they were true to their oath. When one of the kings went to war, he was accompanied by two ephors to observe his behavior. The ephors were the highest civil court, but they had criminal jurisdiction over kings.

The only occupation of a citizen of Sparta was the war, for which he was prepared from birth. Sickly children, after being examined by their elders, were put to death; only those children who were recognized as healthy were allowed to raise. All the boys were taught in one big school until they were twenty years old; the purpose of the training was to make them bold, indifferent to pain, and disciplined. There was no nonsense in Sparta about cultural or scientific education; the sole purpose was to train good soldiers wholly devoted to the state.

The girls received the same physical training as the boys. “Girls had to run, wrestle, throw a discus, throw spears to strengthen the body, so that their future children would be strong in body in the very womb of their healthy mother, so that their development would be correct and so that the mothers themselves could be relieved from the burden successfully and easily thanks to the strength of their bodies ... ". Women were not allowed to show any emotions that were unfavorable to the state. They could express contempt for a coward, and they were praised if it was their son; but they could not show their grief if their newborn child was sentenced to death as weak, or if their sons were killed in battle. The rest of the Greeks considered the Spartans to be exceptionally chaste. At the same time, a childless married woman should not have objected if the state ordered her to see if any other man would be more successful than her husband in producing new citizens. Legislation encouraged the birth of children.

One of the reasons other Greeks admired Sparta was her resilience. The Spartan state structure remained unchanged for centuries, except for the gradual increase in the power of the ephors, which took place legally, without violence. It cannot be denied that over a long period of time the Spartans were successful in achieving their main goal - in educating a people of invincible warriors.

The influence of Sparta on Plato is quite evident from the description of his Utopia. There are forms of government in which, according to Plato, laws operate. These are monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. But there are also forms where laws are violated and not enforced. This is tyranny, oligarchy. Plato was deeply disappointed by the collapse of ancient society and the policies of the existing authorities. Therefore, he creates a kind of utopia about the best state structure.

Plato's most important dialogue, The Republic, consists of three parts. The first part discusses the question of building an ideal state. In the dialogue "State" he divides people into three estates. The lowest include peasants, artisans, merchants who provide for the material needs of people. The second estate is made up of guards (warriors). Philosophers rule. This is the upper class in Plato's utopia. The transition from one class to another is almost impossible. It turns out that some people only manage, others only protect and protect, and still others only work. For Plato, who lives in a slave-owning state, the presence of slavery is natural.

One of the conclusions drawn in this part is that rulers must be philosophers, must have political power. There should be considerably fewer Guardians than the people belonging to the first two classes.

The main problem, according to Plato, is to ensure that the guards carry out the intentions of the legislator. To this end, he introduces different offers relating to education, economics, biology and religion. Until a certain age, youth should not see unpleasant things or vice. But at the appropriate moment they should be subjected to "seductions", both in the form of horrors, which should not frighten, and in the form of bad pleasures, which should not seduce. When they pass these tests, they will be considered fit to become guardians.

Guardians should have small houses, and eat simple food; they must live as in a camp, dining in communal canteens; they must not have private property except what is absolutely necessary. Gold and silver should be banned. The entire routine and framework of the life of the guards is aimed at protecting them from the destructive influence of personal property and, first of all, from the evil, pernicious influence of money, gold and other precious metals. Everything that is necessary for the soldiers to fulfill their duties, they must receive from the workers of productive labor who produce products, things and tools, and, moreover, in quantities neither too small nor too large. Soldiers can use only what is minimally necessary for life, health and to perform their functions in the state. Although they are not rich, nothing prevents them from being happy; the goal of the city is the happiness of the whole city, and not the happiness of one class. Both wealth and poverty are harmful, and in the city of Plato there will be neither one nor the other. There is a curious argument about war: it will be easy to acquire allies, since such a city will not want to take any share of the spoils of war.

Women must be equal in all respects with men. The same upbringing that makes men good watchmen will make women good watchmen. “In relation to the protection of the state, the nature of a woman and a man is the same ...”. The forces of nature are equally diffused in both living beings: by nature, the woman is involved in all affairs, and the man is in everything; but the woman is weaker than the man in every way. From the ability of women, along with men, to be in the category, or class, of the guards, Plato deduces that the best wives for male guards will be women guards. Undoubtedly, there are differences between men and women, but they have nothing to do with politics. Some of the women are philosophic and fit as guards, some of the women are belligerent and would make good warriors.

