Socrates Criticism Of Democracy

Socrates’, Plato’s, and Aristotle’s main criticisms of democracy were based on both theory and precedents. Whereas Plato and Aristotle believed that democracy could lead to mob rule in part due to group-think based on a population’s impulses, Socrates advocated that governance should not be solicited based on the citizenry’s desires at any given time. Aristotle advocated that democracy was indeed the best form of government, or better said he believed democracy to be lesser of the forms of government. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all believed that only the wisest should govern because those governed might squander resources and wealth, make decisions based on emotion, and revolt due to a perceived or real notion of inequality.

In the era of the contemporary United States, a country that has had the longest standing democracy, we are used to thinking very highly of its system. However, throughout our history, there have been a couple of critics to the system of democracy. It comes as no surprise that democracy does have its issues. One of the first pieces of literature where democracy was mentioned and analyzed at a deeper level was The Republic by Plato. This ancient Greek philosopher did not completely agree with democracy, regardless of the fact that ancient Athens was the first civilization that gave rise to it. In fact, in a numerical list that he composes on which are the best ways of ruling, Plato puts democracy at one of the lowest levels. In order, Plato’s list of types of government from most desirable to least desirable looks like this: 1.) Republic (The ideal city) 2.) Timocracy 3.) Oligarchy 4.) Democracy 5.) Tyranny. Additionally, In The Republic, Plato tells us his beliefs and values on certain aspects of life through the eyes of Socrates. So, even though Plato himself does not appear in The Republic and instead Socrates does, nonetheless, Plato and Socrates shared the same ideology when it came to democracy. As we know, Plato did not agree with democracy. As a result, in this paper, I will explore the greatest intellectual strengths and weaknesses of Plato’s view on democracy.

ABSTRACT. This paper seeks to reject Socrates ' arguments against Thrasymachus ' account of the just and unjust in Plato 's Republic, and, in doing so, show that Thrasymachus ' account is in fact a coherent and plausible account of justice. I begin by describing the context of Socrates and Thrasymachus ' argument and what it would take for Socrates to overcome the Thrasymachian account. I then describe the Thrasymachian account and argue for its coherence. I attack the Socratic method of deconstructing Thrasymachus ' argument and show that Thrasymachus true argument remains unaddressed throughout the course of the their exploration and Republic as a whole. I conclude that Thrasymachus – although himself unaware – succeeds in proposing a plausible and defensible account of justice and that Socrates misleads both Thrasymachus and the reader to advance his own conception of justice.

This paper argues that Socrates makes a plausible case for justice. Socrates raised two main questions in the first two books of Plato’s Republic, what is justice? And why should we act justly? Thrasymachus and Glaucon both have different and more negative views of justice than Socrates. Throughout books one and two, Socrates, Glaucon and Thrasymachus go back and forth discussing the definition and application of justice in society. He starts his discussions with Glaucon and Thrasymachus by stating simply, “What is justice?”

In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.

The Republic presents two very different views of justice as argued by two skilled thinkers. The beginning of the discussion starts off with Thrasymachus explaining what exactly he believes justice is; “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger.” (338c) Although Thrasymachus’ definition is clear, Socrates attempts to spite him by using a wild comparison, by saying “If Polydamamas, the pancratiast, is stronger than we are and beef is advantageous for his body, then this food is also advantageous and just for us who are weaker than he is.” (338c) This statement from Socrates disgusts Thrasymachus because Thrasymachus was simply referring to “stronger” in the sense of being a ruler, not strong in the sense of being physically larger. To counter Socrates, Thrasymachus explains how different societies are ruled throughout the world whether it be tyrannically, democratically, or otherwise, and how the rulers, those who are strongest, are the ones who make the laws and they do so to their advantage. Thrasymachus establishes this by saying how, “A democracy sets down democratic laws; a tyranny, tyrannic laws; and the others do the same.” (338e) It is clear from this line of reasoning that Thrasymachus has a solid position that justice is, rightly or wrongly, the enforcement of the rule of law as dictated by the “strong leaders” that make the law.

