On the other hand, Newton was also ‘discredited’ by Einstein…
Not to mention how discredited had been Aristotle, the scientist, by those who came after him!
Yet nobody speaks badly about either Aristotle or Newton.
Because they are considered ‘stepping stones’…
Authoritarianism, of all ‘flavors’, depends on the ‘father figure’ being absolutely convinced that he is well above the rest. And it is this height which enables him to despise the rest, to the tune of not caring, at all, about how they feel about things.
‘I’m calling the shots, because I can, and the rest of you would better suck it up!’
Democracy, on the other hand, depends on people relying on each other. Enough of them are convinced that none of them is above error. Regardless of their ideological convictions, people who are convinced that democracy works are willing to accept advice from their peers. Or, at least, they listen carefully to what their peers have to say about issues.
The key word here being ‘peers’.
Nobody pays real attention to ideas coming from below or from above. If from below, that idea has to be almost obvious to pass the filter while everything coming from above is interpreted as an order. And executed if there’s no alternative or stalled/ignored whenever possible.
Both authoritarianism and democracy have proved themselves useful.
No war has ever been won by a democratically led army and no authoritarian regime has ever resisted for long. Meanwhile no democracy has ever crumbled as long as it has retained enough of its democratic spirit.
Yes, there are many examples of democracies becoming corrupted and eventually failing. Only this had happened after the democratic spirit had vanished into the smoke of ‘politics’.
Let me remind you that Alexandre the Great, one of the most admired generals and state-men of the world, was educated by Aristotle. Who was the favorite pupil of Plato. The esteemed philosopher who had invented the concept of ‘priest-kings’ – specially educated individuals who were meant to rule the rest.
Needless to add that Plato had witnessed Pericles simultaneously building the Parthenon and burying the Athenian democracy.
While Aristotle (384-322 BC) had lived long enough to witness his pupil conquering the entire ‘civilized world’ and dying an abject drunkard.
Greece, one of the places which had nurtured an enormously important part of the human culture, never fully recovered from the consequences of Plato’s ideas being put in practice.
Are we going down the same chute?
Is this the proper manner in which to engage those ‘on the other side of the isle’?
Our admiration for Plato speaks volumes about who we are and about where we are on the historical ladder.
What had happened, back then, was that Athens had invented a certain kind of democracy (based on ample opportunities and relative abundance) and, using that political system, had build a very successful society.
In time, the system became perverted – mainly because pampered people loose their edge – and its future demise started to become apparent for the open minded thinkers. Among them, Socrates was one of the most vocal critics and had payed dearly for not keeping his mouth shut.
We should remember now, if we are to believe Plato’s words, that ‘the Republic’ is nothing but the faithful reproduction of an actual conversation. Socrates own thinking, in spirit and in words.
Let me take a break at this moment and remind you two things:
1. Rome, which had also started as a democracy, at some point had conquered the entire Greece – including Athens, discovered the works of Plato, admired them and, a little later, its political system also degenerated into authoritarianism and eventually failed miserably.
2. Western Europe had forgotten about Plato for more than a millennium and rediscovered him because the Arabs had preserved his work. Moreover until recently only specialized scholars had any idea about who Plato was…
Back to the ruling process…
I’ll assume the translation was faithful and Plato really meant ‘rule’ as opposed to ‘govern’, ‘impose your own will upon the community’ instead of ‘putting in practice the will of the people’…
Now let me remind you that no matter how wise a ruler and how proficient a builder Pericles was, his reign ended the epoch of grandeur for Athens. After that, the great city had experienced a 2000 years decline…And here are some other interesting thoughts about that era: “There is no little irony in the fact that one of the things we most admire in the ancient Greeks is their love of freedom – and yet one of the chief manifestations of that love was their constant striving to control in some way the futures of their neighbors.” (Robin Waterfield, Athens, a History…)
So what was Plato really trying to say?
“The heaviest penalty for declining to rule is to be ruled by someone inferior to yourself.”
Well, I have no way of knowing exactly what went through his head when he was writing this but I can infer a thing or two from his words:
– He was speaking about an epoch were bona fide democracy was no longer the prevailing political system. Not only that he used ‘rule’ instead of ‘govern’ but, according to the written texts which have survived, the public offices were up for grabs and the ‘important’ person itself was the one to decide whether to ‘rule’ or to govern.
– People were rather arrogant at that time… who’s job was to decide who was ‘above’ and who was ‘below’? How come am “I” so sure that “I” am the most qualified (superior) to rule and that everybody else is/should be considered my inferior?
Then what made Athens, and then Rome, fall from the pinnacles where they had managed to climb while they governed themselves as democracies?
As for Plato maintaining that all he did was to ‘faithfully’ record Socrates’ words… allow me to have some doubts.
Socrates was asked to kill himself because of his teachings – ‘you should learn to think with your own head’ – were perceived, by the powerful-s of the day, as being dangerous for the younger generations.
Was it be possible that the same thinker might have uttered, as Plato pretended:
“[Socrates]Then, I said, the business of us who are the founders of the State will be to compel the best minds to attain that knowledge which we have already shown to be the greatest of all-they must continue to ascend until they arrive at the good; but when they have ascended and seen enough we must not allow them to do as they do now.
There is absolutely no difference between this line of thinking and that which was taught by Marx to his followers:
What we have here is nothing but two examples of extreme arrogance.
Both posit that ‘I (disguised as ‘the thinkers’/’communists’) know better than all of you so you’d better obey me. Or else.’
For both the State is instrument of oppression, not the expression of the free will of its inhabitants.
I refuse to accept that Socrates actually thought like that.
On the other hand Plato wrote his Republic during Pericles’ reign and Aristotle, Plato’s favorite pupil, was the teacher of Alexander the Great.
And no matter how many exploits Alexander had ‘committed’, we shouldn’t forget that he was nothing but yet another ruthless dictator. More successful than most but still a dictator. Same thing for Pericles. He was indeed a great builder and administrator but his reign marked the end of the Athenian democracy. Very soon after him the entire Greece had lost her independence and political significance.
All that was left was the Greek culture. The habit of thinking with one’s own head. Socrates’ legacy, not Plato’s.
PS.
Now what if Plato had written his dialogs as a warning rather than as a set of guidelines? ‘This will happen’ – historical facts were already clear enough, ‘if you do such and such things’.
It’s up to us, his readers, to choose what we consider to be the proper interpretation!
Which reminds me of the diehard Marxists who still believe ‘the bearded one’ was right and that his ideas had been badly put in practice by the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ceausescu…
nicichiarasa 