Political Philosophy
Consider Plato’s criticisms of democracy and Aristotle’s criticisms of this form of government. How valid are their arguments?
The philosophers, Plato and Aristotle have an origin from Greece who offered democracy its fair share of criticism as being a poor form of government. Plato’s point of view on democracy was that it led to individuals being corrupt through public opinion and generates rulers who have no idea about the first thing about ruling. These types of rulers are only concerned about persuading the “beast” which is the Demos, the community (Baron October 2010). On the other hand, Aristotle view on democracy embraces the fact that democratic agencies will bring about corruption in the individuals. If these individuals pick to reallocate the fortune of the rich, they are bound to extinguish the state. This takes to fact that these individuals are not experienced about governance when they choose their leaders; they are bound to make mistakes.
Do these criticisms hold any validity for the present forms of democracy? This question will be focused with reference to a particular form of democracy of a country; the United States. It is tries to figure out its validity which will be used to define what democracy is; as a form of control where people who are entitled to elect their leaders by process of elections and social frameworks which are reliant on the aspect of equality of each and everyone in the country.
According to Plato in his assessment of democracy, he attributes democracy as a form of governance where public judgment models the opinions and interpretations of the inhabitants; the public who make several statements and views, are being attributed to as being the best of all Sophists, and the men, women and children acquire knowledge to the best of it, modeling them according to how they want. This basically is in reference to Plato’s view, for the reason that the public overstates the praise for what they attribute to be good or bad; this is a great concern, and they complement some things which are being stated or undertaken, and lay blame on other effects which equally overstates the two (Plato 2009). This overstatement is a concern for the evolving individual as he or she will acquire their experience of what is positive or negative from the opinion of the society; the person will have the idea of what is positive or negative, which the public is attributed to- he or she will undertake what others do and he will be what he aims to be. This overstatement of views of what is positive or negative will not be the appropriate interpretation of what is fair and correct in reference to Plato, which is only acquired through the focus of philosophy and notions of practices.
Democracy; looks down upon the things we somberly express when we were looking for our city, except if an individual has a great acceptable nature, he will never be able to acquire the positive form. According to Plato, the autonomy of democracy hints at the public for not being open-minded as opposed to the government in the “Republic” which plays a vital role in informing the public. The purpose as to why this takes place is that a democratic individual “does not welcome true reasoning….” if an individual conveys to him that some preferences have their place to the good and attractive desires while others have their place in bad ones. An individual should value and follow the initial, while the former has to be controlled and mastered, he does not agree with this and states all of the preferences are the same and have to be prized in the same manner. Considering that these prizes have to be the same and the democratic individual “no plan or discipline in his life”, they will go from one preference to another not being able to go after something completely. Consequently, his soul acquires an aspect of rudderless impudence “becomes good breeding, anarchic freedom….and shamelessness courage”
Plato similarly applies a rigid analogy to state his ideas on democracies more palpable; the sailors go to the captain pleading with him to be willing to assist them- and if there arises a point in time where they do not succeed and others are accepted other than them, they do away with them- after gaining control of the captain’s thoughts using drinks or drugs, they take control of the ship and take possession of the stores. The analogy on the sailor ends with the thought that for a good leader, they should be willing to have a sense of authority.
In Plato’s analogy, the captain is attributed to being the “demos’ of the several individuals who are calling upon the captain to take control of the ship, this is a perfect illustration of the present governance. In their attempt to acquire control of the ship, the sailors work their way into the captain’s control by drugging him, this may be attributed to as being something preferable and satisfying utterances, after acquiring the control of the ship from the captain by persuading him, the sailors take the food and drinks without any thought of the coming days. The sailors, who have no idea that the food was being rationed, represent the politicians who run dry the state by taking all of its money and riches which was initially intended for some more useful projects for the community. The people who have assisted the sailors acquire control of the ship are termed to as being the genuine sailors and contemptible (Plato 1974). These flabby sailors stand in as the philosophers like Plato, who have the experience of how to manage the state which is maintainable, fair and ethical. They are not taken into consideration by the politicians as they claim that no individual is able to learn the art of governance and they are the only genuine navigators while the philosophers are just gazers with their heads above the clouds.
These politicians who have acquired the rule of the state will be knowledgeable about the demos by the Sophists who “teach nothing but the opinion of the many… ” The Sophists in reference to Plato learn the way of the robust which is the demos and impart this to the politicians. These knowledge on the negative side does not impart what is honorable or not, as he or she does not have the aspect about it. According the teacher, what is good is what the beast likes and what is evil is what the beast does not like. The Sophists passes knowledge of wrong definitions of what is fair and positive which is corrupting the individuals he is passing the knowledge to. It is hence that it is hard for fair and good individuals to grow in a society which is often being impacted by wrong definitions of what is positive and negative as opposed to the thoughts and forms of positive and negative which are the exceptional definitions.
