Socrates and Glaucon on Differences of Human Nature - Essay Example

 Socrates and Glaucon on Differences of Human Nature Plato’s philosophic findings to a certain extent have affected the following generations of thinkers, and his “The Republic” may be referred to as his fundamental philosophic work. The passage of this work, in the book V, 453c-453e, represents his views on the differences between men and women and what the result of this diversity is. The excerpt represents the contradiction between Plato’s idea that everyone shall do the thing he or she is good at and the result of the dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon in which they conclude that men and women must do the same things.

Plato, however, is famous for his statement that there is no possibility and sense in making things someone is not capable of as it leads to misbalance in the state, that is, it is possible to suggest that men should take up “male” activities – warfare, breadwinning, physical labor, whereas women should be devoted to the things associated with the female sex, that is, child rearing and housekeeping. There is a reasonable basis for the mentioned fact of gender differences. The nature of the a male human, for example, presupposes the mentioned physical activities practicing, for a man is physically stronger and is historically presupposed to be the defender and the breadwinner.

The woman’s activities, logically, refer to the spheres of life where mush time spending is needed , and if they practice the mentioned child rearing and housekeeping, while men hunt and defend, there is a harmony in the system if labor division and, therefore, in the community and, later on, in the state. Judging by the above mentioned, it is hard to escape a conclusion that men cannot practice female activities, and women cannot take up the male ones. It is, however, possible to give historical examples when women have acted successfully in the fields that are not typical of them, and the same state of affairs is true about men.

This tendency develops today as well. It is also possible to suggest that, upon the lack of the necessary quantity of persons of either sex, there is a chance to evaluate this theoretical finding on practice. From this point of view, the qualitative balance of the society would not be broken, for all the vacant positions would be occupied, but the question of the quality remains open. This is also the matter on which the philosophers, that is, the state governors, as per Plato’s theory of the state governing, must think hard.

On one hand, the argument that men and women are different by nature scores against the suggestion that the same things may and shall be done by the representatives of different sexes. On the other hand, the contradiction to which as a result of the dialogue the philosophers come, that is, the statement that different nature determines everyone’s occupation, does not permit shifting between, for example, the roles of a child rearing mother and a warrior fighting on the frontline. The state in such situation is at a risk of losses if the shift is permitted, for if the mother dies her skills cannot be applied anymore, and the father is not available to substitute her because of his being busy with breadwinning.

On the contrary, the warrior is likely to lose his combat skills and knowledge. This leads to deterioration of the quality of the services and activities and, consequently, the state.