The legislator, having chosen certain men and women as guardians, will order that they live in common houses and eat at a common table. Due to the constant meetings of male and female warriors at common gymnastic and military exercises, as well as at common meals, a completely natural mutual attraction will constantly arise between men and women. However, in the city - a military camp, which is the ideal state of Plato, not a family is possible, but only a union of a man with a woman for the birth of children. This is also a "marriage", but peculiar, not capable of leading to the formation of a family. These "marriages" are secretly directed and arranged by the rulers of the state, who strive to combine the best with the best, and the worst with the worst.

Marriage will be radically transformed. At certain festivals, brides and grooms will be joined, as they are taught to believe, supposedly by lot, in such number as is necessary to maintain a constant population; but in reality the rulers of the city will manipulate the lot according to eugenic principles. "All these women should be common to all these men, none should live privately with any." They will arrange for the best sires to have the most children. All male guards are considered the fathers of all children, and all women are the common wives of all guards.

All children will be taken away from their parents after birth, and serious precautions will be taken so that parents do not know which children are their children, and children should not know who their parents are. After some time, young mothers are allowed to feed their babies, but at this time they no longer know which children are born by them, and which by other women. Since the child does not know who his parents are, he must call "father" every man who, by age, might be his father; it also applies to "mother", "brother", "sister".

Handicapped children and children of the worst parents "will be hidden properly in a secret and unknown place." Children born from unions not sanctioned by the state should be considered illegitimate. Mothers must be between the ages of twenty and forty, fathers between twenty-five and fifty-five. Outside this age, intercourse between the sexes should be free, but abortion or infanticide is compulsory. Against "marriages" arranged by the state, the interested parties have no right to object; they should be guided by the thought of their duty to the State, and not by any ordinary sentiments that exiled poets used to glorify.

It is assumed that the feelings currently associated with the words "father", "mother", "son" and "daughter" will still be associated with them under the new orders established by Plato; for example, a young man will not beat an old man because that old man could be his father.

The main idea is, of course, to minimize private ownership and thus remove the obstacles to the dominance of the public spirit, as well as to ensure tacit acceptance of the absence of private property.

In the developed Platonic project - utopias - the moral principle comes to the fore. In Plato's theory of the state, morality not only corresponds to the philosophical idealism of Plato's system. Being idealistic, morality becomes ascetic.

Justice consists in each doing his own work and not interfering in the affairs of others: the city is just when the merchant, mercenary, and guard each do their own work without interfering with the work of other classes. The first definition of "justice" offered at the beginning of "The Republic" is that it consists in the payment of debts. Justice, as Plato says, consists in each man doing his own work. His work must be determined either according to his own tastes, or on the basis of the state's judgment of his abilities. But some types of work, although requiring high skill, may be considered harmful. Therefore, it is an important task for government to define what a person's job is. Despite the fact that all rulers must be philosophers, there must be no innovation: a philosopher must always be a person who understands Plato and agrees with him.

Organizers the best state(i.e. rulers-philosophers) should not only take care of the correct education of guardian warriors. In addition, they must establish an order in which the very arrangement of dwellings and the very rights to property benefits could not become an obstacle either to the high moral life of soldiers, or to the performance of their service, or to their proper attitude towards people of their own and other classes of society. The main features of this order are the deprivation of the soldiers of the right to their own property.

For Plato, the implementation of this postulate means the achievement of the highest form of unity in the state. The community of wives and children, in the class of guardians of the state, completes what was begun by the community of property, and therefore there is a reason for the state for its highest good: “Do we have any greater evil for the state than that which separates it and makes many states out of it, instead of one, or more good than that which binds it and makes it one?” Any difference of feelings destroys the unity of the state. This happens, “when in the state some people say: “this is mine”, and others “this is not mine”. On the contrary, in a perfect state, “the majority of people in relation to the same thing say in the same way: “this is mine”, or “this is not mine”.

The community of property, the absence of personal property, the impossibility of its occurrence, preservation and increase makes it impossible for the emergence of legal property litigation and mutual accusations. The absence of strife within the warrior-guardian class will, in turn, make it impossible for any strife within lower class workers, nor their revolt against both upper classes.

Plato depicts in the most iridescent colors the blissful life of the classes of this society, especially the warrior guards. Their life is more beautiful than the life of the winners in the Olympic competitions. And this is understandable. The victory of the guards is the salvation of the entire state. The maintenance that they receive as payment for their activities in the protection of society is given to themselves and their children. Revered during their lifetime, they are honored by the state with an honorable burial after death.

