Philosopher-Kings In The Kingdom of Ends

[Philosophy Now]

Richard Oxenberg tells us why democracy needs philosopher-citizens.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/110/Ph ... om_of_Ends

[spike]

Another frustrating and annoying article about democracy and Plato, like Plato is the oracle of democracy. In today's world Plato would be clueless about democracy, like this article is. He would also be a danger to democracy and the people it's supposed to serve. Moreover, the people Plato feels should have democracy are a limited, exclusive lot, people like him. His democracy doesn't include the diversity and pluralism that keeps it legitimate and working.

My feeling is that when democracy is talked about it should be with a capital 'D' because Democracy is a vast array of things. It's not just about voting. It is also about materialism and consumerism, things this article despises. It is an umbrella of governances, with many components that check and balance each other. Without the checks and balances you wouldn't even have the democracy this article is talking about. I would call the Democracy this article discusses as a cave dweller's democracy, with its shadows on the wall like Plato imagined.

And moving away from a technology based society is not the way to go, as this article would like. After all, technology has given us the liberty and equality this issue of PN is about. Technology will further help develop and sustain Democracy.

This article doesn't even talk about the institutions that are the bulwark of Democracy, which make it possible even if we abstain from voting or don't bother to participate in it.

This article talks about Democracy as though it is a delicate matter that needs to be dealt with white gloves worn by philosopher-Kings like Plato. The trouble with philosopher-Kings is that they often become tyrants, corrupt or lazy and complacent, thus in the end losing Democracy. Democracy is a sophisticated and complex enterprise that needs a vast amount of resource from various quarters, which a philosopher-King ruler is unlikely to have or allow.

The Democracy of Plato sounds patrimonial, which is very harmful to the democratic process. His Democracy also appears to be a closed system. Closed system eventually collapse due to the growth of entropy, like what happened to Communism.

[Arising_uk]

Did you bother to read all the article? As it doesn't sound like it.

You are naive if you think Democracy is such a robust thing that it could withstand large-scale non-participation or even an ignorant and politically uneducated populace.

Communism appears to be alive and kicking in China? If you mean the Soviet Union then I'd look to more major causes in it's collapse being a planned economy without the technological tools to do it and that it had to spend a good third or more of its GDP trying to keep up the arms-race with America. That and that Stalin was bat-shit crazy, still Putin has that mantle now and we'll see how he does with laissez-faire capitalism.

[spike]

Communism appears to be alive and kicking in China?

The communism there is a farce, especially in its mix with capitalism. Putin's Russia also farces around with capitalism, mainly a crony capitalism.

These governments are what Plato might admire, because of their philosopher-Kings.

[Arising_uk]

The communism there is a farce, ...

Compared to what? You wish an idealised system?

especially in its mix with capitalism. ...

Just goes to show that Capital works with anyone and is no base for a society.

Putin's Russia also farces around with capitalism, mainly a crony capitalism.

Putin's Russia is pretty much a copy of 18th and 19th Century British Capitalism and that did pretty well.

These governments are what Plato might admire, because of their philosopher-Kings.

Not at all, I think you should read Plato and that article.

[spike]

you should read Plato and that article.

I read the article and didn't find it worthy for understanding Democracy. I have tried to read it again and couldn't. ( I have even tried to read it backwards as if that might help.)

Most of Plato's thoughts on democracy remind me of the shadows on the walls of his famous cave analogy.

[Arising_uk]

I read the article and didn't find it worthy for understanding Democracy. ...

That's an irony as it wasn't explaining democracy but pointing-out its problems and offering a twist on Plato's solution.

I have tried to read it again and couldn't. ( I have even tried to read it backwards as if that might help.)

This works with the German philosophers.

Most of Plato's thoughts on democracy remind me of the shadows on the walls of his famous cave analogy.

Have you read The Republic?

[spike]

That's an irony as it wasn't explaining democracy but pointing-out its problems and offering a twist on Plato's solution.

I don't see any irony. I see maybe at best a misunderstanding.

Well, I don't care for Plato's solutions. Plato is only talking about one level or component of what can keep the democratic process going. You also need institutions to back it up, plus accountability and transparence, things Plato didn't touch on to my recollection. Democracy is messy and an educated society is not enough. Nor is the will of the people enough. But how could he have known that in his day and age.

On another matter, if you read the meaning of communism there is no way China or Russia practice it. They are more totalitarian states. China and Russia accepted capitalism because it was the only way to revive their collapsing economies and give their people something to live for.

[spike]

The title of this article reminds me of the TV show Game Of Thrones. It sounds fictional - philosophy fiction, like ph-fi.

The author is right in thinking that Democracy would be better served if it had as its constituents more philosopher-citizens. However, this is more utopian than realistic. Many constituents can't be bothered or don't have the capacity to be philosophical in ways that would make a difference. There are lots of ambivalent people out there who just can't be bothered. And there is a lot of people out there who think it wouldn't make a differences whether they got involved or not, so why bother. And there will always be a constituency of people that don’t want to be led or told how to think. Perhaps I am overstating the case but I don't think mining Plato for solutions to Democracy's ills is the way to go.

What is needed is a democratic system that is flexible and doesn’t rely solely on citizens to do the right thing; a system that is ready with contingency plans if citizens don't cooperate in the process. People are fallible, often uncooperative and lazy. Thus, a system of democratic institution must be in place, such as the rule of law that applies to both rulers and ordinary citizens alike. Did Plato think of that? Such a system also has to have the institutions that keep the democratic process transparent and accountable. Plato never thought of that either. It also has to have a revolutionary streak so that it can reinvent itself to address shifts, to remain vital and legitimate, always ready for the curves the world throws at it, like the incident of 9/11. It has to acquire a resilience that allows it to survive and continue under ever changing circumstances. Did Plato think of that when he outlined his ideas for Democracy? Moreover, Plato thought that the tasks of democracy should be divide between rulers and ordinary people, and people should know their place. A democracy like that wouldn't fly today.

To be sure Democracy does need its citizens' participation in order to make it truly legitimate. But as a safeguard to the process Democracy should also weave a system that can stand on its own in the advent its leaders and citizens collectively act recklessly, like they did in Germany before W2, with institutions at the ready to intervene without necessarily relying on the citizens Plato put so much faith in.