Is Democracy a good thing?

As did I with SOPA.

I'm not entirely sure if social mobility is as old as humanity itself. Maybe civilisation, but perhaps not hunter-gatherer tribes and other forms of communial living which did not have 'property' so to speak in the sense we view it.

I think his objection to tyranny is that tyrants do irrational things if they are givern full power. He would prefer a rule of the wise, philosophical kings I believe. From the way I saw it, it was not a heditory position. It was based on merit rather than cronyism. But I could be wrong as I did not read that part of the book quite well. To me, his intentions were good but his methords for doing so weren't. I'd say the same about hitler and lenin as well.

Er...no. Plato is quite explicit. The populace should be told it is on merit: but the rulers should make sure it is not. He was a great believer in the "noble lie"

I was mistaken then. Oh well, looks like I'm going to need to read the book a third time...

I haven't personally read much of Plato, but I feel I need to toss in that Plato and his state have been discussed and mentioned frequently in lectures I've attended... right now, for instance, I have a course on the Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle, who frequently criticises Plato. From everything I've heard, in Plato's state, it is most certainly meritocratic. Aristotle's criticism seems to be centred around the lack of possibilities and "sideways" mobility, a rigidity of the system that prevents self-actualisation. If you, based on your talents, end up as a philosopher king when you wanted to be something else, you have little choice, thus stifling your humanity.

Mind you, also, absolute tyrannical rule was at the time more the norm. Considering what was acceptable of contemporary rulers, I'd say Plato was quite forward-thinking.

Again, I've not read Plato, merely inferred from discussions relating to his ideas.

Well you may both be right. I have trouble believing it because of such passages as

"The expression really means that the better principle in a man masters the worse. There are in cities whole classes—women, slaves and the like—who correspond to the worse, and a few only to the better; and in our State the former class are held under control by the latter."

"Not that there is much harm in a carpenter trying to be a cobbler, or a cobbler transforming himself into a carpenter; but great evil may arise from the cobbler leaving his last and turning into a guardian or legislator"

"Each of the three classes will do the work of its own class in the State,"

And especially

"In the first place our rulers will enforce the laws and make new ones where they are wanted, and their allies or ministers will obey. You, as legislator, have already selected the men; and now you shall select the women. After the selection has been made, they will dwell in common houses and have their meals in common, and will be brought together by a necessity more certain than that of mathematics. But they cannot be allowed to live in licentiousness; that is an unholy thing, which the rulers are determined to prevent. For the avoidance of this, holy marriage festivals will be instituted, and their holiness will be in proportion to their usefulness. And here, Glaucon, I should like to ask (as I know that you are a breeder of birds and animals), Do you not take the greatest care in the mating? 'Certainly.' And there is no reason to suppose that less care is required in the marriage of human beings. But then our rulers must be skilful physicians of the State, for they will often need a strong dose of falsehood in order to bring about desirable unions between their subjects. The good must be paired with the good, and the bad with the bad, and the offspring of the one must be reared, and of the other destroyed; in this way the flock will be preserved in prime condition. Hymeneal festivals will be celebrated at times fixed with an eye to population, and the brides and bridegrooms will meet at them; and by an ingenious system of lots the rulers will contrive that the brave and the fair come together, and that those of inferior breed are paired with inferiors—the latter will ascribe to chance what is really the invention of the rulers

I do not see much meritocracy there: only the seeming operation of chance manipulated by the ruling class. That passage relates to eugenics: but the mindset runs through the whole of his thought. As I said, Plato is the proto universal totalitarian and all human beings are tools and instruments of the state, as defined by the self appointed "wise"

What do you found on ?

Actually I just realised that we are losing some focus anyway: social mobility is not the same thing as meritocracy. Meritocracy is not a good idea in any way, so far as I can see: and it is quite interesting how the two terms have become so closely allied. The language load is not neutral, I believe

Meaning those qualified to rule, based on the virtues they may bring; knowledge, wisdom, tolerance, whatever. I see no harm in those able to rule well being those who rule, and is this not meritocracy?


Because does a cobbler know how to legislate? Experience ought to be more useful, I think. I should perhaps note I don't agree with Plato's view that it should be prevented, but I do agree "great evil" may arise. Aristotle's criticism is levied heavily onto this aspect of Plato's state.


I don't see the problem. Do you tell an expert how to do their job?


Now this sounds bad, I agree, and I hesitate to argue against your point here, but it looks to me you're applying modern morals to an almost 2500-year-old thinker, and criticising him for failures you perceive from your historical vantage point. Mind you, I'm not saying you're wrong, but you do need to maintain historical context. Obviously, the sensibilities of mankind has changed since then, but this was new and progressive in his time, and much of our society is built on it, for better or worse. I will say, however, that while there are totalitarian aspects to his view, I see nothing to suggest Plato did not consider all of this to be for the "greater good".

He did think it was for the greater good. So did Hitler. So do all totalitarians.

I do not agree that the historical context absolves him, any more than it absolves any totalitarian. All the ideas are around all the time, and I see nothing forward looking about seeking to restore a totalitarian state to one which happened to be going through a democratic phase.

Who decides who is fit to rule? Why, funnily enough in Plato's vision it is those who are doing the ruling. And oddly, in a democracy it is the polity. There are no unique skills for government at all: absolutely none. To found on "virtue", as you seem to in your first paragraph is to institute a beauty contest: no thanks. I do not wish to found on "virtue", nor to judge on the basis of "decent chaps": I know nothing about these people at all. Nor would I know if I lived in a smaller state, because such a system encourages hypocrisy and deception. I couldn't care less if they are virtuous. What I want is a clear statement of what they intend to do: and a means of getting rid of them if they don't do it: or do do it, but also do things I hate which they didn't bother to mention in their manifesto. Virtue be damned!.

As to whether it is meritocracy? Who decides what is merit? Am I better fitted to rule if I have blonde hair and blue eyes? Some think so. What about if I happen to be bigger than everybody else? That is a merit if we so define it: and many societies have. There is no intrinsic "merit" so far as I can see: it is determined by politics and it is no surprise that big muscles is not seen as a relevant merit by wee wimpy geeks: they would like us to focus on the "merits" of wee, wimpy geeks, instead.

How is the cobbler to get experience of governing in Plato's republic, if experience is important, as you suggest? Why he won't: he will be too busy cobbling. Plato is quite explicit when he talks of soldiers, for example. Those destined for soldiering should be taken to watch battles when they are young so they can learn soldiering: on a fast horse so they can run away quick if the battle comes too close. The offspring of the "best" as produced by the rigged matings are to be taken somewhere special and reared apart from the rest. How are they going to get experience of cobbling? The sop to social mobility contained in the idea that sometimes one will be born with gold in his blood, though the offspring of base-metal parents is just a sop: it is another example of the noble lie and it is very familiar. In th actual social insititutions he proposes it will not happen: and if such a person overcomes all that education and class deference can achieve (as some will) there will be few ways of demonstrating that to anyone who matters. Such a person will have the usual recourse put in place by a ruling class: if he gets a big enough popular following to challenge their power they will give him a job. That is not social mobility: it is class espionage. It works, usually. That does not make it ok.

Edited by FionaK - 21/1/2012, 18:42

I think it comes down to commen sense really. Having a blonde haired blue eyed women who had no qualifications, being considered the better option for fixing cars rather then a person who had experiance with it would be just plain idiotic and unpraticle. Merit is givern to people with the ability to excel in the situation. I think that would be more simmilar to cronyism then meritocracy, as it is based on what you are rather than your abilites.

Talk of absolution is utterly irrelvent, man's been dead for two millenia. How do you judge someone of the past based on insights into their actions after their death? And considering the progress (though that term may be arguable, bear with me) of society, of civilisation, how could you compare Plato to Hitler? It's taken us thousands of years to get to this era, you think humanity as a whole has learned nothing in that time? Totalitarianism is bad, this is fully agreed on, and the state Plato proposed does have, at least, aspects of such. Ideas of power, and therefore the idea of totalitarianism, have been around for as long as the idea of property. The difference is what other ideas are around, and in the two thousand year difference, there's been a few. Because of the historical context you deny gives absolution, there is a major difference in the degree to which absolution is a question. Which I don't think it is in the first place, but it does make a difference.

Now, I do not think (and again, I've not read Plato) that he wanted to eschew the democratic system in favour of the totalitarian philosopher king system, but he did want to limit it so poor decisions would not be made because the "lesser" populace voted poorly. I think that is an understandable position, if not a defensible one by today's standards. Personally, I have many times thought how much better democracy could be if the oft-stupid, manipulable masses did not vote on important legislature. But he did not want no one to vote. He wanted the smart people to vote.

