I continue my thoughts from my last post...
In the Apology, Socrates was tried and sentenced to death by the men of Athens, a democracy of sorts. Socrates, a seemingly wise and noble philosopher, was put to death by people who had been persuaded wrongfully by skilled rhetoricians that he was evil; they committed an unjust act that, in the end, adversely affected the welfare of their souls as well as the souls of the people they represented. Who would rejoice in putting an innocent man of wisdom to death? Only those that relish and enjoy power. For Socrates, those who relish and enjoy power should be disqualified from ruling.
In Plato's The Republic, Socrates, again used by Plato, asserts that the perfectly ruled city has three types of citizens: the philosopher - rulers, the guardian - warriors and the craftsman, a caste system of sorts. Socrates goes to great lengths to keep each with their kind. A philosopher, to Plato and Socrates, is, ultimately, the ideal ruler. For Socrates, the ideal government would be one where the people do not decide the course of action forward; those decisions would be made by those best qualified and equipped to make such decisions, and for Socrates, this would be the philosopher who is concerned with the welfare of one’s soul. Plato's view is that any ruler should want what is best for the souls of those the ruler governs. A king concerned with the pursuit of wisdom would undoubtedly be better than a lover of power and wealth.
A democratic government, according to Plato, would eventually welcome totalitarian rule because of the people. In a democratic state, the majority rule by way of their vote, and they rule according to their own desires, good or bad. The key to the death and destruction of a democracy is the people. Poison the people's minds with selfish tendencies and pragmatic desires that can easily be manipulated, and the people will become easy to manipulate. Plato's point in The Republic is that only the philosopher is fit to rule because it is only the philosopher who does not want to rule. To be a philosopher, one has to understand Plato's theory of forms and share his belief in the soul, among other things, which leads the philosopher away from power and towards wisdom. Ultimately, what makes a philosopher a philosopher is the choice of wisdom over power and humility over pride. A true philosopher does not make choices that profit self, but instead, makes choices for the collective good of all.
In Plato's The Republic he goes to great lengths to make sure that his "caste" system stays intact. He does not want rulers marrying and mating with warriors or craftsmen or any other intermarrying or interbreeding. Plato understands how quickly each can become diluted with the other. This is a reference to the weakness of a democracy. Originally, the people were its strength, but in the end, they will be its death. A democracy, for Plato, is only as strong as its people, and eventually power will creep into the process and begin to corrupt it.
Plato tried to offset this with his strict reproduction theory. He actually created what he called "the great myth" which presented the idea that the philosophers had gold as part of their blood, silver was part of the guardian's blood and bronze was part of the craftsman's blood. Interbreeding would dilute each to lesser value and eventually to no value. I believe this "great myth", for Plato, points to his issue with democracy - the dissolving of character and morality in the populous. Dilute gold with silver and eventually you have no gold or silver. This is the weakness of a democracy. The people must be raised and educated in a certain way to maintain the excellence necessary to keep the democracy intact. When those elected become more concerned with themselves than those they represent, they soon forget about the people and the democracy starts to die. Sound familiar?
Once again, this post has become too long. Part III will be coming soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment