Perhaps a clarification is needed on the view that Plato envisioned during that time.
There seems to be a conflict on what Plato's perspective really is. On the one hand, you can view the idea as Plato exhibiting a full rejection of democracy and exhibits an elitist authoritarian characteristic. After all, Plato did train a group of elite (referred to as philosopher kings) to supposedly nurture the capability of leaders to identify and pursue the common good. While this might be the case, the standards of "the common good" can ultimately be subjective in nature because it is hard to determine the common ground on several contrasting values (deciding where to allocate a big sum of resources between the arts and sciences can be an example). The only way to standardize this is to impose a supposed objective knowledge on what is correct, which exposes the possibility that the passed knowledge is not the genuine common good.
On the other hand, I see another understanding of Plato is that while democracy had its pitfalls (example: the uneducated can rule the polis), the system can be workable as long as some changes can be made. Such changes include the imposition a requirement that you have to attain a certain level of knowledge and this opportunity is available to all. The individual citizen, who has what he thinks is the common good, has a chance to rise up and become a leader and deliver his vision through training in The Academy. At the same time, granted that the opportunity is present to everyone coming from different sectors of Athens, there comes an ideal possibility of representing the whole Athens through the microcosm of those who become leaders.
So which is the better interpretation on what Plato had in mind? A creation of an elitist authoritarian state or simply a reform on a democracy that he possibly thinks is still workable?
The first is closer to Plato's perspective. He assumed that the "common good" is an objective reality which philosophy seeks to discover. Philosophers are born, not created through education. Education merely nurtures what is inborn. Plato would never tolerate anything that has "pitfalls" and try to make do with it. He was only interested in perfection (although he became more moderate in later years, when he wrote The Laws). His rejection of democracy was total, uncompromising.
Perhaps a clarification is needed on the view that Plato envisioned during that time.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a conflict on what Plato's perspective really is. On the one hand, you can view the idea as Plato exhibiting a full rejection of democracy and exhibits an elitist authoritarian characteristic. After all, Plato did train a group of elite (referred to as philosopher kings) to supposedly nurture the capability of leaders to identify and pursue the common good. While this might be the case, the standards of "the common good" can ultimately be subjective in nature because it is hard to determine the common ground on several contrasting values (deciding where to allocate a big sum of resources between the arts and sciences can be an example). The only way to standardize this is to impose a supposed objective knowledge on what is correct, which exposes the possibility that the passed knowledge is not the genuine common good.
On the other hand, I see another understanding of Plato is that while democracy had its pitfalls (example: the uneducated can rule the polis), the system can be workable as long as some changes can be made. Such changes include the imposition a requirement that you have to attain a certain level of knowledge and this opportunity is available to all. The individual citizen, who has what he thinks is the common good, has a chance to rise up and become a leader and deliver his vision through training in The Academy. At the same time, granted that the opportunity is present to everyone coming from different sectors of Athens, there comes an ideal possibility of representing the whole Athens through the microcosm of those who become leaders.
So which is the better interpretation on what Plato had in mind? A creation of an elitist authoritarian state or simply a reform on a democracy that he possibly thinks is still workable?
The first is closer to Plato's perspective. He assumed that the "common good" is an objective reality which philosophy seeks to discover. Philosophers are born, not created through education. Education merely nurtures what is inborn.
ReplyDeletePlato would never tolerate anything that has "pitfalls" and try to make do with it. He was only interested in perfection (although he became more moderate in later years, when he wrote The Laws). His rejection of democracy was total, uncompromising.