Plato's View of Democracy - Essay Example

Plato's View of Democracy: A Critique Plato found democracy to be a loathsome entity. However, what democracy meant in Plato's time does not mean the same thing that democracy means for us moderns in today's era. So first, one must define what a democracy was, in Plato's time frame. In Athens at the time Plato lived, democracy meant that the people were solely responsible for the matters of the state. Since all Greeks were not created equal (i.e., as in the case of slaves), democracy would have created an unfair playing ground as opposed to the oligarchy that already characterized Greek politics and the Greek state. Assuming one now knows what democracy meant in Plato's time, let us critique his assertions. The problems Plato had with democracy were that: there was a fake quality about this notion, and that in fact in Greece not all men were equipped to become faciliators of the state; men needed an oligarchic state because no man was an island capable of helping himself; and that a society in which there is a hierarchy avoids justice, and includes a state which would dissolve into a tyranny because people would not know what would be the right thing to do. "While Plato and Aristotle founded their schools, the Academy and the Lyceum, before the beginning of the Hellenistic period, the Epicureans and the Stoics first appeared in the early decades of that period." (Koester, 1995) Plato does have a way of describing events, but he does so in a mentally rigorous process. "When Plato describes the universe [and how ordered a democracy should be], "he does so in almost entirely mythological terms; so too in his many discussions of the nature and destiny of the soul (Phaedo, Gorgias, Phaedrus, Republic, Laws)." (Tarnas, 1991) In that period, not every man was deemed equal in Plato's eyes. "In the middle period dialogues (Phaedo, Symposium, Republic), Plato set out the character of the ideal society and speculated on the nature of true reality as such. Here he posited that ideals such as beauty, truth, or justice exist as real entities outside all material or relative conditions, and are not themselves susceptible to variations imposed either by context or culture." (McGuckin, 2004) Many people were wondering how the ideal state could come about. It was argued that it could be a democracy, and this 'idealized world,' could, in name exist. Plato doubted this however. Other people caught onto Plato's ideas about the Greek state quickly. They even adopted them for their own philosophies about the world. In fact, "Jews used Plato's myth [about the demiurge in Timaeus] to imagine how the world could have gotten so out of shape when it was God's wisdom that had planned it." (Mack, 1995) Plato was talking not only about democracy, but about the creation of a polis: "Well, then, said I, is not the city you are founding to be a Greek city" (Hamilton, 2005) Plato insisted that Greeks would run a democratic city in a better fashion than barbarians or non-Greeks, and insisted upon this point with some alacrity. "They will not, being Greeks, ravage Greek territory nor burn habitations, and they will not admit that in any city all the population are their enemies, men, women, and children, but will say that only a few at any time are their foes, those, namely, who are to blame for the quarrel." (Hamilton, 2005) Plato insisted that Greeks would not harm their own land if they were to fight for it and, would indeed not pillage the land. "And on all these considerations they will not be willing to lay waste the soil, since the majority are their friends, nor to destroy the houses, but will carry the conflict only to the point of compelling the guilty to do justice by the pressure of the suffering of the innocent." (Hamilton, 2005) Plato considered that it would be an injustice towards Greek countrymen if Greeks were to commit their own savage acts of war on their own country in pursuit of democracy, saying, "if either party devastates the land and burns the houses of the other such factional strife is thought to be an accursed thing and neither party to be true patriots." (Hamilton, 2005) No man was an island, and Plato knew that men alone by themselves, left to their own devices, could not in conscience rule the state. Although it was an ideal form of government that he and Socrates were imagining here, Plato thought the results that a democracy would bring about would be chaotic and ultimately unfruitful. Plato mentioned this matter to Socrates, admonishing him, "Socratesyou will never get to speak of the matter you put aside in order to say all this, namely, the possibility of such a polity [democracy] coming into existence and the way in which it could be brought to pass. I too am ready to admit that if it could be realized everything would be lovely for the state that had [democracy]." (Hamilton, 2005) Nonetheless, Plato had to realize that democracy was a very real goal that could be realized. He had to use some ebullient and persuasive language, but ultimately Plato knew that democracy lie in the future for his own beloved state. "But, taking it for granted that I concede these and countless other advantages, consequent on the realization of this polity, don't labor that point further, but let us at once proceed to try to convince ourselves of just this, that [democracy] is possible and how [democracy] is possible, dismissing everything else." (Hamilton, 2005) Plato doubts the existence of such a state, where all affairs would be decided in a democratic manner. He found it highly difficult to believe that he and Socrates could have this dialogue about a democratic state but, nonetheless, would have difficulty making such an abstract thought a reality. He compares this discussion to a painter who has an image in his mind's eye, conceives it, and then paints a painting based on his mental image. Plato's dilemma lies in the fact that, although he can conceive the possibility of a democratic state, he is not ready or able to yet bring it to fruition. "Do you think, then, that he would be any the less a good painter who, after portraying a pattern