The notion of equality has been around for centuries. The Declaration of Independence even states, “all men are created equal”. However, a closer look into the various forms of government reveals that even though men may be created equal, in society, there is no such thing as equality. Both Plato and Tocqueville came to this realization, although in different ways. They both knew that individuals who are a part of the governing class must be educated in one way or another. However, they disagreed on whom exactly that ruling class should be. Plato believed that the ruling class should be made of a number of specially trained individuals, whose sole purpose was to rule; these individuals were referred to as the guardians. Tocqueville highlighted …show more content…
that, in America, the everyday man should have a part of government. Regardless of the system of government, whether it is a democracy or aristocracy, there are those who are leaders.
For Plato, the leaders are bred; while in Tocqueville’s democracy, those individuals are selected by their fellow countrymen. As people become more educated in politics, they proceed to become elevated in status above their fellow countryman; thus, creating an inequality among the people. The very idea of political education abolishes any notion of equality, for there are always those people who will be disadvantaged in any political system. Both Plato and Tocqueville agreed that in any type of political system, some or all of the people should be educated. For Plato, this came about through the ideal city with three different classes. At the top of all of the classes were the guardians–the rulers of the city, who would decide on any points of policy that would arrive; anything related to being a law would be left to the guardians to judge. Due to this extremely important role, the guardians were required to go through years of both formal and informal education. In addition to learning, it was also necessary that they were constantly tested to see who would be the best leader. Plato argues, “the one who under constant testing emerges as pure is the one who should be appointed as a ruler and guardian of our city” (Plato
- 414). More importantly, however, he states that no one else besides the guardians should be educated. According to Plato, the working class did not need any type of education because they were not the ones who were ruling. For Plato, the very idea of political education came with the fact that not all people are created equally. Plato believed that we should embrace these differences, so much so that he created the Noble Lie and the Myth of the Metals to get to people to truly believe these stories. Socrates argued that the differences in the soul of the people are what differentiate them from each other. Only the guardians are able to rule, the rest of the citizens in the ideal city would be concerned about their own personal desires. According to Tocqueville, people in the United States also took education very seriously, as the people were “establishing schools in every township and obliging the inhabitants, under pain of heavy fines, to support them” (Tocqueville - p. 53). The people who lived in townships were so passionate about education that “they had the right to inflict fines against those who refused; if the refusal persisted, society, assuming the place of the family, took possession of the child” (Tocqueville - p. 54). The differences in who was educated highlighted the distinctions in the forms of government both Plato and Tocqueville wrote about. Both Plato and Tocqueville had very different ideas about the best form of government. Plato believed that aristocracy was the strongest form of government, with the higher class being in the form of guardians. He did not believe that democracy was in the best interest of the people and Socrates himself did not believe in the idea of full equality. Socrates did admire the freedom of democracy and even admitted that democracy is “probably the most attractive of the regimes” (Plato - 557c), but he saw that freedom as dangerous. Socrates believed that too much freedom would lead to tyranny. Tocqueville admired the form of democracy he saw in the Americas, saying that “the purpose of a democracy, in its legislation, is beneficial to a greater number of people” (Tocqueville - p. 271). However, Tocqueville recognized a danger in a government system that was dependent on the will of the people, which he referred to as the ‘tyranny of the majority.’ He refers to the tyranny of the majority, which is that idea that “[w]henever an opinion has taken hold in a democracy and has become established in the minds of the majority, it thereafter exists in its own right and persists without effort because no one attacks it” (Tocqueville - p. 748). Consequently, those in the minority are forced to stay silent. Although it appears as though all of the participants in a democracy have equal opportunity, those in the minority must always be quiet. This can be demonstrated by the wealthy, which “does not make the law because he is rich and because of his wealth he does not violate it” (Tocqueville - p. 282). Although the idea of townships in Tocqueville’s writing has the strong appearance of democracy and equality, this is not the case. In any form of government, particularly in aristocracy, there are those who rule. In a democracy, this comes in the form of representatives; in an aristocracy, a select few people rule, either by birth or by selection. The guardians and the philosopher-kings ruled Plato’s aristocracy; these people were specifically chosen to rule and were blatantly regarded as being of a higher status than the working class. In Tocqueville’s writing, he highlights that even in a supposedly equal society, there are certain people who give up their own personal desires for the betterment of society. According to Tocqueville, “[f]ew men would agree to move away from the center of their own interests simply to suffer the troublesome burden of state administration” (Tocqueville - p. 80). The individuals working within state administration have power above the average citizen, yet many do not want to participate because it requires that they give up their own personal desires. According to Tocqueville, “[t]he federal government endows its administrators with power and glory but those who thus influence its destinies are not numerous (Tocqueville - p. 80-81). These people have a strong understanding of politics, and therefore have a higher political education. This creates a class of people, namely politicians, who are above their fellow men in a democracy, as they are the ones who make all of the political decisions. However this is not always true; this can be seen in the example of the townships, which are a democracy similar to Athens, as Tocqueville notes “In the New England town, the law of representation had no place; the affairs which affected everyone were discussed, as in Athens” (Tocqueville - p. 52). It is only in this very specific circumstance that political education is compatible with equality. Overall it may seem like democracy fosters equality. Political education however, denies the people of any equality. For as long as there is government, there must always be those that rule the government. Whether it be highly selected individuals raised to be leaders, as in Plato’s Republic, or the more ominous majority of democracies. Once individuals are put in power, they naturally raise their political education, furthering them from equality.
