The Critique Of Plato And Plato's Criticism Of Democracy

In this paper, I intend to show that ancient Athenian democracy influenced western political thought, specifically, western democracies. By influencing such modern day democracies, ancient Greek culture remains a presence in contemporary life.

A democratic city-state on the other hand looks much more practical and promising than what Plato has imagined. By definition Democracy is a form of government under which the power to alter the laws and structures of government lies, ultimately, with the citizenry. What that means is the people choose for the city instead of a few "wise men" described by Plato in The Republic. Aristocracy almost always

     Democracy is defined as “A system of government in which ultimate political authority is vested in the People.” The Declaration’s

Democracy, as it is used today, means “ the people rule.” A democracy is a form of government ruled by the people of the country through elections and representation. A democracy is really a form of republic known as a democratic republic. A republic is a government where officials elected by a small group of people that make the important decisions.

Democracy is a form of government where people choose leaders through elections and social construct that are based on the equality of everyone within the state. It is a form of government were majority and public opinions combine to choose leaders with respect to the social structure of a particular society, taking into consideration the social laws, rules, traditions, norms, values, and culture. Plato and Aristotle tow of the most influential figures in Greek philosophy. Both Plato and Aristotle were big critics of democracy as a poor form of government. Aristotle’s views about democracy hold that democratic office will cause corruption in the people, if the people choose to redistribute the wealth of the

Socrates believes that democracy is the second worst type of government. Democracy is having “…complete freedom and dignity.”(p.261 C5) and “…no notice of the law.” (p.261 D5) It is the avoidance of anyone’s control. Those in democracy are motivated simply by pleasure that accompanied freedom and dignity. There is an analogy in the

In The Republic of Plato, Plato, in addition to sharing his views on justice, shares his views on democracy using a fictionalized Socrates to outline the most pressing issues. Plato’s views on democracy are negative; he believes democracy to be bred from a response to inequality of wealth and to heighten all of humanities worst traits. Plato believes democracy leads to unequipped leaders who hold offices and power without the necessary traits and preparation.

This essay will consider the quote by Plato ‘the price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. It will be discussed how this quote is still as relevant today as it was when Plato first constructed the statement.

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.

As one of the most significant works in philosophy, The Republic has been one of the most historically and intellectually influential basis of many political theories and philosophical approaches since its first appearance. It is also crucial to mention that the book contains both Plato’s and Socrates’ arguments of life and the view of the Athenian Democracy in the ancient Greek world. Therefore, it can be confusing and complicated to decide to which philosopher the arguments belong. The main focus of the book is to find the definition and the whereabouts of order, justice and to establish a just state, as well as to prove that a just man is happier than the unjust man by providing examples. The true importance of The Republic lies in the fact that everything has meaning in it, not only the arguments, but also the people who act as metaphors for the different kind of roles, which they fulfill in the Athenian society, furthermore the way they speak symbolizes those roles and every one of them embodies a part of the soul and the city-state. Even though it is not obvious, Plato / Socrates criticizes the Athenian society and tries to establish a new, ideal one with the different people he meets and talks to in the book.

In short, it outlines the problem that there can be no correct leadership in a democracy. The leader elected by the people must act accordingly to secure and maintain his position, as a result the leader cannot act in the best interest of the society, only in the interests of the ‘mob.’ Secondly, Plato argues that within a democracy there will always be factions or a group of people that believe they are right, these factions gain power and support through their wealth and property. This problem creates conflicts and a breakdown of society which Plato believes could lead to civil war. Thirdly, Plato suggests that a proper society maintains itself by stability and authority. Stability is maintained by looking towards the future rather than short term, when authority is lost the people lose sight of what is best for them, thus losing stability. Finally, considering points two and three Plato argues that with a breakdown of authority and stability combined with factions, this would result in violence creating the inevitability of civil war. As a consequence, tyranny is formed to end violence in the interest of the many for the power of the one. These four problems present the inevitability that democracy is destined for ruin.

After reading The Republic there are three main points that Plato had touched on. The first of these three points is that Plato is disheartened with democracy. It was due to Socrates’ untimely death during Athens’ democracy that led to his perception of the ideal state as referred to in The Republic. Plato perceived that the material greed was one of the many evils of politics; in Plato’s eyes greed was one of the worst evils of political life. Thus economic power must be separated from political power; he came to this conclusion due to an experience that filled him with a hatred for mob mentality. He concluded that a democracy must be replaced with a government ruled by the wisest and the greatest people fit for the job; the people that would be fit for the job would be called Philosopher-Kings; which I will touch on later. Plato feels that democracy is a form of political organization that is exceptionally inferior as compared to other types of political organizations such as a monarchy and aristocracy. He came to this notion because of the fact that in his eyes the average man and woman would be inclined to make improper decisions for the society based on greed. Plato viewed all forms of government as being corrupt; the key components in an ideal society are morality and justice. The forms of government that Plato thought were corrupt was timocracy, which would ultimately fall and crumble into an oligarchy which then turns into a democracy, then last but not least turns

In the Republic, Plato places Socrates as the main ‘character’ to express his philosophical views on the world. Plato lived in Athens and as such his criticism of democracy can mainly be applied to Athenian democracy and is fundamentally different from the democratic systems we have nowadays. In order to understand Plato’s position on democracy, the essay will use the Republic as main source to point the wrongs of democracy according to Plato. This essay will detail in four parts the elements that support Plato’s points against democracy. These points will be given in context to Plato’s time and will be both based on the historical context of his life. The first part will explore Plato’s sense of justice and what justice should be. Using his perspective on virtue and justice, this part will explain how Plato perceived a just world and as such this part will demonstrate how democracy is not compatible with his views on justice. The second part will explain how Plato defends the idea that philosophers should rule as an alternative, not only to democracy, but most ruling systems. This part aims to provide information on what Plato thought was wrong with democracy by

In book one of Plato’s Republic, Socrates states that “no one, in any position of rule, to the extent that he is a ruler, considers or enjoins what is advantageous for himself, but what is advantageous for his subject - that on which he practices his craft.” According to Plato, treating political rule as a craft with master craftsmen in power is the greatest way have a successful political rule. This idea is pessimistic when viewed in terms of a democratic society, as a true democracy places a value on the ability of everyone to exercise political authority either through voting or being elected into a political office. Socrates believes that democracy is inherently flawed because it gives a political voice to those who lack experience in political craft.

Plato, according to his writings and others record of him, was an avid critique of democracy and his critiques if reflected upon rationally are very thought provoking. In the words of historian John Wild “The most serious charge against Plato from a modern point of view is that he is an enemy of democracy.”(Thorson 1963, p.105). In his book, “The Republic” Plato explains the definition of democracy as a single focus on the pursuit of freedom and social liberty at the expense of other societal goods like public order, public safety and stability both politically and economically. He explains that