Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Plato's Idea of Democracy
Plato’s view of the democracy
Plato's Idea of Democracy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Although democracy was meant for the good of the people, some criticized it as it did not really cover the interests of everyone. Plato and the Old Oligarch were some of the major critics of democracy, both Plato and the Old Oligarch saw democracy as unstable and detrimental to society. Plato goes on to provide his solution to democracy, Plato sought to replace democracy with a philosopher king. Aristotle on the other hand, doesn’t completely dismiss democracy, instead, Aristotle insists that a democracy or oligarchy be put into place with the majority of the body being middle class. Democracy empowered the middle and poor classes, contended with the higher classes, and as well as criticizing democracy critics provide their own alternative. …show more content…
In a democracy, the old conforms in a democratic society and the young sees themselves as equals to the old, because of this, the citizens in a democracy sees one another as equals. Plato believed that, the citizens in a democracy could see disapproval amongst one another as signs of tyranny and would essentially do anything to obliterate it, even if it meant breaking their very own laws. As well as despotism, Plato believed that a democracy allowed untrained people to govern. Having untrained people govern meant that a democracy governs with emotions rather than knowledge, like in today’s society, many vote based on their emotion or feelings towards a candidate. Plato believed that government should be run by people trained in the art of governing. As well as governing with emotion, the citizens of Athens are also easily swayed by demagogues. Lastly as a whole, the masses of Athens were essentially tyrants as a whole. As well as Plato, the Old Oligarch was against democracy. He saw democracy as stripping the elite of their power and influence. The Old Oligarch believed that democracy was a broken …show more content…
Unlike tyrannies or rulers who rule for themselves, philosopher kings are rulers who are well learned, to Plato these kings are ideal for a peaceful ruling. Philosopher Kings, as Plato details, should be able to fulfill philosophical and political roles in their society, to do this one must, have a constant desire for knowledge, and a sense of truthfulness. Philosopher kings in their constant pursuit of knowledge, are well informed of political affairs and in their need to keep up society, they are the most suitable for a position of ruling. Rather than have decisions made by those incompetent, Plato believed that decisions should be made by knowledge and
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
Plato’s ideal ruler must have a good mind, always be truthful, have knowledge and discipline, and not be afraid of death. In short, the ruler is a philosopher that satisfies the four virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation/self-control, and justice. Plato, nonetheless neglects the fact that everyone sins and fails to mention it in the ideal state or ruler. However, the state and ruler was made up mainly to better understand the meaning of justice and was not made up so that it might be practiced.
The Romans called their political system not democracy but republic. Republic is something that belongs to the people. In Rome the right to take part in the governing belonged only to the men and those who had the statute of being citizens. The differences of republic and democracy are because of the origin of the two terms Greek and Latin language. The ancient Greeks discarded the tyranny as well as the disorder. Plato as well as Aristotle stabilized the complete democracy which was not based on the laws, with the power of the crowd and considered it as a form of ruling based on the jealousy and sweet talk of demagogues. Both of them considered the democracy to be wrong kind of state governing. Plato considers the democracy as nice and various public orders but without the necessary governing. The main good of democracy is freedom.
In Plato's Republic democracy made a controversial issue in a critique by Socrates. The theory of the soul accounts for the controversy as it states that the soul is divided into three parts: the rational, the spirited, and the appetite which are ranked respectively. The idea of the soul's three parts and the soul being ruled by a dominant part is used as the basis for identifying justice and virtue. However, the theory of the soul is not only used to identify justice and virtue, but also used to show that the virtue within a city reflects that of its inhabitants.
In Plato’s Republic Book IV, Socrates sets out to convince Glaucon that a person acts with three different parts of the soul, rather than with the soul as a whole. He does this by presenting Glaucon with a variety of situations in which parts of the soul may conflict with one another, and therefore not acting together. Socrates describes the three parts of the soul as the rational part, or that which makes decisions, the appetitive part, or that which desires, and the spirited part, or that which gets angry (436a).