The second extensive project of the transformed state was the project developed by Plato in the "Laws". Compared with the state depicted in Politia, it is less perfect, and its author is more lenient or more realistic, more inclined to succumb to the inevitable weaknesses and shortcomings of the human race. An important difference between the "Laws" and the "State" ("Politia") is in the interpretation of the issue of slaves. The project of the "State" class of slaves, as one of the main classes ideal society, not provided. The complete denial of personal property for rulers and guardians excludes the possibility of owning slaves. However, in the "State" in some places it is said about the right to turn the defeated in the war into slaves. In the "Laws", in contrast to the "State", the economic activity necessary for the existence of the policy is assigned to slaves or foreigners. The insignificance of slavery in the utopia of the "State" is emphasized by another circumstance. Since, according to The State, the only source of slavery is the conversion of prisoners of war into slaves, the number of slave cadres must obviously depend on the intensity and frequency of the wars waged by the state. But, according to Plato, war is an evil that should be avoided in a well-organized state. “All wars,” says Plato in the Phaedo, “are kindled for the sake of acquiring property.” Only a society that wants to live in luxury soon becomes cramped on its own land, and it is forced to strive for the forcible seizure of land from its neighbors. And only to protect the state from the aggression of people overwhelmed by a passion for material acquisitions, he has to keep a large army trained in military affairs.

War is especially sharply condemned in the Laws. Here war as the goal of the state is rejected. He argues that the organizer of a perfect state and its legislator should not establish laws relating to peace, "for the sake of war", but, on the contrary, "laws regarding war, for the sake of peace."

There are a number of features in Plato's utopia that, at first glance, seem extremely modern. This is the denial of personal property for the class of warrior-guards, the organization of their supply and nutrition, a sharp criticism of the acquisitiveness of money, gold and valuables in general, criticism of trade and commercial speculation, the idea of ​​the need for the indestructible unity of society and the complete unanimity of all its members, the idea of ​​the need to educate citizens in moral qualities that can lead them to this unity and unanimity.

Plato associated the feasibility of his projects with one most important condition: when true philosophers become the rulers of the state. But, as his experience showed, it is difficult for philosophers to combine their activities with life in a state corrupted by vices, and it, in turn, rejects them. What could the state of Plato achieve? - the answer will be rather banal. It will succeed in wars against states of roughly equal population, and provide a livelihood for a small number of people. Due to its inertia, it will almost certainly not create either art or science. In this respect, as in others, it will be like Sparta. Despite all the beautiful words, all it will achieve is the ability to fight and enough food.

Plato believed that the best that the art of statecraft could achieve was to avoid such evils as famine and military defeat.

Any utopia, if it is seriously conceived, must embody, obviously, the ideals of its creator. The ancient Greek philosopher is essentially trying to restore the classical polis. In his utopia everything is sacrificed to the idea, in this society there is no movement, no development.

Plato is convinced that goodness exists and that its nature can be comprehended. When people disagree on this, one, at any rate, commits an intellectual error, just as in the case of a scientific disagreement on any question of fact.

Plato's state, in contrast to modern utopias, was conceived in order to put it into practice. Many of his suggestions were actually implemented in Sparta. Pythagoras tried to enforce the rule of the philosophers, and in Plato's time the Pythagorean Archytas was politically influential in Taras (modern Taranto) when Plato visited Sicily and southern Italy. It was common practice for cities to use some kind of sage to create their laws. Solon did it for Athens, and Protagoras did it for Furia. In those days, the colonies were completely free from the control of their metropolitan cities, and a group of Platonists might well have established a Platonic state on the coasts of Spain or Gaul. Unfortunately, fate brought Plato to Syracuse, a great trading city, which was busy with hopeless wars with Carthage; in such an environment no philosopher could achieve much. In the next generation, the rise of Macedonia made all small states obsolete and all miniature political experiments utterly fruitless.

The ideal state of Plato is striking in its meticulous regulation of all moments of human life. This is a barracks state. Plato naively believed that his ideal state would help overcome those imperfect forms of government that he observed in ancient society.

Plato was an opponent of democracy. He did not like timocracy, oligarchy, tyranny. He believed that they perverted the ideas of an ideal state. Under such forms of government, the state is, as it were, divided into two hostile camps - the poor and the rich. According to Plato, private property brings discord, violence, coercion, greed among citizens.