So, how to choose who is allowed to be part of politics? As you so rightly point out, Fiona, there is no skill associated with politics. Plato knew this, the ancient Greeks in general knew this. So what to base it on? The answer they (or Plato, I do not know if he invented the idea) came up with was the virtues. Now, you may not give a damn if politicians are virtuous, but the ancient Greeks did. Plato did. They did not have an alternative. Political statements of intent were less- or even irrelevant, because they knew people cannot be trusted. So, you're left with virtue. The concept of virtue, incidentally, has evolved with the times, what they were talking about ("areté", if I recall my ancient Greek correctly) was much more multifaceted. Calling someone virtuous is as empty in and of itself as saying "he's a good guy". It's a statement of opinion, reflecting at best their surfacemost aspect. Aristotle got much deeper into his discussions on virtue, as I recall, but most of his thought is based on Plato.

Virtue was *very* important to the Greeks of the time. Thinking is the virtue of the wise, cobbling the virtue of the cobbler, seeing; the virtue of the eye. Virtue was not the nebulous, ambiguous concept it is today, it was very real. Literally real, as in an actual existing thing. It is what you are, what builds you, what drives you, and what can destroy you.

You are correct that merit is what it is defined as, and I'm going to note that I do not think meritocracy is a way forward, as "forward" is always as subjective as its starting point. As such, it prevents self-actualisation from coming from within, which it needs to or the term loses its point, and thereby humanity loses its point.

OK. Can you give a list of what counts as merit in the field of governance?

I judge them on the content and consequences of their argument. How do you judge? Perhaps what you are objecting to is the use of the word "absolve"? I set no store by it, so if it bothers you substitute something else if you will . The point is that Plato's ideas are current: indeed it has been claimed that most of western philosophy is a footnote to Plato: and he provides a justification for totalitarianism in every age. Words have power and Plato's words have great power. That is because the problems are pretty much universal and constant over time: and the different solutions do not change much. We give the principles different names; use different analogies; pretend that the basic disagreements have a different character. They don't. Plato would be no more than a historical curiosity if the fundamental issues were different now. His analysis would be of interest to historians and academics in the same way as theories of phlogisten and humours is for physics and medical research. We do not make progress in the field of politics so far as I can see. The arguments now are the same as they were in Greece in Plato's time. You may say that we have moved on and cite such things as the abolition of slavery in support of that view: which would be fine if slavery had been abolished. But it hasn't. It is certainly true that it is not acceptable in our particular time: but think how recently we have reached that conclusion. Look around the world and see that the principles which underpin our current views are not universally agreed. They are not secure either. Plato as a person does not interest me: that he had a family background and a personal experience which led him to his views is an aside: so I probably did mislead when I spoke of absolving him: my criticism is directed to his views and it is a lazy shorthand to tie them to the man. I apologise for that because it muddies the waters.



Interesting. What are the differences which you see as significant? To me they are both totalitarians: the fundamental of totalitarianism is, as I see it, the elevation of an abstraction over the worth of the individual. It comes dressed up in different ways: but that is the essence, I think. Once you concede that you admit of any deception, any action against the individual in the name of the greater good: often the "state" or some mystical conception like the "will of the people". This is opposed by what are short handed as "enlightenment" values: which values the individual and denies his being subsumed to a higher purpose. If you like you can tie that to Kantian morality: in a totalitarian mindset an individual is indeed a means and not an end, if that suits. You can consider it in the light of utilitarianism as well: though the connection is more tenuous and it is harder to establish. Nevertheless I think that at a rather dilute level the sacrifice of the miserable child to the prosperity and well being of the majority skirts the same territory, because the issue is absence of choice and value and, at bottom the use of an individual as a tool to achieve the ends of others.



In terms of politics, philosophy and social arrangements, that is precisely what I think. I see nothing to suggest it is not true


Yes. We had another thread where we were trying to identify the fundamental features of totalitarianism: we did not get very far, but it is an interesting topic nonetheless.


