The role of art in society has always presented a battle between freedom of expression and decency, as is clearly presented in Book III of The Republic. Plato argues that the purpose of the arts is to promote the virtues of wisdom, justice, courage, and temperance; literature must never deviate from adhering to these ideals. Contrary ideals must be censored so as not to negatively impact the minds of young people, the leaders of tomorrow. But what relevance do Plato's strict standards have in classical republican philosophy of government, and how do they compare to society in America today? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayIt is extremely difficult for me as an American to relate to a culture and time where community took the place of individuality and art was nothing but a means to the end. Since John Locke's Declaration of Natural Rights and the revolutions that followed, there has been a shift in focus from utilitarian ideals of the greater good to a passionate advancement of individual freedom. This change led art to free itself from the tension of having to benefit society; there could be art for the sake of art, for the sake of expression (good or bad). However, for Plato art was another tool that could be used to promote the virtues of his republic. Plato faced an interesting dilemma. Education was absolutely necessary for the training of future leaders, but much of history and literature contained stories of lament and dishonor. Death was a horrible terror; even the strongest heroes lamented the tragedy; the gods were just as immoral and flawed as humanity. So, to properly train young minds in the path of virtue, Plato found it necessary to censor and rewrite literature to provide positive examples for guardians. And we must beg Homer and the other poets not to be angry if we delete these passages and others like them, not because they are devoid of poetry or unattractive to the popular ear, but because the greater their poetic appeal, the less they meet with the ears of the boys and men who should be free, and who should fear slavery more than death (57). Plato wanted to remove the crying and wailing of Achilles to avoid the danger that the nerves of our guardians might be made too excitable and effeminate by them (57). Homer's other stories where obedience is encouraged were fine, however. It was not that Plato necessarily considered the writings themselves evil, but it was because he wanted to protect young people from being unduly influenced by characters who succumbed to grief and inappropriate fits of anger. passion. Plato confesses his love for Homer's works. This is where it is difficult for an American to relate because he thinks more like a protective father than an advocate of freedom. If his son knew that death was such a terrible thing, he would lament like Achilles did and be unable to make the decisions that their leadership position would require of them. But if the child cannot relate to pain within literature, he will feel that misfortune much less than another (58). While many today would consider this lack of emotion to be somewhat unnatural, Plato believed that temperance was more important to instill in young people than enthusiasm. Plato's ideal man is stable-minded and well-educated. America's ideal man is passionate and wealthy. Plato believed that the love of money was something that corrupted the ability tomaking decisions, as he likely saw firsthand in the realm of Greek politics. Today it is still something that corrupts a leader's ability to make decisions. So, essentially, few things have changed. But instead of passing laws regulating politicians and lobbyists, Plato chose to attack what he believed was the root of the problem. Second, we must not let them be recipients of gifts or lovers of money (61). He proposed altering literature to match the virtues that discouraged greed. And therefore let us put an end to such stories, so that they do not generate moral laxity among young people (63). While the artistic value of the mythology was undeniable, the integrity of such works was secondary to the education of the guardians. The example of the gods in literature was of great importance to Plato, because if evil was committed by the gods then why shouldn't man do it? follow their example? We will not allow them to try to persuade our young people that the gods are the authors of evil and that heroes are no better than men... (63) Therefore, it was necessary to censor even more literature to prevent men from using the example of the god. as an excuse for one's own misfortune. Laughter was also condemned by Plato as conducive to violence: in fact, excessive laughter almost always produces a violent reaction (59). Classical republicanism places little faith in the nature of man, while the American capitalist ideal exalts man and grants him the potential to do what he desires. So, in a sense, classical republicanism is more concrete in that it presupposes the evil nature of man. But is censoring reality practical in education, in the search for truth? Apparently, for Plato truth is only important in the context of ensuring the virtues of wisdom, justice, courage and temperance in the community. Furthermore, it sets aside the truth in favor of a stronger community: Then, if anyone wants to have the privilege of lying, the rulers of the State should be the people; and they, in their relationships both with enemies and with their own citizens, can be authorized to lie for the public good (60). Plato gives those in authority the moral right to lie because they have already been through the educational system and are well aware of the common good. Plato's republic does not immediately promote a rational search for truth, but rather blindly educates man in the ways of virtue, and only then allows him to discover the truth after having been adequately trained. Instead of simply giving young people the rational means to discover the truth for themselves in the context of reality, evil is censored and only virtues remain. ...[H]e will rightly blame and hate evil, now in the days of his youth, even before he is able to know the cause; and when reason comes he will recognize and greet the friend with whom his education has long made him familiar (73). To encourage goodness and justice, Plato believed that the injustice of the world should not be talked about. Because, if I'm not mistaken, it must be said that with regard to men, poets and storytellers commit the most serious errors when they tell us that evil men are often happy, and good men miserable; and that injustice is useful when it is not discovered, but that justice is one man's loss and another's gain "we will forbid them to speak these things and command them to sing and say the opposite (63). This is practically a universal theme in literature, making it difficult for Plato to censor. This must mean that this theme imparts a certain truth to life, but this was not relevant to Plato because education in virtue was more important than education in virtue..