Plato believed that his ideal state overcomes all the imperfections of previous reigns. A person has three principles that overcome him: philosophical, ambitious and money-loving. Therefore, not everyone can govern the state, but only those who care more about truth and knowledge. In the utopian state of Plato, philosophers and sages rule. Everywhere the law prevails, everyone obeys it. If someone breaks the law, he is punished. The ruler has the right "to sentence one to death, the other to beatings and prison, the third to deprivation of civil rights, while punishing others by taking away property to the treasury and exile."

Religion and morality in this state follows more from the law than from faith in God. This is a state in which there is a violent land equation. People are divided into categories according to the division of social labor. Some get food for citizens, others build dwellings, others make tools, fourth are engaged in transportation, fifth trade, sixth serve the citizens of an ideal state. Slaves Plato does not take into account, because for him they are a given, which Plato does not dispute. This ideal state is ruled by sages who are specially trained and prepared for such activities.

These are the main ideas of Plato's social utopia, which was called the harbinger of utopian socialism. Although Plato's ideas about the state in the history of philosophy were revised more than once, they nourished many philosophical reflections and influenced the political organization of society in subsequent generations. And his idea of ​​advantage general interest over the private was further developed in subsequent philosophical teachings.

There are two versions of the origin of the word utopia. This is a place, according to the first of them, which does not exist (u - no, topos - place, Greek). And according to the second - a blessed country (eu - good, topos - place). The term itself was first used in the title of the book by T. More. Subsequently, it became a household name, denoting various fictional countries with ideal and unrealistic plans contained in essays and treatises on various social transformations.

Utopia is an expression of the interests of certain social strata, which, as a rule, are not in power. It performs important cognitive, educational and ideological functions. Often served as a form of expression of revolutionary ideology.

Also, utopia is a kind of comprehension of the social ideal, attempts to anticipate the future, criticism of the existing system. In the Renaissance, it was expressed in the description of perfect states, which seemed to exist somewhere or existed earlier. It received its distribution in ancient and (works, as well as among the peoples of the Middle and Near East (Ibn Baja, Al-Farabi).

In the 17th and 18th centuries, utopian tracts were circulated, as well as projects for political and social reforms. And since the middle of the 19th century, utopia has become a specific genre of literature about the problem and the social ideal. Many utopian works in the 20th century were written by G. Wells.

In the broadest sense, a utopia is a certain universal scheme, which, according to its supporters, will help resolve the contradictions existing in society. It is characterized by: anti-historicism, a tendency to formalism, detachment from reality, an exaggerated role of education and legislation, hope for the support of those in power.

As an opposition, there is a dystopia that calls for the rejection of the social ideal and reconciliation with the existing system in the state in order to avoid a worse future. Often, dystopia is expressed in the fact that it depicts the social ideals of opponents (often in caricature form).

Plato's social utopia is one of the first concepts of its kind. According to his theory, the state is a conscious enhancement, a concentration of justice and beauty. In order to achieve this, people must perform strictly defined functions that correspond to the properties of their soul and natural abilities.

The soul includes three components - volitional, rational and affective. Depending on the predominance of certain parts, the distribution of state functions takes place. The strong-willed part of the soul prevails among the warriors who protect the population from enemies. The reasonable part is for philosophers who are engaged in government. Affective - among the peasants and artisans engaged in material production and providing the state with the necessary products.

Social utopia, according to Plato, is based on the fact that as a result of assigning virtues to each class (soldiers have courage, rulers have wisdom, artisans and peasants have moderation) and thanks to the existing rigid hierarchy in the state, the highest virtue is realized - justice, leading to harmony. Thus, the interests of the individual are sacrificed in the name of the common good.

Currently, the concept of utopia carries a number of positive aspects. In particular, it makes it possible to assume what will happen in the future, as well as to avoid a number of negative social consequences of people's activities. It has not lost its significance in many fantastic literary works.

Plato's Utopia

In the history of political doctrines, Plato's utopia is one of the most famous. It, like any utopia, at the same time represents a reflection of a number of real features of Plato's contemporary states, such as Egypt, and a criticism of a number of shortcomings of Greek policies, and an ideal type of hostel recommended instead of those rejected.

