Q & A #2: Question 1

We talked a good deal about this in class, so I hope my answer to the following question will provide some new insight.

Considering his "Philosophy Kings," would Plato be for or against democracy?

I prefer to think about the question in this way:

First off, Plato condemns the mob mentality of democracy in The Republic, citing it as merely, a step up from tyranny.  Living in one of the most famous democratic countries in our world's history, I was understandably taken back when I read this the first time.  If you really think about it though, from Plato's point of view (or any rationalist for that matter), would living under a Philosopher King really be that bad?

In today's world, we equate absolute power, or even concentrated authority, as bad, quite possibly, because in most cases of concentrate power, the power was abused.  You have to ask yourself though, what else is bad with a ruler, besides the potential abuse of power?  Think of a case where a regime was condemned by the rest of the world, where the ruler was truly good, and did his best to do right by his people.  I would not consider sociopaths, such as Hitler, to be an exception to this rule.  Moreover, many thinkers over the centuries have warned against aspects or negative products of democracy, such as, the brutish will of the majority, the ignorance of the masses, the dangers of factions, and as we see today, the sluggishness of a dual party system, and the bureaucratic machine.

As we discussed in our first class, the epidemiological root of philo-sophia means, "love of wisdom."  The Socratic thinkers clearly included just and morally sound action as a pillar of a wise person, not merely a possessor of great knowledge.

Which leads to my last question:  Would it be the worst situation to live in a society under the rule of a person who devotes their lives to attaining the truth of knowledge and action, and working to enlighten others of these same truths?