Socrates was not executed for preaching democracy. He was executed for corrupting the youth of Athens by teaching them to think for themselves by asking questions, called the Socratic method.
Plato felt that the state should be run by experts in politics. Just as you would not take your shoes to be repaired to the plumber, you should not allow the leader to be chosen by plumbers and others who don't understand anything about politics and whose tiny minds are easily manipulated by Sophists (as in advertisers).
Observe how Juniorbush's dubious service in the National Guard flying obsolete aircraft and then failing to report for service in the Alabama Guard was somehow depicted in his ads as in some ways more patriotic than the service of John Kerry, who was actually shot at and wounded.
People who voted for Juniorbush because they thought he was "more patriotic" were the sort Plato thought should not be choosing a government.
Or does anyone really believe that Vietnam would have been a victory had Kerry and Juniorbush done Sgt York style heroics?
The actual problem is how to determine how to keep morons off the voting roles. Not as easy as it might seem.
2006-12-17 03:38:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by Richard E 4
·
5⤊
2⤋
In the Republic, Plato also points out that he believes a democracy to be unstable.
First he argues that the people will tend to vote themselves only what is pleasing to them. If people don't like wars they won't have them, if they do they likewise will. No one has to exercise authority and no one has to submit to it, if that is the will of the people. In this wise, he views democracy is being fairly close to anarchy.
Then there is the second danger. Since in a democracy, whatever is popular goes, what happens if someone is inordinately popular? It is only a matter of time, he thinks, before some charismatic fellow takes office and then get anything he wants. And since power corrupts, it is only logical that the charismatic should alter the democracy slightly to better suit his particular needs instead of the needs of the people. And from there it is a very short slide until the state is nothing less that a full-blown tyranny.
I have to say, in some respects Plato has some very good points here. People who live in a democracy would do very well to fear these two extremes presented: anarchy in non-leadership, and tyranny in the presence of a particularly influential leader.
There are those who would argue that America, for example, has had many examples of both. And some not too long ago.
Hope that helps!
2006-12-17 04:28:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by Doctor Why 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Will cover the main points that you wish to uncover Quote When we come to consider the political theories which arose out of conditions of the city states . It is clear that in the hands of men like Socrates and Plato philosophy was usurping the place which according to the ideas of some religion ought to occupy the minds of men. Greek religion , or at least the official Olympian worship as defined by Homer, Hesiod, and the Tragic Poets, had never attained much influence over the morality of its worshippers . But now philosophy was definitely claiming to teach virtue . Not only sophists like Protagoras and Hippias, but even philosophers like Socrates and Plato, claimed to put right conduct on the basis of knowledge , and therefore of education . Hence followed the arguable conclusion that virtue was for the rich and well-born . philosophy looked snobbish from the start; it tended to exclude all but the select few from any chance of salvation , and, if it had its way, would have excluded them from any political rights whatever.. this is a small transcript from The glory that was Greece By J,C Stobart from Sidgwich & Jacksons Great civilisations series hope this helps you
2006-12-18 05:59:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
The Republicans have pumped more money and support into the communist China system than any administration in history (only the Reagan administration comes close), thus your observation is unwarranted and is simply a lie. Besides, democracy is not mutually exclusive to capitalism as the means of economic growth. China is communistic and capitalism flourishes. True democracy is best suited in an economic system rooted in socialism, as fair play depends on measures set forth to level the playing field and create equality in opportunity.
2016-05-23 02:00:19
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Democracy took Hitler to power, Democracy took Bush to Power. Need more examples?. The reason why Plato opposed to Democracy is because the general population is ignorant and greek had the idea that the more ignorant the people were the worse people were.
2006-12-19 19:22:12
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Plato was only opposed to absolute democracy. It was Plato's influence on others like David Hume and John Locke that led to the development of our modern democracy with the all important independent judiciary. Remember that Plato saw his mentor Socrates put to death by a democratic tribunal. I think he would be impressed with our constitutional system of checks and balances against the tyranny of the masses.
One can only think of what would have happened after September 11th, if absolute popular democracy reigned free without any check on it's authority....wait a minute.....nevermine
2006-12-17 03:38:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Savaran 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
I think Plato was looking for a better system of rule than than what he saw as the rule of the mob. I do not believe that he would be opposed to democracy as we know it.
In those days a demagogue such as Demosthenes could whip up the general populous to do his bidding by his rhetoric.
2006-12-19 07:54:48
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
* plato was not against democracy per se but against to absolute democracy
* he was concerned about mob rule (in which rationality is discarded - and rationality is teh backbone of the socratic method of which he was a disciple)
* he was also concerned by teh delays in reaching decisions which then in turn delayed implementation of policy (sparta was not a democracy and therefore not hampered by such delays to its executive powers - something which some athenians may have later coveted for they thought it contributed to their defeat)
* karl popper refers to the methodology of the scientific method as being the model to follow to seek knowledge with physics and maths being at the top and pseudo-sciences such as sociology and psychlogy etc at the bottom (but nevertheless included)
*i also believe popper was a ----- the word eludes me but means only believed in what was tangible or measurable
* popper's theory of the scientific method was deflated by thomas kuhn who argued about paradigms and closed scientific communities rather than open sharing of knoeldge being waht science was now about.
* i would apply from his theries that popper was also against true democracy (a bit of an orwellian thing that some are more equal than others) but was for transparency of rule.
2006-12-19 09:36:09
·
answer #8
·
answered by Chintot 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
you should go to wikipedia this has a good section about plato hope this helps
2006-12-19 10:08:36
·
answer #9
·
answered by Trish 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
Must have known about Bush.
2006-12-19 06:47:13
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