The state of Plato is led, as in the oligarchy, by a few. But unlike the oligarchy, where the rulers are by no means the most gifted or the best prepared, in the state of Plato, only persons who are able to manage the state well can become rulers: firstly, by virtue of natural inclinations; secondly, due to many years of preliminary preparation.

The basic principle of the ideal state structure Plato thinks justice. But how to decipher this abstract concept as applied to the state and to the activity of a citizen in society? Looking closely at this concept, we see how Plato fills it with economic, political and social content.

According to Plato, each citizen of the state "justice" assigns a special occupation and a special position. The dominance of "justice" unites the diverse and even heterogeneous parts of the state into a harmonious whole.

The best state system should, according to Plato, have a number of features of moral, economic and political organization which in their united action would be able to provide the state with the solution of the most important tasks. Such a state, firstly, must have the strength of its own organization and the means of its protection, sufficient to deter and repel a hostile environment; secondly, it must carry out a systematic and sufficient supply of all members of society with the necessary material goods; thirdly, it must guide spiritual activity and creativity. The fulfillment of all these three tasks would mean the realization of the "idea of ​​the good" as the highest idea that rules the world.

In Plato's utopian state, the types of work necessary for society are divided between special ranks citizens, but in general form a harmonious combination.

As a basis for the distribution of citizens of the state by category, Plato took the differences between individual groups of people according to their moral inclinations and properties. However, Plato considers these differences by analogy with the division of productive labor. It is in the division of labor that Plato sees the foundation of all contemporary social and political system. He explores and origin specialization existing in society, and compound available in it industries.

Marx highly appreciated Plato's analysis of the division of labor. He directly calls "brilliant" for that time "Plato's depiction of the division of labor as the natural basis of the city (which among the Greeks was identical with the state)" (2, p. 239).

At the same time, the main idea of ​​​​Plato is the assertion that the needs of the citizens that make up society, varied, but the ability of each individual to meet these needs limited. “Each of us,” says Plato, “is for himself, insufficient and needs many” ( Plato, State, II, 369 B). From here, the need for the emergence of a hostel, or “city” is directly derived: “When one of us accepts others, either for one or another need; when, having a need for many things, we dispose of many cohabitants and helpers for cohabitation - then this cohabitation receives the name “city” from us” (ibid., II, 369 C).

For Plato in the highest degree It is characteristic that he considers the significance of the division of labor in society not from the point of view of worker producing the product, but exclusively from the point of view of consumers belonging in the Greek policy to slave class. According to Marx, Plato's main proposition is that "the worker must adapt to the work, and not the work to the worker" (1, p. 378). Each thing, according to Plato, is produced easier, better and in greater quantity, “when one person, doing only one thing, does according to his nature, at a favorable time, leaving all other occupations” ( Plato, State, II, 37 °C).

This point of view, which Marx calls the "point of view of use value" (1, p. 378), leads Plato to the fact that he sees in the division of labor not only "the basis of the division of society into classes" (ibid., p. 379), but also "the basic principle of the structure of the state" (ibid.).

What real the source of this view of Plato? Observation what society, Which public Was it really suggested or suggested to Plato?

Marx showed that the source of the Platonic state was his observations of social order modern Plato Egypt, made by him during his stay in Egypt. Marx also showed that Plato's ideal state “represents only the Athenian idealization of the Egyptian caste system; Egypt and for other authors, contemporaries of Plato ... was a model of an industrial country ... ”(ibid.).

In accordance with all that has been said, the rational structure of a perfect state, according to Plato, should be based primarily on needs. Plato immediately develops an enumeration of the basic needs necessary for life in society. In the city-state ("polis") there must be numerous, clearly differentiated branches of the social division of labor. It should include not only workers who provide food for citizens, builders of dwellings, manufacturers of clothes and shoes, but also workers who make tools and tools for their special work for all of them. In addition to them, producers of all kinds of auxiliary work are also needed, for example, cattle breeders, who deliver means of transporting people and goods, extracting wool and leather.

Import requirement necessary products and goods from other countries requires production in the state surplus goods for foreign trade, as well as an increase in the number of workers who manufacture the corresponding goods.

In turn, developed trade requires the activity of intermediaries for buying and selling, for import and export. Thus, in addition to the already considered categories of the division of labor, the same category necessary for the state is added. merchants. The complication of the division of labor is not limited to this: there is a need for various categories of persons participating in transportation goods.

Trade, exchange of goods and products is necessary for the state not only for external relationship, but inside states. From this Plato deduces the necessity market And minted coins as units of exchange. In turn, the emergence of the market gives rise to a category of specialists in market operations: small traders and intermediaries, buyers and resellers.

