Plato and Democracy

[Cathain]

And why is that? Because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

Yes, in a sense.
The type of politicians who are in power in our time, and were also in power in Socrates’ Athens, are served by self-interest. They tend to get involved because they seek one or more of several things - fame, power, wealth, public honour, etc. Inevitably, they put their own good before the good of society.

Plato’s concept of the Philosopher Ruler is one of a person who is unconcerned with such mundane notions. The philosopher’s one love is not of gold nor personal glory, but love of wisdom and knowledge. This is why when Socrates is asked why the general public commonly think of philosophers as bumbling idiots with no common sense, he replies it’s because their focus is turned to something different. Their minds are off contemplating the divine, the higher realms of reality and the truly important things of life. It’s not the philosopher’s fault he is regarded as such, it’s because he is living in an imperfect society. If he were living in a well-ordered society then not only would he be regarded completely differently, he’d be the ruler as he is the wisest of men.

So, he argues that the best people to have in charge are the wise (ie. the philosophers), because who else would you rather have in charge than someone who is going to govern wisely?
But paradoxically, the philsopher wouldn’t wish to have such power thrust on him because it would distract him from pursuing what he is really interested in - knowledge.
And so we have a situation where Socrates now has to devise ways to coerce such people to assume power.

The entire argument here is summed up in his famous Similie of the Cave.

Was the SupremeCourt corrupted by the power over life and death with Roe v Wade?

I’m not American so I can’t comment on that, neither do I know the ins and outs of it.
What I do know, however, is that the court was mislead. The woman in question ended up never even having the abortion.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*What I do know, however, is that the court was mislead. The woman in question ended up never even having the abortion. *

Not being an American, perhaps you have not heard that the same woman now wants Roe v Wade overturned.

It goes without saying that the Supreme Court did not and does not today contain only what Plato would call philosopher-kings (not that a few don’t get in from time to time). Appointments to the Supreme Court often seem less motivated by wisdom than by the politics of the President and the congress, most of whom can hardly be called philosopher-kings judging by their recent conduct.

 

[Cathain]

Not being an American, perhaps you have not heard that the same woman now wants Roe v Wade overturned.

I hadn’t heard that but it doesn’t surprise me.
The case itself as a lie. “Roe” made up the whole rape scenario. She later admitted she lied about being raped to garner sympathy. So the case that destroyed every state law protecting the unborn was based on a lie.

Some more comments made by “Roe”:

“The public had certain misgivings about abortion in the early seventies, but there was much greater acceptance of abortion in cases of rape, so even though I wasn’t really raped, I thought saying so would garner greater public support.”

*• “This means that the abortion case that destroyed every state law protecting the unborn was based on a lie.”

• “I’ve never had an abortion, so I really wouldn’t know how it felt to have one, but I do know the faces that I’ve seen, the women I’ve talked to in the pro-life movement.”

• “A lot of the women that used to come into the abortion clinic used to tell me, . . . ‘You know why I’m doing this, don’t you?’ And I’m like, ‘No, and you don’t have to tell me, either’. . . . They said, ‘I’m just afraid I don’t know how to be a mom.’ And I thought, ‘That’s sad.’”

• “I really hadn’t been happy with anything I saw in the pro-abortion movement. . . . They don’t really care about women. All they care about is your money. If you can give them $295 plus $100 for a sonogram, then they like you, but once you’re gone, they don’t know you.”*

It goes without saying that the Supreme Court did not and does not today contain only what Plato would call philosopher-kings (not that a few don’t get in from time to time). Appointments to the Supreme Court often seem less motivated by wisdom than by the politics of the President and the congress, most of whom can hardly be called philosopher-kings judging by their recent conduct.

Again, this is hardly surprising. Chesterton probably summed it up best when he said;
“It is terrible to contemplete how few politicians are hanged”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

“It is terrible to contemplete how few politicians are hanged”

In America, has any politician ever been hanged?

 

[a_priori]

I don’t mean to take away from the OP, but the principles of property, ownership, and the Western governmental processes (Republic or Democratic) were modeled most specifically on the philosophy of John Locke in The Second Treatise of Government, not Plato. I know this post is about Plato, but it is important to remember that although the Classical philosophers were revered by the Founding Fathers, and their ideals were definitely on their minds, they based their ideas of property, ownership, and government on Locke.

Then, as a student of history, you will surely give credit where it’s due and stipulate that Locke’s work was heavily informed by Samuel Rutherford. Rutherford, a Presbyterian theologian, published *Lex Rex *in 1644 and in doing so gave Locke a Judeo-Christian perspective on man and government. Locke promptly secularized it and sent it on its way to the likes of Jefferson, et.al.

constitution.org/sr/lexrex.htm

a priori,
an old earth, evolution guy

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I know there has been considerable talk in this thread about the Republic of Plato versus Athenian democracy and the American system.

The differences are obvious, but there has been an evolution in the American republic away from government by aristocracy of the rich and cultured toward government by popular consensus. Remember that the polls were closed to blacks until the end of the Civil War, and to women until 1920. With the opening of those polls, more of a plebescite republic has developed, whereby politicians vote not so much on principle as on how they can get the most votes. For example, the Democrats, always searching for the biggest tent, have welcomed the pro-choice people, the feminists, the blacks, the hispanics, the everlastingly unemployed, etc. In effect, promises have been made (or paid) to secure the largest number of votes. Are we then moving increasingly away from Platonic or Jeffersonian republicanism of the philosopher-kings and back toward Athenian democracy of the type that both Plato and Jefferson despised?

I’ll concede the caveat that Jefferson was nowhere near advocating the utopian rule of philosopher-kings that Plato imagined, but I do think he would be appalled at the likes of certain presidents, governors, senators, congressmen (judges too) that are bent on seizing the wealth of the nation for their own indiscriminate use, all the while pretending themselves to be philosopher kings and messiahs.