In The Republic, Plato attempts to deconstruct and solve a central question of government: who should rule. In tackling the quandary of justice, he considers the ideal polis or kallipolis, a collective unit of self-government, and the relationship between the structure of the Republic and its attainment. Plato pontificates that philosopher-kings should be the ultimate authority, they possess special knowledge, which is required to rule the kallipolis successfully and optimise the happiness of its citizens. Plato argues that “there will be no end to the troubles of states… humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in the world… and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands” (Plato, 212b-c). The kallipolis is a just city where political rule is predicated not on power, but knowledge. Nonetheless, Plato recognises that power plays an essential role in the function of the kallipolis and the modern state. Plato’s argument for the philosopher-kings’ rule is not realistic, however traces of the characteristics of his normative form of rule appear in the modern state. Nonetheless, it is necessary to highlight aspects of the modern state congruent to those of the kallipolis. The essay will conclude that, in terms of Plato’s argument, the philosopher-kings should govern; Plato advertises a republican political system, implemented through meritocracy.

The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those

In book VIII, Socrates discusses four types of constitutional regimes that he finds unjust. These are timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. Each government fails and passes on to the next one. Socrates explains that in the final regime, that is, tyranny, people experience the worst form of injustice. The tyrant lives a life that is more painful than that of a king.

These are the words of Socrates, who spoke before the Athenian jury in the trial that would, ultimately, condemn him to his death. Through works such as the Apology and The Republic, we can see Plato’s distaste of the concept of democracy. Why does he consider democracy to be so flawed? Let us look through his own eyes and see what his individual criticisms are, and determine

The Greeks have defined democracy in its purest and simplest form as “rule by the people.” Today, many governments have converted to the democratic system, but one notable example of a democratic society is the city-state of Athens; which is also the birthplace of democracy. This way of ruling of, by, and for the people was so effective that it set the foundations for the democracies we see today. Although Athenian democracy was essentially the stepping-stones to the democratic society we have today; there were some major discrepancies such as their political structure, their restrictions on what constitutes a citizen, and their philosophies regarding war.

Through this view, Aristotle expresses his distrust of a total democracy that is parallel to the ideas of his mentors. Plato attacks democracy and describes the disbursement of political freedom to the masses as an intoxication of wine, claiming that a democratic city “gets drunk on too much unmixed freedom” (The Republic, 220). Plato details the filtration of this “drunkenness” from society disobeying rulers trickling down to the son disrespecting the father and eventually “equal rights in relations between the sexes” (The Republic, 221). Plato and Aristotle share this skepticism of democracy.

In The Republic, the topic of justice dominates the conversation in Books 1 and 2. Socrates, Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus explore the definition of justice in the individual and state through a series of debates and discussions, with each of them arguing which is most advantageous, justice or injustice. For the majority of Books I and II Socrates defends his claim that justice is not only a good thing in and of itself, but also favorable for the state and individual for its consequences. Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus offer counterclaims to Socrates’ argument in order to elicit elaboration on the role of justice and its importance. While looking at each interlocutor’s arguments, one can see that they all are convincing, but with further analysis, each it flawed in proving whether justice or injustice is the most favorable. Based on the arguments proposed, I believe the views of injustice given by Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus benefit the individual in attaining short-term, extrinsic benefits. However, Socrates’ view of justice, that justice is in fact more favorable and advantageous than injustice, benefits the individual in gaining long-term and intrinsic, more complex benefits.

Reusi 1 Raye Reusi D. Ryals Writing 1 November 14, 2012 Socrates’ Stand on Democracy Having emphasized upon me the advantages of democracy, I have always believed that it is the best system to implement in a country. Ignoring the flaws and weaknesses of this type of system, I thought that the benefits outweigh all costs. I assume that giving the power to the people is better than having one person rule the state. However, in Plato’s account on the life of his mentor Socrates, we are able to see both sides of the spectrum: the pros and cons of democracy which are accounted in Plato’s dialogues, the Apology and the Crito. Socrates, having been accused of impiety, is brought to trial in front of the jury of Athens. In his defense, he points

In book four of The Republic Socrates and his contemporary Glaucon create the parameters for an Ideal Society. Socrates build his argument for the Ideal State based on four virtues: wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice. While making these virtues known, he also explains how these four pillars are also relevant to the individual. With these pillars, any society can be a just and successful one.