Plato also considers necessary a special category serving employees who sell their services for a fee. Plato calls such "mercenaries" people who "sell the usefulness of their strength and call its price rent" ( Plato, State, II, 371 E).

The specified categories of specialized social labor are exhausted by workers who produce products necessary for the state or in one way or another contribute to production and consumption. All these categories, taken together, constitute the lowest "class" of citizens in the hierarchy of the Platonic ideal state.

It is striking that in the Platonic theory of the division of labor and specialization is absent, the class is not even named slaves. But there is nothing surprising in this. Plato's project considers the division of labor in the state only between its free citizens. Plato "did not forget" could not forget about slavery. Slavery is simply taken out of his "brackets" - as an assumed, self-evident prerequisite, as a condition for the activity of the free part of society and the differentiation of free labor necessary for it.

Above the “class” of workers, or “artisans”, divided into branches of specialized labor, Plato has the highest “classes” - warriors("Guardians") and rulers.

The need for specialists in military affairs is very important for the life and well-being of society. But this is no longer a category among other categories of workers. This is a special, higher part of society in comparison with the artisans, a special, as we would now say, Class. Separation of warriors special the branch of the social division of labor is necessary, according to Plato, not only because of the importance of their profession, but also because of its particular difficulty, which requires special attention, and technical skills, and special knowledge, special experience.

In the transition from the class of workers of productive labor to the class of warriors (“guardians”), it is impossible not to notice that Plato violates the principle of division. When he speaks of the lower class of productive workers, he characterizes the differences between the individual ranks of this class. by differences in their professional functions. It is assumed that with regard to moral hell, all these ranks are on the same level: farmers, artisans, and merchants.

Another thing warriors("guardians") and rulers(philosophers). For warriors and rulers, the need to isolate themselves from the groups of workers serving the economy is no longer justified on their professional features, but in their difference moral qualities from the moral properties of workers in the economic sphere. Namely, the moral traits of the workers of the economy Plato puts fundamentally lower than the moral merits of warriors (“guardians”) and, in particular, representatives third, highest class of citizens rulers states.

This violation of the principle of division in Plato's doctrine of the difference between the classes of an ideal state is noted in the excellent work of V. Ya. Zheleznov "The Economic Outlook of the Ancient Greeks" (13, p. 99).

However, the moral underestimation of the working people is somewhat concealed in Plato by the reservation, according to which all three classes of citizens are equally necessary for an ideal state and, taken all together, are great And beautiful.

Even more important is Plato's other reservation, softening the sharpness of the aristocratic points of view. This reservation consists in recognizing that between the origin of a person from one class or another and his moral and intellectual properties there is no necessary connections: people endowed with the highest moral and mental inclinations can be born in inferior social class, and vice versa, those born from citizens of both upper classes may end up with low souls.

The possibility of such a discrepancy clearly threatens the harmony of the political system. Therefore, among the duties rulers, according to Plato, includes the obligation and the right to investigate the moral inclinations of children and distribute them (and, if necessary, redistribute them) among the three main classes of the state.

If in the soul of a newly born person there is, in the figurative expression of Plato, “copper” or “iron”, then, in whatever class he is born, he should be driven away to the farmers and artisans without any pity or condescension. But if a baby is born to artisans with an admixture of “gold” or “silver” in the soul, then, depending on the dignity found in it, the newly born should be reckoned either with the class of rulers or with the class of warriors (“guardians”).

Characteristic for Plato (and later for his student Aristotle), as for a learned slave-owning society, a purely "consumer" view of productive labor resulted in a striking space in further analyzes and constructions of his utopia. For Plato, it was important to strictly separate the "higher" classes from the lower. As for the question of how workers of specialized labor should be prepared for the qualified performance of their functions, Plato does not enter into the details of it. All his attention is focused on the education of warriors ("guardians") and on determining those conditions for their activity and existence that would consolidate the properties generated in them by education.

The lack of interest in the study of specialized labor did not prevent Plato from extremely fully characterizing its structure from the point of view of the interests of society as a whole. This happened due to the importance that Plato attaches to the principle of the performance by each category of workers of its special function.

However, from Plato's point of view, the significance of the social division of labor lies only in the fact that it confirms the thesis about the exceptional importance of limitation and regulation: morally, each category of specialized labor should be focused on "doing one's own". the main task Plato's treatise on the state is the problem of the good and perfect life of society as a whole and its members.

