Plato (427 -- 347 BC)

Plato (427 -- 347 BC) and Lucretius ( BC) The purpose of the present paper is to discuss two important doctrines, namely Platonism and Epicureanism in order to understand if any of it or both could be successfully applied in the contemporary world. The reason for choosing these philosophical orientations and not others is represented by the similar political and social circumstances which led to their birth. It could be stated that the visions of Plato and Lucretius are two different reactions to a perceived political injustice and a philosophical and spiritual decay.

In order to understand whether any of the mentioned philosophical orientations can be considered valuable in the contemporary context, one must evaluate them separately for their logical persuasiveness, evidentiary basis and truth. The evaluation may start with the enunciation of the main principles on which Platonism and Epicureanism are based. It must be underlined that there are still numerous debates regarding the meaning of Plato's writings. Still, it is agreed that according to Plato, the universe has a systematic unity. The systematic unity is an explanatory hierarchy.

Nevertheless the divine and the psychological represent irreducible explanatory categories. People are believed to belong to a systematic hierarchy and personal happiness is conceived as acquiring a lost position within the hierarchy. Some of the most important Platonic themes include the definition of the good, the theory of the Forms. As far as the state and its organization are concerned, Plato believes that the philosophers are the most prominent figures and they ought to be given absolute power of decision.

Epicureanism on the other hand is concerned with what virtue and happiness are and how they are connected. The quest for pleasure is associated with the denial of the self's passions and with a solid moral discipline. Avoiding pain in the first place is considered a much wiser task than the very pursuit of pleasure. Physical pleasures are seen as short lasting and inferior in value to the intellectual ones.

The physical pleasures are likely to lead to excess, while the intellectual one are the ones which help man reach a state of inner balance. It is obvious that both philosophers were confronted with a period of social instability in which people's thirst for power and their search for pleasure made them forget what the principles of morality were and the happiness is to be found somewhere else.

The manner in which Socrates was found guilty of a political defeat he had nothing to do with is a more than relevant example of what was going on. Plato states that the state structure ought to be conceived according to the three dimensional structure of the soul. Out of all the existing occupations the most important one is considered to be philosophy, because it allows a more profound understanding of reality and of the self.

Philosophers are those most endowed to comprehend reality, therefore they ought to be granted state leadership. At the same time, people ought to realize their potential, an action which implied not only virtuosity, but also the achievement of happiness. Lucretius on the other hand argued that dedicating oneself to the pleasures of the body is nothing but a road to perdition and that it is likely to bring more pain and misery than happiness.

Just like Plato he argued for a rational view of the world and a rational approach to politics. According to him, inner balance was a strategic factor for the individual's happiness and for the society's well being. However, people had to accept pain and deal with (in a rational manner) and not simply choose to ignore it. He underlines that hardship is a natural element of life and that people should demonstrate their dignity and strength of character in properly fighting it.

It could be stated that the political and social circumstances that led both Plato and Lucretius to formulate their beliefs are similar to what is happening in the world right now. Wars still exist and the goals of the great economical powers have nothing to do with humanity. Under the circumstances in which science has developed so much and man relies upon technology in all the areas of his life, it would be very difficult to impose the figure of the philosopher.

It could be underlines that the contemporary crisis is caused by the incapacity to find a proper political system of rule. The democracy is most states is failing, yet citizens are not aware of it because their attraction is distracted.