Plato II

[{GR}Raine]

Well, since my old topic got, er, cleared, ill make this one.

Pretty much, what were Plato's views on democracy? I encoaurage the few who posted last time to please re-post.

[ComradeChris]

I'll post pretty much the same thing as I did before.

Plato was a self-promoter, and most of his anti-democratic sentiment comes out in the Republic, when he's trying to vie for his own ideology.

Also he lost his mentor because of democratic sentiment. That would sou anyones opinion I would think.

[Roses in the Hospital]

I'm not sure exactly what kind of detail your asking for, but, Plato was fiercely anti-democratic, he saw it as inefficient and evan immoral. He belived that the idea that unenlightened people should be allowed to take part in politics irrational. Instead he condoned the idea of having 'philosopher kings' basically an olgarchic ruling elite of the most learnered and educated scholars, whilst the rest of the population would have no input whatsoever.
Plato's political ideas can be seen as the foundations of Stalinism and Nazism if you look hard enough...

[monkeydust]

I've done a few top-notch replies to this thread already, and I can't be arsed to do the same again. So I'll just be a pedantic arse and correct people where they're wrong or otherwise annoying me.


Plato was a self-promoter, and most of his anti-democratic sentiment comes out in the Republic, when he's trying to vie for his own ideology.


Of course he was a self-promoter - why shouldn't he be? Are most philosophers, conversely, not self-promoters? I don't see this as a criticism.



Plato's political ideas can be seen as the foundations of Stalinism and Nazism if you look hard enough...


How?

[{GR}Raine]

Oh, and to all that have replied in my past topics, but because the servers hate me and deleted them all, dont feel th need to post another long reply. Ive already understood that information, and its definatley helped me set up a base of informations.

[Dwarf Kirlston]

I don't like plato, I like B better. B doesn't believe his culture to be all of humanity. Plato Does. B is cool.

Plato is narcissistic and elitist. That probably explains the reasons for why he wanted a republic-> "stupid" people didn't agree with him.

[Roses in the Hospital]

Admitadely I don't know Plato in a lot of depth but from what I've read I'd say his ideas of a elite ruling caste having complete and unchecked control over the unrepresented masses is fairly close to Stalin and Hitler's thinking. Obvious Plato's philosophy dosen't have the ideological element that Nazism and Stalinism had...

[monkeydust]

Admitadely I don't know Plato in a lot of depth but from what I've read I'd say his ideas of a elite ruling caste having complete and unchecked control over the unrepresented masses is fairly close to Stalin and Hitler's thinking. Obvious Plato's philosophy dosen't have the ideological element that Nazism and Stalinism had...


Certainly parallels can be drawn in the sense, as you point out, that Nazism and Stalinism reresented rule by some elite and Plato advocated the same.

But your original point was that Plato was the "foundation" for these later ideas - implying that there's some direct causal link between what he wrote and these forms of autocracy.

Not only is this not the case, but the reasoning behind the justifications for dictatorship in the aforementioned examples was completely different to Plato's. Plato desired a rule by an elite because he considered this epistemologically to be the absolute "good" for a state. The "philosopher kings" were supposed to instil virtue in their citizens, and to act not as rulers per se, but rather as the only means for the understanding and expressing what is "good" - that is, Plato's metaphysical "forms" - for society.

Nazism and Stalinism were completely different in this respect. The former's justification for dictatorship being built upon pseudo-democratic notions of "the Fuehrer" being the most efficient means for expressing the will of the "volk" and upon some vague social-Darwnist notions of "natural hierarchy" in society; the latter revolving around the supposed necessity for the proleteriat to be "guided" until ready to rule by itself when the sufficient material conditions prevail.

Plato's "thinking" wasn't particularly close to Hitler or Stalin's, even if the eventual outcomes of the various paradigms might seems superficially similar.

I did warn that I was going to use this thread for being even more pedantic than usual, didn't I?

[Roses in the Hospital]

But your original point was that Plato was the "foundation" for these later ideas - implying that there's some direct causal link between what he wrote and these forms of autocracy.

Fair enough. I probably didn't phrase what I meant very well. Maybe saying that Plato was an influence in that style of thinking would be more appropriate...