of the ideally beautiful man and omitting no touch required for the perfection of the picture, should not be able to prove that it is actually possible for such a man to exist" (Hamilton, 2005) Additionally, Plato knows that he has a visual image in his head of what a democracy would look like. He is actually interested in purusing the matter further. However, he is having an impasse when it comes to actually realizing the dream of men who could act as a group-not just one man alone or a group of men left unto their own devices, per se-but at the same time maintain peace and harmony. Primarily, though, it was Plato who was trying to overcome a mental bloc which threatened to reduce his dream of a democracy to mere shreds of hope. "Then don't insist, said I, that I must exhibit as realized in action precisely what we expounded in words. But if we can discover how a state might be constituted most nearly answering to our description, you must say that we have discovered that possibility of realization which you demanded." (Hamilton, 2005) Plato was concerned that a democracy would lead to tyrannical rule, or worse-that people who gallivanted about like marauders would become the people who would rule the polis and ultimately the state. He feared that people, en masse, would not take care of the state, and, alternately, not only misuse the power of the state but that it would be mismanaged badly. "Unless, said I, either philosophers become kings in our states or those whom we now call our kings and rulers take to the pursuit of philosophy seriously and adequately, and there is a conjunction of these two things, political power and philosophical intelligence, while the motley horde of the natures who at present pursue either apart from the other are compulsorily excluded, there can be no cessation of troubles Nor, until this happens, will this constitution which we have been expounding in theory ever be put into practice within the limits of possibility and see the light of sun." (Hamilton, 2005) This was coupled with a fear that philosophers would not have any say in how the state was run. Philosophy, or the love of wisdom, was not considered a high priority by many people. In fact, the philosophers were not regarded in high esteem, as they were considered troublemakers. Virtually anyone could call himself a philosopher, and become an armchair critic. What distinguished Plato and Socrates was that they had moralistic visions of grandeur. This led to their distinctive and effusively intellectual style of language and gifts for metaphorizing and making abstract concepts seem simple and physical (like Plato), or vice versa (like Aristotle). Plato argued that philosophy was not for the majority of people, however, and that the state was going to be the worse off for it. "Philosophy, then, the love of wisdom, is impossible for the multitude." (Hamilton, 2005) Plato was chiefly concerned about the influence of youths on democracy. He was worried that, like wild savages, they would descend upon the state with an uncommon furor, igniting the passions of the common people and run roughshod over the law in order to achieve their ends. "How, then, do you think a youth will behave in such conditions, especially if it happen that he belongs to a great city and is rich and wellborn therein, and thereto handsome and tall Will his soul not be filled with unbounded ambitious hopes, and will he not think himself capable of managing the affairs of both Greeks and barbarians, and thereupon exalt himself, haughty of mien and stuffed with empty pride and void of sense" (Hamilton, 2005) Plato worried that these kinds of people were not fit to rule. He believed that these common people were morally lax, of unfit character, and were unsuitable in general to govern a state. Further, not everyone born was a philosopher, and nor could everyone be a legislator. He again uses the imagery of the painter. "Can we convince them that such a political artist of character and such a painter exists as the one we then were praising when our proposal to entrust the state to him angered them, and are they now in a gentler mood when they hear what we are now saying" (Hamilton, 2005) Plato feared that this type of common people, especially young Greek hoodlums, were not wise enough to rule themselves in a democratic state. He argued that they could never bring honor to a nation-state. "Such, my good friend, and so great as regards the noblest pursuit, is the destruction and corruption of the most excellent nature, which is rare enough in any case, as we affirm. And it is from men of this type that those spring who do the greatest harm to communities and individuals, and the greatest good when the stream chances to be turned into that channel, but a small nature never does anything great to a man or a city." (Hamilton, 2005) Plato thought that, as it stood, the situation in the polis was bleak. He worried that there would be no internal change, when what Greece needed desperately was a clear direction that would be a radical diversion from what the country was already experiencing. "Next, it seems, we must try to discover and point out what it is that is now badly managed in our cities, and that prevents them from being so governed, and what is the smallest change that would bring a state to this manner of government, preferably a change in one thing, if not, then in two, and, failing that, the fewest possible in number and the slightest in potency." (Hamilton, 2005) Plato argued, however, that to have shared in the sorrows and joys of the common people, was to have fallen in with the wrong crowd of people. As such, they could never be fit to rule the country democratically. "And those have been of this little company and have tasted the sweetness and blessedness of this possession and who have also come to understand the madness of the multitude sufficiently and have seen that there is nothing, if I may say so, sound or right in any present politics, and that there is no ally with whose aid the champion of justice could escape destruction, but that he would be as a man who has fallen among wild beasts" (Hamilton, 