In The Republic by Plato, Plato constructed an ideal city where Philosophers would rule. Governed by an aristocratic form of government, it took away some of the most basic rights a normal citizen should deserve, freedom of choice, worship, and assembly were distressed. Though the idea of philosopher kings is good on paper, fundamental flaws of the human kind even described by Plato himself prevent it from being truly successful. The idea of an ideal democratic government like what our founding fathers had envisioned is the most successful and best political form which will ensure individual freedom and keep power struggle to a minimum.
In Book one of the Republic of Plato, several definitions of justice versus injustice are explored. Cephalus, Polemarchus, Glaucon and Thracymicus all share their opinions and ideas on what actions they believe to be just, while Socrates questions various aspects of the definitions. In book one, Socrates is challenged by Thracymicus, who believes that injustice is advantageous, but eventually convinces him that his definition is invalid. Cephalus speaks about honesty and issues of legality, Polemarchus explores ideas regarding giving to one what is owed, Glaucon views justice as actions committed for their consequences, and Socrates argues that justice does not involve harming anybody. Through the interrogations and arguments he has with four other men, and the similarity of his ideas of justice to the word God, Socrates proves that a just man commits acts for the benefits of others, and inflicts harm on nobody.
The system of government we have today was starting to developed centuries ago by the Athenians and Romans. Both governments were established with the intent to give power to the people, even though it did not always play out that way in society. The Athenian democracy and the Roman republic were two very different governments in practice, but also maintained similar characteristics in both systems of government.
Plato views the democratic state as a city “full of freedom and freedom of speech[,]” where its citizens “have the license to do [whatever they] want” and the right to self-determine. Plato however, sees this insatiable desire for freedom at the expense of neglecting everything else as the downfall of democracy. To clarify, a society that is staunchly protective of its equality and freedom will be particularly sensitive towards any oppositions that seem to limit them, to the point where it actively attempts to “avoid [obeying the law and] having any master at all.” Thus, “unless the rulers are very pliable and provide plenty of that freedom, they are punished by the city and accused of being oligarchs.” Since those in power fear the accusations of those being ruled, they become docile and submissive. On the other hand, those who are ruled are encouraged by their rulers’ meekness and, convinced of their inherent right to freedom, begin to behave as their own rulers. Thus, this blind chase for unconditional freedom will propagate disorder across the society, and eventually cause the people to see “anarchy [as] freedom, extravagance [as] magnificence, and shamelessness [as]
One important contribution of Ancient Greek to the Western Culture is Democracy. The very term itself is of Greek derivation, meaning "People’s Rule". Unlike modern states which call themselves "Democratic". For example, Pericles Funeral Oration gave the greatest contribution to our today’s society. In .(Doc. 2) Pericles stated "Our plan of government favors the many instead of the few". Because of this quote it has contributed the society tremendously due to the fact that the democratic society is a direct democracy. Yet in a way, people have the power to overthrow other powerful representatives; Pericles Funeral Oration, gave us the idea of keeping the civilization as a democracy rather than Oligarchy, Monarchy, and many more. Moreover, Solon an Athenian tyrant discussed his thought about democracy. In .(doc. 4) Solon stated, "I drew up laws for bad and good alike, and set straight justice over each". Solon reveals that he has created laws for the good of others. He wanted every individual having the ...
Plato and Aristotle were both very influential men of there time bringing vast knowledge to the world. I honestly believe that Democracy does a lot of good but it definitely has some common side effects. Out of all of Plato's significant ideas, his best was the idea of democracy opening political decisions to the majority who cannot think on behalf of the community. Aristotle on the other hand is very optimistic when it comes to democracy so it becomes a rather interesting compare and contrast between these to men.
Plato states that the Oligarchy, where the ultimate desire is for wealth and character governs emotions without reason, will ultimately collapse and become a Democracy. The lower, drone class are exploited by the avaricious oligarchic class: this leads the drones into discontent, and they plot against their rulers. When the two classes come into contact with each other, the lean and sunburnt lower class will find themselves beside the sheltered upper class with their superfluous flesh. They will realise that they can seize power, and perhaps call upon some form of external force to aid their struggle. Therefore, democracy originates when the poor win, kill or exile their opponents, and give the rest equal civil rights and opportunities.
The reasoning is: if you know the good, then you will do the good. Therefore, philosopher rulers are by far the most apt to rule. In The Republic, Plato builds around the idea of Philosopher Rulers.
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.
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.