[MKS]

In my view Plato's theories and ideas are evident in the Republic of America (USA). One could argue that the Federalist Party was based on Platos idea of a ruiling elite and so are the modern Republican and Democratic parties. This view has been extraoplated on by such renowned philosophers as Jose Ortega Y Gasset (Revolt of the Masses) who argued the masses must be ruled if thier is to be "order" and "justice".
Platos theories are not malevolent, like most philosophers he draws his conclusions from his life expierences, and living in Ancient Rome he knew the horrors of tyrants and of rampant chaos, he believed that "Philosopher Kings" were the best kind of governance . However modren Oligarchic thinking is malevolent and endorses oppression and exploitation.

[monkeydust]

Maybe saying that Plato was an influence in that style of thinking would be more appropriate...


Agreed.


Platos theories are not malevolent, like most philosophers he draws his conclusions from his life expierences, and living in Ancient Rome [Whaaaaat?!?!] he knew the horrors of tyrants and of rampant chaos, he believed that "Philosopher Kings" were the best kind of governance . However modren Oligarchic thinking is malevolent and endorses oppression and exploitation.


First off - and I don't know if you genuinely thought this or you just typed it wrong - Plato did not live in Ancient Rome. He was an Athenian, and probably travelled much of Greece, visiting Sicily on numerous occasions, supposedly.

If I was to continue my trend and be a pedantic arse on this topic I'd point out that "tyrant" in Ancient Greek (tyrannos) did not have the negative connotations of the modern term, and so it doesn't make sense to say that he knew the "horrors of tyrants". But this isn't really important.

He certainly did know the horrors that some oligarchies could breed, having lived through the regime of the "Thirty Tyrants", imposed upon the Athenians by Sparta, from 404-403 BCE. More importantly, though, Plato knew well what he would call the "horrors" of democracy. He'd witnessed the Athenian people plunge into a war with Sparta, entrust effective power to a number of manipulating rhetores, call for a flawed expedition to Sicily in 415 which wiped out most of the Athenian military forces and - perhaps most significantly of all - execute Socrates. He certainly thought that democracy led to chaos and "disorder. He thought it was a "bad" form of government.

As for this:


Platos theories are not malevolent

You're right in a sense.

Plato certainly never said "come on lads, let's stage a coup and rule the masses through oppression cos we fell like it". In fact, he would have said that his theory of government by "philosopher kings" was indubitably "good" by virtue of the fact that it was derived from a set of absolute, unchanging, objective metaphysical "forms". His theory of government, he said, was epistemologically "right", end of argument. This is, of course, nonesense.

In reality, though, it's arguable that Plato's theories very much are malevolent, because no matter how he presents them, they inevitably result in something "bad". In this respect, the fact that Plato "dresses up" his theories in a "nice" way ony serves to be an elaborate deception for how they work in reality.

Any more questions?

[MKS]

I apologize for my glaring error about Plato. It was late when i wrote it.

I agree his theories were malevolent, however I still contend that was not his intention, as far as I can conclude without knowing the man personally.

But the Oligarchies that control the U$ and other Western nations are malevolent and obvioulsy their political idealogies have roots in PLatos theories.

[Dwarf Kirlston]

I've done a few top-notch replies to this thread already, and I can't be arsed to do the same again. So I'll just be a pedantic arse and correct people where they're wrong or otherwise annoying me.hahaha
...
It seems everybody is agreeing out of lack of knowledge, I myself have not read the republic, what I have read is the "analogy of the cave" and from that I know that Plato is elitist.

I don't like Plato.

[monkeydust]

I apologize for my glaring error about Plato. It was late when i wrote it.


Don't apologize mate, it's an easy mistake to make.

If I were you I'd have stealthily edited your post and then claimed that I was misquoting you :P

[Che NJ]

Plato was perhaps an elitist, but his elite was chosen in way different form today and most of history. Plato's elite were the smartest and strongest to make their way through his state education system. Every student was given an equal chance to succeed and possibly become part of the elite. They were in no way born into their positions. It sounds like the US, but its much different. and more fair.

[monkeydust]

They were in no way born into their positions.

Yeah.......except they were.

Although Plato outlines some prospects for mobility - saying words to the effect of "if one from the lower orders excells he shall be taken into the higher orders and vice-versa" - his principal qualification for entry into one of his three "classes" is birthright.

[Che NJ]

They were only born into their higher classes because a citizen breeding program was set up to try to breed the best leaders. If they weren't good enough to be in the higher classes, they were relegated to the working class.