Plato’s critique of a democratic republic is very apparent. In almost every one of his work he expresses what he thinks the right form of government, and a democratic republic is not very high on his list. One reason why he would not like a democracy is that it killed is friend and mentor, Socrates. A popular vote by select people of Athens. Democracy is the best form of government; it allows everyone to participate in the process of politics. Everyone having a say is important, and though democracy has its faults, it is still the right one.
When it comes to popular sovereignty and Plato, the two do not go hand in hand. Plato believes in a philosopher king, popular sovereignty would compromise the philosopher rule. Plato would not trust the voters to pick the person that was right for the job. He thought that not everybody could be king or could rule. If the people of the polis get a chance to vote for anybody then they may pick someone not qualified to be a king, an average man. Plato would favor the idea of separation of power to an extent. He believes that there should be no emotion is government, but also that the gods should be in everyone’s everyday life. Plato’s The Republic presents a critical view of democracy through the narration of Socrates:
“Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequaled alike.”
In his work, Plato lists 5 forms of government from best to worst. Assuming that the Republic was intended to be a serious critique of the political thought in Athens, Plato argues that only Kallipolis, an aristocracy led by the unwilling philosopher-king, is a just form of government.
Plato would have a hard time with the typical governmental leadership today. He would say that today politicians are just looking out for themselves, and for the good of the society. That the leaders of this country are not true leader in the sense that they know what they are even dong or why. All though most of the leaders today are well educated, Plato would argue that they are not as educated as they should be in some areas. The term leadership has many meanings; it means different things to different people. As a consequence, it still carries extraneous connotation which create a blurred meaning. If we chose our political leaders using the criteria of wisdom gained through a Plato, we would gradually reduce our distrust towards those who govern. This is because Platonic education means the enhancement not only of one’s intellectual capabilities, but also of the virtue of temperance or self-control, since the process by which expertise is acquired requires the exercise of will and self-discipline. In other words, expertise is attained through reason’s control of emotion and desire. This sovereignty of reason over emotion and desire is Plato’s conception of justice in the soul. In present day politics, where we hardly have any in-depth knowledge of our political candidates, the assessment of the suitability of a person’s character based on his achievements would be a pragmatic and workable compromise.
In the Allegory of the cave, Plato has Socrates describe a gathering of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall from things passing in front of a fire behind them, and they begin to give names to these shadows. The shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, for he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.
“to the habitation in prison, the firelight there to the sunlight here, the ascent and the view of the upper world to the rising of the soul into the world of the mind”.
According to which the “Forms”, and not the material world known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality. Only knowledge of the Forms constitutes real knowledge or what Socrates considers “the good” Socrates informs Glaucon that the most excellent people must follow the highest of all studies, which is to behold the Good. Those who have ascended to this highest level, however, must not remain there but must return to the cave and dwell with the prisoners, sharing in their labors and honors. The possible interpretations of the allegory of the Cave are debatable, either looking at it based on the study of how Plato believes we come to know things – or seeing it through a political lens. One interpretation of the allegory of the cave as one about human ignorance and people who are unable or unwilling to seek truth and wisdom. Another on the other hand, bases his interpretation of the allegory on a description of the way rulers, without a strong philosophical mindset, manipulate the human population. Even if we accept, with Plato, that the individual is not an isolated unit, not a finished whole, Plato was
According to this ‘myth of the metals’, every citizen is born out of the earth of the State and every other citizen is his brother or sister. Yet God has framed them differently, mixing different metals into their soul: gold for the rulers, silver for the auxiliaries, and brass or iron for the husbandmen and craftsmen. in the Myth of the Metals the problem of maximum efficiency versus adequacy is fairly near the surface; how just is the ideal city if it does not truly correspond to the natural distribution of talents and if the power of education is ignored? To promote unity in the state Socrates proposes a myth, which he calls a “noble lie.” This myth, the Myth of the Metals, will be propagated for two reasons: to illustrate that all people are brothers and sisters born of the same earth, and to impart a sacred authority to the unequal status of the three classes. Socrates proposes that the citizens be told “just one royal lie,” a “needful falsehood.” This falsehood is to take the form of a story, the Myth of the Metals, a myth that Socrates discusses in the text. Glaucon is extremely doubtful about the efficacy of this “royal lie” and so is Socrates, but he is hopeful that the myth will ensure the citizens’ loyalty to the community and to their respective classes. In attempting the Myth of Metals, Plato is wishing, perhaps, to ascribe the birth of the children of the three classes to what we may call a prime mover, or a first cause, or the will of God. During Plato’s time, his culture was experiencing not only a series of political revolutions; it was undergoing a metaphysical upheaval as well. These aspects of Plato’s culture are still warmly debated by scholars of ancient Greece and of the ancient world generally.
Plato’s theory of forms or theory of Ideas argues that non-physical (but substantial) forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate reality. When used in this sense, the word form or idea is often capitalized. Plato was well aware of the limitations of the theory, as he offered his own criticisms of it in his dialogue If universal and particulars – say man or greatness – all exist and are the same then the form is not one but is multiple. If they are only like each other then they contain a form that is the same and others that are different. Thus if we presume that the Form and a particular are alike then there must be another, or third form, man or greatness by possession of which they are alike. An infinite regression would then result; that is, an endless series of third men. The ultimate participant, greatness, rendering the entire series great, is missing. Moreover, any form is not unitary but is composed of infinite parts, none of which is the proper form. Plato did not claim to know where the line between Form and non-Form is to be drawn those things about which the young Socrates (and Plato) asserted “I have often been puzzled about these things (in reference to Man, Fire and Water), appear as Forms in later works. However, others do not, such as Hair, Mud, Dirt. Of these, Socrates is made to assert, “it would be too absurd to suppose that they have a Form.”
We can see how deeply engaged Platonic philosophy is with political affairs. Applying it would allow us to avoid the prejudicial mental jump into cynicism that is often our default position in matters of politics, and open up the possibility of building a society where there is mutual trust between citizen and state. That may be perceived by some as too idealistic or utopian, but I would urge any positive steps towards that ideal. Those who deny even the slightest possibility of achieving it betray only the skepticism they cherish. Plato was a very wise man, but his idea of a philosopher king is just not plausible, at least to todays life. Even in Plato’s time he had a chance to make an actual philosopher king, and it didn’t work out to well for him. A democracy proved that it is the superior form of government.