The manner of life in such a State is that of democrats; there is freedom and plainness of speech, and every man does what is right in his own eyes, and has his own way of life. Hence arise the most various developments of character; the State is like a piece of embroidery of which the colours and figures are the manners of men, and there are many who, like women and children, prefer this variety to real beauty and excellence. The State is not one but many, like a bazaar at which you can buy anything. The great charm is, that you may do as you like; you may govern if you like, let it alone if you like; go to war and make peace if you feel disposed, and all quite irrespective of anybody else. When you condemn men to death they remain alive all the same; a gentleman is desired to go into exile, and he stalks about the streets like a hero; and nobody sees him or cares for him. Observe, too, how grandly Democracy sets her foot upon all our fine theories of education,—how little she cares for the training of her statesmen! The only qualification which she demands is the profession of patriotism. Such is democracy;—a pleasing, lawless, various sort of government, distributing equality to equals and unequals alike.
…
Thus he lives in the fancy of the hour; sometimes he takes to drink, and then he turns abstainer; he practises in the gymnasium or he does nothing at all; then again he would be a philosopher or a politician; or again, he would be a warrior or a man of business; he is
‘Every thing by starts and nothing long.’
…
When the people meet, they are omnipotent, but they cannot be brought together unless they are attracted by a little honey; and the rich are made to supply the honey, of which the demagogues keep the greater part themselves, giving a taste only to the mob. Their victims attempt to resist; they are driven mad by the stings of the drones, and so become downright oligarchs in self-defence. Then follow informations and convictions for treason. The people have some protector whom they nurse into greatness, and from this root the tree of tyranny springs. The nature of the change is indicated in the old fable of the temple of Zeus Lycaeus, which tells how he who tastes human flesh mixed up with the flesh of other victims will turn into a wolf. Even so the protector, who tastes human blood, and slays some and exiles others with or without law, who hints at abolition of debts and division of lands, must either perish or become a wolf—that is, a tyrant. Perhaps he is driven out, but he soon comes back from exile; and then if his enemies cannot get rid of him by lawful means, they plot his assassination. Thereupon the friend of the people makes his well-known request to them for a body-guard, which they readily grant, thinking only of his danger and not of their own. Now let the rich man make to himself wings, for he will never run away again if he does not do so then. And the Great Protector, having crushed all his rivals, stands proudly erect in the chariot of State, a full-blown tyrant: Let us enquire into the nature of his happiness.
*This was the best condensed elaboration I could find. I’d suggest reading the dialogues if this sounds interesting. *
“Good times create weak men who think they know everything”
I would like to ask Plato to take a long look in the mirror. What he’s written there by all accounts seems to be an argument against democracy itself, and it’s not even an accurate one.
First of all, no shit. Plato was against democracy and at one point ended up being sold into slavery when he tutored the tyrant of Syracuse as a psycho-political experiment. His teacher, Socrates, was killed by democracy, and then democratically got a statue of him erected when the people realised what they did (read the trial of Socrates).
Secondly, in this book (VIII) he explains the cycle of political regimes, how oligarchy turns to democracy, and democracy to tyranny (and others but these are relevant). The main purpose of this book is to support his stance that only philospoher-kings are fit to rule justly.
Finally, keep in mind that the republic was written in ~375 BC. The critique of democracy is going to be different as Athenians had different forms of it. Plato and Socrates also lived through the rule of the 30 tyrants, and the reinstitution of democracy. He uses actual historical events in this critique. For example the bit about bodyguards was a reference to Pisistratus and how he became a tyrant. Try to find a short history of Athenian politics, it’s both fascinating and concerning.
Read the parts I’ve copied again, and if you don’t see any parallels with the current state of affairs, read the dialogues. If you still don’t agree, form an actual argument.
Here’s a bit from the introduction**:
The manner of life in such a State is that of democrats; there is freedom and plainness of speech, and every man does what is right in his own eyes, and has his own way of life. Hence arise the most various developments of character; the State is like a piece of embroidery of which the colours and figures are the manners of men, and there are many who, like women and children, prefer this variety to real beauty and excellence. The State is not one but many, like a bazaar at which you can buy anything. The great charm is, that you may do as you like; you may govern if you like, let it alone if you like; go to war and make peace if you feel disposed, and all quite irrespective of anybody else. When you condemn men to death they remain alive all the same; a gentleman is desired to go into exile, and he stalks about the streets like a hero; and nobody sees him or cares for him. Observe, too, how grandly Democracy sets her foot upon all our fine theories of education,—how little she cares for the training of her statesmen! The only qualification which she demands is the profession of patriotism. Such is democracy;—a pleasing, lawless, various sort of government, distributing equality to equals and unequals alike.
…
Thus he lives in the fancy of the hour; sometimes he takes to drink, and then he turns abstainer; he practises in the gymnasium or he does nothing at all; then again he would be a philosopher or a politician; or again, he would be a warrior or a man of business; he is
‘Every thing by starts and nothing long.’
…
When the people meet, they are omnipotent, but they cannot be brought together unless they are attracted by a little honey; and the rich are made to supply the honey, of which the demagogues keep the greater part themselves, giving a taste only to the mob. Their victims attempt to resist; they are driven mad by the stings of the drones, and so become downright oligarchs in self-defence. Then follow informations and convictions for treason. The people have some protector whom they nurse into greatness, and from this root the tree of tyranny springs. The nature of the change is indicated in the old fable of the temple of Zeus Lycaeus, which tells how he who tastes human flesh mixed up with the flesh of other victims will turn into a wolf. Even so the protector, who tastes human blood, and slays some and exiles others with or without law, who hints at abolition of debts and division of lands, must either perish or become a wolf—that is, a tyrant. Perhaps he is driven out, but he soon comes back from exile; and then if his enemies cannot get rid of him by lawful means, they plot his assassination. Thereupon the friend of the people makes his well-known request to them for a body-guard, which they readily grant, thinking only of his danger and not of their own. Now let the rich man make to himself wings, for he will never run away again if he does not do so then. And the Great Protector, having crushed all his rivals, stands proudly erect in the chariot of State, a full-blown tyrant: Let us enquire into the nature of his happiness.
*This was the best condensed elaboration I could find. I’d suggest reading the dialogues if this sounds interesting. *
“Good times create weak men who think they know everything”
I would like to ask Plato to take a long look in the mirror. What he’s written there by all accounts seems to be an argument against democracy itself, and it’s not even an accurate one.
First of all, no shit. Plato was against democracy and at one point ended up being sold into slavery when he tutored the tyrant of Syracuse as a psycho-political experiment. His teacher, Socrates, was killed by democracy, and then democratically got a statue of him erected when the people realised what they did (read the trial of Socrates).
Secondly, in this book (VIII) he explains the cycle of political regimes, how oligarchy turns to democracy, and democracy to tyranny (and others but these are relevant). The main purpose of this book is to support his stance that only philospoher-kings are fit to rule justly.
Finally, keep in mind that the republic was written in ~375 BC. The critique of democracy is going to be different as Athenians had different forms of it. Plato and Socrates also lived through the rule of the 30 tyrants, and the reinstitution of democracy. He uses actual historical events in this critique. For example the bit about bodyguards was a reference to Pisistratus and how he became a tyrant. Try to find a short history of Athenian politics, it’s both fascinating and concerning.
Read the parts I’ve copied again, and if you don’t see any parallels with the current state of affairs, read the dialogues. If you still don’t agree, form an actual argument.