2005) These people were "unwilling to share their misdeeds and unable to hold out singly against the savagery of all, and that he would thus, before he could in any way benefit his friends or the state, come to an untimely end without doing any good to himself or others-for all these reasons I say the philosopher remains quiet, minds his own affair, and, as it were, standing aside under shelter of a wall in a storm and blast of dust and sleet and seeing others filled full of lawlessness" (Hamilton, 2005) Plato contended that philosophers were a rare breed, and that they would lead lives of solitude. This was in comparison to the wild wayward man, who, as a youth, would undoubtedly be the type of man who would begin to run the affairs of the state. The philosopher, he said, however, "is content if in any way he may keep himself free from iniquity and unholy deeds through this life and take his departure with fair hope, serene and well content when the end comes." (Hamilton, 2005) Plato continued that it would be a shame if the Greeks could not solve this issue. He thought that the Greek state and how it was run already characterized the epitome of perfect government, and he thought that men deserved to have governments that fairly and accurately represented their stations in life. "He would not have accomplished any very great thing either, I replied, if it were not his fortune to live in a state adapted to his nature. In such a state only will he himself rather attain his full nature and together with his own preserve the commonweal. The causes and the injustice of the calumniation of philosophy, I think, have been fairly set forth, unless you have something to add." (Hamilton, 2005) Plato argued that this democratic government would be grounded in philosophical truth. "None whatever [government], I said, but the very ground of my complaint is that no polity of today is worthy of the philosophical nature." (Hamilton, 2005) Plato also believed that the philosopher's mind should ultimately have been the one to take care of the affairs of the state, since it was so greatly versed in rhetoric and all manner of governance which required depth of thought. He also thought a democracy was possible, and not out of reach, but the means through which he came to this conclusion were rather circuitous in nature. "If, then, the best philosophical natures have ever been constrained to take charge of the state in infinite time past, or now are in some barbaric region far beyond our ken, or shall hereafter be, we are prepared to maintain our contention that the constitution we have described has been, is, or will be realized when this philosophical Muse has taken control of the state. [Democracy] is not a thing impossible to happen, nor are we speaking of impossibilities. That [democracy] is difficult we too admit." (Hamilton, 2005) Plato thought that since the lawgivers made the constitution, they would also have to guide the state by the rules which they had designed. "I was going to ask not that but whether it is this [government] that we have described in our establishment of a state or another. In other respects it is this one, said I, but there is one special further point that we mentioned even then, namely, that there would always have to be resident in such a state an element having the same conception of its constitution that you the lawgiver had in framing its laws." (Hamilton, 2005) Still, Plato did not give up the idea that the state of Greece, with all its problems, could not be run by philosophers. He was enamored with the idea that great thinkers would make the best legislators-although he feared retribution from the masses if they were not happy with the philosophers. "But if the multitude become aware that what we are saying of the philosopher is true, will they still be harsh with philosophers, and will they distrust our statement that no city could ever be blessed unless its lineaments were traced by artists who used the heavenly model" (Hamilton, 2005) Although it was difficult, Plato argued that philosophy was the key to a healthy state. He also admitted that democracy would be a necessary step, although difficult. "The manner in which a state that occupies itself with philosophy can escape destruction. For all great things are precarious and, as the proverb truly says, 'fine things are hard.'" (Hamilton, 2005) Plato had a strong belief that those who were lovers of the state would in fact make good representatives of the Greek people. He thought that these people must be tested to assure that they were excellent stewards of the gift of democracy that they were given. "We were saying, if you recollect, that they must approve themselves lovers of the state when tested in pleasures and pains, and make it apparent that they do not abandon this fixed faith under stress of labors or fears or any other vicissitude, and that anyone who could not kept that faith must be rejected." (Hamilton, 2005) Plato had a very narrow view on democracy, and he can't be blamed for that seeing as how the people of his time were at times unreliable. The fundamental ideas that were the intellectual underpinnings of the democracy were thoughts that first came about in Plato's Republic. He tackles several problematic issues, including: equality in Greece; the fitness of who would rule the country since no one man could have a reign unto himself; and the issue of how democratic rule would not evolve into tyranny. REFERENCES Hamilton, Edith, and Huntington Cairns, 2005. The collected dialogues of plato: including the letters) (bollingen series LXXI). USA: Princeton University Press. Koester, Helmut, 1995. History, culture, and religion of the hellenistic age. 2nd Ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Mack, Burton L., 1995. Who wrote the new testament the making of christian myth. San Francisco: HarperCollins Press. McGuckin, John A., 2004. The westminster handbook to patristic theology. London: Westminster John Knox Press. Tarnas, Richard, 1991. The passion of the western mind: understanding the ideas that have shaped our world view. New York: Ballantine Books. Read More