The most perfect good state has, according to Plato, four main virtues: these are 1) wisdom, 2) courage, 3) restraint and 4) justice.

By wisdom, Plato does not mean any technical knowledge or skill, but higher knowledge, or the ability to give good advice when we are talking about the state as a whole. Such knowledge is “protective”, and the rulers of the state possessing this knowledge are “perfect guards”. “Wisdom” is a valor characteristic of very few - philosophers - and this is not so much even a specialty in leadership of the state, but the contemplation of the heavenly realm of eternal and perfect “ideas” - valor, basically moral ( Plato, State, IV, 428 B-A).

According to Plato, only under the rulers-philosophers, the state will not know the evil reigning in it at the present time: “Until philosophers either reign in the cities, or the current kings and rulers sincerely and satisfactorily philosophize, until the state force and philosophy coincide into one ... until then, neither for states, nor even, I believe, for the human race, there is no end to evil "( Plato, State, V, 473 D).

But in order to achieve prosperity, the rulers must not be imaginary, but true philosophers: by them Plato means only "those who love to contemplate the truth" (ibid., V, 475 E).

Second the valor possessed by the best state in its structure is "courage" (andreia). It, like "wisdom", is peculiar only to a small circle of people, although in comparison with the wise, these people are more numerous.

As opposed to "wisdom" and "courage" third the valor of a perfect state, or "restraint measure" (sophrosyne), is no longer a quality special class, but the valor that belongs to all members of the best state. Where she is present All members of society recognize and observe the law adopted in a perfect state and the government that exists in it, which restrains and moderates bad impulses. "Restraining measure" leads to a harmonious harmony of the best and worst sides" ( Plato, State, IV, 430 D-A).

Fourth the virtue of a perfect state is "justice" (dicaiosyne). Its presence, its triumph in the state is prepared and conditioned by a "deterrent measure." It is precisely because of “justice” that each class, each rank in the state, and each individual person, endowed with a certain ability, receives his own special task for the execution and implementation. “We assumed,” Plato explains, “that of the affairs in the city, each citizen should produce only one thing for which his nature is most capable” (ibid., IV, 433 A). With all the above three virtues, “the desire rooted in the state is competing for everyone to do their own”: the ability of everyone to do their own fights for the virtue of the city with its wisdom, restraining measure and courage (ibid., IV, 433 D).

Plato's class point of view, his social and political aristocracy, admiration for the Egyptian-type society with its caste system, with its characteristic difficult implementation of the transition from one caste to another, received an extremely vivid expression in the Platonic understanding of "justice". In this concept, for Plato, there is nothing equalizing, smoothing or denying class differences. Least of all Plato seeks to give equal rights to citizens and classes of citizens. He wants with all his might to protect his ideal state from the confusion of classes, from the fulfillment by citizens of one class of duties and the functions of citizens of another class. He directly characterizes "justice" as a virtue that does not allow for the possibility of such confusion.

The least misfortune, in his opinion, would be the mixing or combination of different specialties within the class of productive labor workers: if, for example, a carpenter begins to do the work of a shoemaker, and a shoemaker - the work of a carpenter, or if one of them wants to do both.

But it would already be, according to Plato, directly disastrous for the state, if some artisan or industrialist, proud of his wealth or power, would wish to engage in military affairs, and a warrior, incapable and unprepared to be an adviser and leader of the state, encroached on the function of management or if someone wanted to simultaneously perform all these things ( Plato, State, IV, 434 A-B).

Even in the presence of the first three types of valor, busywork and the mutual exchange of occupations cause the greatest harm to the state and therefore “can quite rightly be called a crime” (cacoyrgia) (ibid., IV, 434 C), “the greatest injustice against one’s city” ( Plato, State, IV, 434 C). And vice versa, "doing one's own" (oiceopragia) in all three activities necessary for the state, "will be the opposite of that injustice - it will be justice and make the city fair" ( Plato, State, IV, 434 C).

6. Galactic "Utopia" These events that I have described happened - or, from a human point of view, will happen - in the distant future, since you and I inhabit one of the early planets. The next period of galactic history, which began with

6. Galactic "utopia" The events I am describing happened, or, if you look from a human point of view, will happen in the distant future, since you and I inhabit one of the early planets. The next period of galactic history, the beginning of which was laid by the death