Alexis De Tocqueville painted a portrait of a flourishing democracy within the text, Democracy in America. Tocqueville proposed that equality was one of the fundamental tenets that aided the success of American democracy. He defined equality of conditions as the end of aristocracy: “the noble has fallen on the social ladder, and the commoner has risen; the one descends, the other climbs. Each half century brings them nearer, and soon they are going to touch” (Democracy in America, book, 6). American democracy flourishes because there is an established equality of conditions for all; American democracy enforced the absence of formal rank and the end of births into positions of power while encouraging forms of power that challenged rank and privilege. However, in his analysis, Alexis De Tocqueville recognized the presence of race based inequality and cautioned that the reinforcement of a racial hierarchy could be detrimental to American democracy. Such observations characterize Tocqueville as insightful and
Tocqueville (rather bizarrely in retrospect) conceived of America as having “an almost complete equality of conditions”. While in respect to the French alone, Tocqueville argues, “the taste and the idea of freedom began to exist and to be developed only at the time when social conditions were tending to equality and as a consequence of that very equality.” Tocqueville draws the first stirrings of equality to the “political power of the clergy,” which upon being consolidated began to spread and upon its ranks to “all classes, to rich and poor, commoner, and noble.” Thus “through the Church, equality penetrates into the government, and he who as a serf must have vegetated in perpetual bondage could, as a priest, take his place in the midst of nobles, and would often sit above kings.” Tocqueville continues to trace the ascent of equality and descent of aristocracy to the financial demise of kings “ruining themselves by their great enterprises; the nobles exhausting their resources by private wars, [while] the lower orders enriching themselves by commerce”. And with the advent and spread of education, the “value attached to high birth declines just as fast as new avenues to power are
Plato firmly believed that only a select few should rule. This idea stems from his view that people are unequal in essence, as some truly enlightened individuals are able to understand justice and good whereas others could only see the suggestion of the phenomenas. He asserted that many people were
As in other areas of “The Republic,” Plato carefully outlines the delineations which form the basis for the types of rulers to be installed in the state. “Rulers” (legislative and udicial), “Auxiliaries” (executive), and “Craftsmen” (productive and fficacious) are the titles of the categories and are based, not on birth or wealth, but on natural capacities and aspirations. Plato was convinced that children born into any class should still be moved up or down based on their merits regardless of their connections or heritage. He believes the citizens of the State will support and benefit from such a system and presents the idea in the form of an allegorical myth.
Only the male citizens of Ancient Greece could have their voices heard. However, Plato disagreed with this concept of democracy, and designed a new way to govern the people in The Republic. Plato believed that one philosopher should have had absolute power, and he must have been, “…by nature quick to learn and to remember, magnanimous and gracious, the friend and kinsman of truth, justice, courage, temperance…” or he would have been unfit to rule. In Plato’s cave allegory, the ordinary people were represented in the prisoners who were chained in the cave, and the philosopher in the prisoner who was pushed out of the cave and saw the world outside. This single prisoner would then know the truth of reality, while the others maintained the belief that reality only consisted of the cave. From this allegory, it was understood that philosophers had a responsibility to lead the average citizens as only they could comprehend reality as it is. However, in order for the philosopher to guide the people, he would have had to take power from the people. The people would not participate in political matters and education would have been regulated. In Plato’s ideal society, the ordinary people had absolutely no power in their lives or their government. This model civilization was never accepted, and democracy continued in Ancient
In the book Republic, Plato is on a quest to define Justice as he builds the ideal city. His city is ruled by philosopher kings, the true rulers. Philosophers, in Plato’s opinion, are best fit to rule and judge because of their love of knowledge and wisdom. When arguing philosophers have the experiences of all regimes Plato says, “The philosopher to have tasted the kind of pleasure that comes from the sight of things as they truly are. ‘so far as experiences goes, then,’ I said, ‘he is the one who is in the best position to judge” (325). Plato believes, that because philosophers have all the parts of the soul that other types of rulers contain, plus the ability to be able to see the world for what is, they then have
In Plato' "ideal" model of a city; he chose an aristocratic form of government, describing it as the rule of the most strong, wise and intelligent. In his system people are robbed of their basic rights to live as a primitive human being. People had no right to choose what they want to be after they are born; their occupation is chosen for them by the "philosopher king." He chooses one's job after assessing one's talent in a variety of areas. ...