Aristotle in his book “Nicomachean Ethics”, democracy is not that wicked as its perversion of the constitutional form of the control is limited (Aristotle 1999, pp. 234). However, this government is still great enough for Aristotle to acquire some form criticism. The basis of his criticism is reliant on the hypothetical instances and forms of democracy. According to him, democracy which is managed by law with persons who are not looked down upon is not a bad form of government; he seems to admire it.
Aristotle adds that the worst form of democracy is Demagoguery, where every individual’s say is the same and the rule of the most has more basis than the law. This form of lack of law is brought as decrees acquire more strength than the laws. In the government, having more strength than the law makes the decrees of the individuals to overstate the laws by directing everything to the popular assembly. According to Aristotle he claims that a compelling leader will definitely be able to manage the views and emotional state of demos in a better manner to an extend that he will become a tyrant over the individuals. They hence control the state like masters of the persons as opposed of being equals which they state to be. Another issue for Aristotle is giving the poor individuals “share the great offices of the state” (Aristotle 2009). The issue comes about from the poorness and negative form of education which makes them become offenders. They are to be offenders as they are so poor and responsible for these items making them want it for their personal use. The fact that they get negative attributes is evidence enough that they have no sufficient education in issues concerning the state. The unfortunate issues in the society are not to be kept aside according to Aristotle “for a state in which many men are excluded from office will necessary be full of enemies” the foes being the unfortunate people in the society against the wealthy people.
The argument by these philosophers is applicable and relevant to our present democracies. Using the United States as a good instance, we are able to note the several criticisms put forth by Plato and Aristotle are just as relevant as they were in the years back. According to Plato, democracy brings about individuals who have a strong belief in “insolence is good breeding…..and shamelessness courage” is noted to be valid in our democracies (Plato1974; Plato, 2009). Several Americans have a strong belief in insolence which is proved in some cultures like the Gothic; there is still a bigger portion of the citizens which should not be disregarded. It is similarly shown in some ways by the wealthy and strong like Donald Trump “All of the women on the Apprentice flirt with me……” (Thr staff, April 2011) Anarchy is the biggest manner in which individuals are able to be free; this is integrated in to the democratic persons, however the prevailing economic systems in the US some economic form of methods are desired. These economic policies have the government to put its best efforts to keep out of the private economic sector creating an environment that has the autonomy that they desire. If this policy is not followed by the government, it gets a wrong attribution from commentators as well as the business sector, which do much to model the public’s view. The public does not like it when the government gets involved in the matters concerning them and need more freedom. The level of extravagance in America is common, they acquire these attribute due to its economic policies. Concerning being anarchic, these economic status integrates into the community. This is reliant on the trickle-down effect by Ronald Reagan which states that by elevating the revenue of an organization will the less fortunate acquire advantage indirectly making extravagant organizations become generous. Shamelessness is termed to be courage by most of the American youth. This is noted in several cultural films like “Jackass” which impacted a whole generation to get the belief that daft shamelessness was basically a form of courage, which is having the “balls” to fight with your father.
According to Plato’s analogy, it is used in the American democracy. The politicians currently use demos with rhetoric and preferable promises like moving out of Iraq or changes in the elections which have not yet been met (Plato 1974). After them taking up office, they apply the power to prize it to defense contracts to their cronies which is not the best way to handle expensive transactions. This is represented by the sailors who take up the food in the stores with no concern that it was rationed. The genuine politicians, republicans and democrats are to disparage and harm the unruly politicians like the independents who bank on campaign sustainability, and reforms. All things which are necessary for a state like USA but free is told that it has its head in the clouds and should be dwelled on the reachable objectives.
Conclusion
This discussion on the criticism of Plato and Aristotle based on democracy and how relevant it is to the current government in the US has made us to assume several things. If both these philosophers were present, they would disagree that the state of governance in the United States is not the best form of governance. Plato argument would involve how democracy corrupts some people and its rulers who are anarchic in the manner they govern the state. Aristotle, while considering that this government is not the perfect, it would not be good to look down upon it. This is since democracy is to some small extent perverted from all other perverted forms of control of a state. Considering that he would not criticize it completely, the manner in which we acquire his thoughts on demagogues; he would not uphold the prevailing form of rulers. The application of fear and feelings of the demos, so as to pass debatable laws is going against the good rule in reference to Aristotle. With what is already stated above, the philosophers; Plato and Aristotle, the form of governance is not perfect.
References
Aristotle, 2009, Politics, Book 3, Translated by Benjamin Jowet, acquired on 13th April 2012 fromhttp://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.3.three.html
Aristotle, 1999 pp. 234, Nicomachean Ethics, Translated by Martin Ostwald. Prentice Hall.
Baron, B October 2010, Plato and Aristotle on Democracy, Monarchists Views.
Plato, 2009, The Republic, Book 6, Translated by Benjamin Jowett, acquired on 13th April 2012 from http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html
Plato, 1974, The Republic, Book 8. Translated by G.M.A Grube, Hackett publishing company.
Thr staff, April 2011, The Hollywood Reporter; Groupon Pulls Ads from Donald Trump’s ‘Apprentice’ Website