I disagree. The idea of power is not tied to totalitarianism, as you seem to imply. There is always power. I do not think it is a consequence of the idea of property either, necessarily. "Might is right" is also power, and there does not need to be any property at all for someone to beat you up, or threaten to do so, to make you do something they want you to do. Serial killers do not always get any gain from what they do, in terms of property: there is an internal satisfaction which might be characterised as the enjoyment of power for its own sake.

I do not see any new ideas about how political power should be granted or used, however: certainly not since the time of Plato. In his period the various possibilities for forms of government were all already there, so far as I know. Rule by one (monarchy) was familiar: rule by two existed in Egypt I think: rule by a few (oligarchy) was a major political thread for centuries in Athens: rule by money or property owners was a subset of that: rule by majority (democracy) was the major political opposition to the oligarchs; theocracy was known as a possible system ( again a subset of oligarchy) as was aristocracy (yet another variation of oligarchy); anarchy I am not so sure about, but I think there is a case to be made that this is the position of the cynics. And all of these had arguments to support them and to oppose them, just as they do now; the same arguments mostly. There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to political systems and people have always thought about this. Our ancestors were not stupider than we are:and they had no less knowledge about people. Philosophy and politics are about people.


I do not think that is correct. He wanted rule by a small group. He believed that the right decisions would be arrived at through the application of pure reason and it follows there would be no votes; how can there be votes when there is a "right" answer? We do not determine that the earth goes round the sun by voting, because there is a "right" answer, so it would be rather stupid to do that. Plato thought that the same applied to governance, so far as I can tell.

The problem with that is that a moment's reflection shows that real disagreement on matters political exists in every class and every level of education. Smart people are no better than dumb people: educated people no better than ignorant ones. The differences within each group are the same differences. That tells you all you need to know, IMO.


They had the same alternative as you and me. At present the whole direction of travel is to elevate "virtue" to a basis for political competence. To me that is because there is no true alternative in the west at present: all the politicians have adopted the neoliberal analysis and so the people have no choice about the issues that matter: so there is nothing left to vote on but "character" or whatever word you want to use to describe the phenomenon. Once again there is exactly the same issue as was there in ancient greece: the tension between policy and personality. It is in the interests of the powerful, whoever they are, to persuade us that they are good chaps we wouldn't mind marrying our children to; that they share our values and our aspirations; that they are, in short, decent people. There is a point to that: there will be things which arise which have not been foreseen and it is comforting to think that they will decide on the basis of morals or values or whatever which we share. But we do not know that: we cannot know that: and neither could the athenians. It is equally in the interets of the powerful to say as little as they can about what they will actually do. So long as we focus on intrinsic qualities (whether you use virtue in the current sense or in theirs) you are placing your faith on your ability to make windows into the souls of people you know nothing about. I am reminded of the crass but funny representation of Kaa in the jungle book: "trust in me" is a rubbish song for a politician to sing.


If people cannot be trusted that is an unswerable argument against totalitarianism: because the rulers are people too. The whole argument rests on the idea that they are different in this respect. I think that is nonsense. If a political statement of intent is overt then you have a chance of seeing whether it has been carried out: what Plato and all totalitarians propose is that we appoint people who never need to make such a statement; never need to be questioned or held to account for their actions or omissions. That is because they are different from the rest of us and will never do anything which is not unarguably good for all of us, by virtue of who they are. Good luck with that. That is why your following paragraph is irrelevant from my point of view, too. I am aware that the word does not mean the same thing to them as it does to us on the surface: but the distinction is without a substantive difference.

<snip>

That's like listing what is moral and what isn't. It can't done (or at least aristotle would argue). Also, you seem to implie I am an authoriety on the matter and can name every single thing that can count as a merit and what isn't. Lets be realistic here... I wouldn't be able to. My point is that there are positions which will obviously be based on ability to do the task at the highest possible standard, and not some random atribute. I don't think thats what 'merit' is in the sense we are talking about it. It is a mistake to think someone who has blonde hair and blue eyes is supierior to someone without evidence showing how they are in a certain field. If hitler for example based his society on this, and called it meritocracy he would be mistaken.

Since you are able to say what it is not you clearly have some criteria to base it on. So rather than list what qualifies perhaps it would be easier to say what makes something qualify as "merit"? In the field of governance is what we are talking about

Edited by FionaK - 22/1/2012, 20:04

I'd have to agree there. Still as stupid and irrational as ever. Oh well, thats what makes life intresting.