Tocqueville believed this concept threatened equality, sequentially threatening democracy as a whole. Currently Americans are beginning to indulge in individualism. As people begin to refrain from helping others, they begin to hurt the economy. Economically, as the wealthy begin to live with a “so what” attitude, claiming it is not their responsibility to help the poor, democracy is being undermined. Being uninvolved with other classes causes the economic gap to continuously grow leaving the poor immobile. The bigger the gap becomes, the harsher these socioeconomic inequalities become, which tocqueville argues will lead to an aristocracy. The same applies for minorities. If whites further oppress other races the farther we stray from equality. Americans need to recognize that without helping each other, democracy is slowly being destroyed. Individualism, along with inequalities in class and race are disastrously undermining
The Philosopher King stands far above others in ancient Athens. At his own peril, amidst constant political chaos and corruption, Plato takes a brave stand for justice, for freedom, and for equality. The Republic, written around 375 B.C., isn't just Plato's treatise on the ideal state, nor is it just a state-of-mind journey from ignorance to enlightenment. Plato also taught at his Academy, the first university in Europe, that political science is the science of the soul.
Aristotle, unlike Plato, is not concerned with perfecting society. Rather than produce a blueprint for the perfect society, Aristotle suggested, in his work, The Politics, that the society itself should reach for the best possible system that could be attained .This contradicts Plato’s theory of one ruling class controlling the political power and all decisions that affect the entire society. Plato and Aristotle alike were two men who had ideas on ways to improve existing
Plato goes into detail about what is known as the five regimes. The five regimes can apply to both individuals and societies. The regimes go from orderliness to chaos in this order: aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. On an individual level, a tyrant is someone who essentially grants themselves complete freedom to chase pleasure in abundance, no matter what measures they take to achieve it. This could be a pursuit of money, sex, power, or any other earthly possession that may fill the hole in a man’s heart. And though tyranny can function on a state level, “the nature of pleasure and the principle of tyranny are further analyzed in the individual man” (Plato, location 80). On the other hand, an aristocratic individual is a philosopher, someone with extensive knowledge and selflessness. They are in full control of their desires and they question everything. Aristocrats realize that money, power, and fame are just shadows of the Good, and in order to find true happiness, one must look internally, rather than externally. They know that those ungodly wants just cover up for what they are truly searching for. These individuals with these traits can translate into societies with the same traits, an aristocracy being a society run by a philosopher. An
Plato’s view of division of labour is divided into three types of peoples’ task in life which are workers as farmers, military type and guardians. Actually, the ruling task of Plato’s Republic is the guardian’s responsible who had achieved the greatest wisdom or knowledge of good. Due to that, Plato claims that “philosopher must become kings or those now who called kings must genuinely and adequately philosophise’’ (Nussbaum1998, p.18). However, people argue about the reasons that the philosopher should rule the city, while the philosophers prefer to gain knowledge instead of power, thus they don’t seek this authority. Therefore, the argument should alter to why the philosophers are the best ruler to govern people. Indeed, Plato states much evidence to prove his view. Firstly, these kinds of kings are interested in simple life and helping people for better communication. Secondly, as Plato points out that each type of workers has a deficiency and conflict in his erotic attachments such as a worker is a lover of money, but the philosopher is a devotee of wisdom and knowledge. Thirdly, their disapproving of being a king comes from their fear of being unjust (Nussbaum, 1998).Not only these evidence does Plato claim, but he also adds the characteristics of being a king and the education system of philosophy.
Plato thought education at all levels should be the state’s responsibility. His reasoning was that the individual
He thought that the election of the people was unfair justice. Plato had some of the same beliefs. He believed that government should only have rulers who had the intelligence and education appropriate for the matter. His thoughts were that a job should be done only by those who are best suited for it. To him, aristocracy was a perfect form of government.
Plato came from a wealthy family and was very profitable at the educational facilities wealthy families were able to afford in Athens. Plato met Socrates around the age of twenty and their teacher-pupil relationship lasted between eight and ten years. He had quite an interest in other philosophers, but only before he met Socrates. In Plato's early career he was commited to poetry. These interests were all apart of his search of wisdom, and whom under Socrates his devotion came deeper in. Socrates' death gave Plato the courage to travel to Egypt, Magna Graecia, and Sicily. These trips were to influence the Dionysius' in approval to his ideal system of government. He did not succeed in his efforts to influence the two rulers, causing him to be thrown into prison. However, a friend came to free him and he returned to his school, the Platonic Academy, in Athens. At his school there was more attention given to literary form and less use of the method of illustration that depicted the Socratic manner of display. Among his some of his works the more genuine incl...