blue = add; strikethrough = delete; highlight = comments
philosophical essay part 1 ..if someone doesnt have anything to do
'All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher.'
Once When Ambrose Bierce's 'The Devil's Dictionary' delivered this momentous insight, I totally acknowledge to be true could not help but agree ("when" might be a bad one here. You might just say "I cannot agree more with this quoatation from Ambrose Bierce's "The Devil's Dictionary"). You probably wonder in how far this quotation is relevant for to the present issue and how I can agree on with a statement undermining the human's ratio man's unique position (this is a hard one to translate, but ratio isn't right. You might mean "mind," "spirit," "dignity", etc. Different philosopher's call it different things. What I replaced it with is ambiguous)-the quality we are so incredibly proud of, the quality that seems to tell the difference between us humans and animals? You will have your answer at the end of the following essay.
In order to investigate Plato’s assertion that an ideal society needs to be run by a council of philosopher-kings, it is important to identify the major difference between philosophers and ordinary people. Which ability makes philosophers superior and legitimates Plato’s claim for to the throne? Some of their essential merits are their analytic abilities, their inquisitiveness, their strive for wisdom and their continuous criticism. Philosophers want to discover the nature of beauty, the nature of our moral standards, the reasons for our existence and so many other things, that the preponderance of most people does do not care about. But in how far do these achievements make a philosopher a better king? Well, let me solidify Plato's assumption by seizing Bierce's quotation:
Everyone of us is a lunatic. Incontrovertibly. I believe that a certain amount of insanity is a part of human nature. History proves it if we look back at all the wars we waged.'Ordinary' humans have always been convinced that property and influence -of course only achievable by means of continuous expansion, annexations and violence- are necessary to become lucky happy and satisfied. If we asked Aristotle for his opinion, he would say that we only can attain eudemonia -the most perfect and desirous state- , if we we exhaust all the intellectual potential and all the virtues we are innately capable of, and not by accumulating money or annexing land. He would also say He writes (What follows is something he actually said, not something he would say, right?): 'Bring your desires down to your present means. Increase them only when your increased means permit', and 'Democracy arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal'. As you can see wars, tyrannical oppressions and inhuman behavior would be impossible if Aristotle would have been a politician. If people concentrated on his values they would live temperately, generously and considerately.
-----------------
Haven't read teh next part yet, but interesting that you bring in Aristotle here. While most people acknowledge that he disagrees with Plato on government, I'm not sure there is enough evidence to make the claim that he really believes we are all equal. For one thing he doesn't think it's at all possible for women to attain eudemonia. And while you are right that wealth isn't an "end" for Aristotle, he does say in places that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to attain that state without being wealthy. He doesn't think poor people can do it. He also in some places seems to indicate that some people may be inferior and so it is not wrong to enslave them, owing to their inferior moral qualities. Intersting so far though, will read second half.
