Pham 1

Peter Pham

Professor LaBarge

PHIL 14

October 10, 2017

Democracy: Regulated and Civil Anarchy

In The Republic, Plato, through the portrayal of Socrates, provides three specific

criticisms of democracy: its basis of equality, promotion of disunity within a society, and

inherently existence as a system guided by ignorance. In this paper, I will summarize Platos

criticism of democracy, and provide my own analysis of his criticism where I argue that an

individual of the 21st century should sympathize with Platos insights and that democratic

societies of the 21st century should find remedies to the problems Plato presents.

In order to better understand Platos criticisms, one must understand Platos view of the

purpose of human life and society collectively. As an ancient dualist, Plato believes that people

fundamentally are and persist over time as a soul, which consists of reason (logos), spirits

(thymos), and appetites (epithumia). The purpose of life is to live a good life and achieve the

highest form of knowledge by developing and practicing four virtues: wisdom, courage,

temperance, and justice (427e). He specifically emphasizes wisdom, which is a product of a

souls reason, as the guiding virtue to achieve the highest form of knowledge, because wisdom is

prudence, is some sort of knowledge. I mean, it certainly is not through ignorance that people

do the prudent thing, but through knowledge (428b).

This is where Platos understanding of government fundamentally diverges from the

modern era. Today, people understand government mainly as an entity tasked with the role of

ensuring economic stability and to put a stop to cheating on contracts, and the other evildoings I
 Pham 2

[Socrates] mentioned just now (426e). Believing that one should strive for the highest

knowledge by striving for wisdom, Plato extends his understanding of the purpose of life to

something that all should try to attain, both individually and collectively as a society, which

includes government. Yet, he understands that some knowledge in the city we have just

founded, which some of its citizens have, that does not deliberate about some particular thing in

the city, but about the city as a whole, and about how its internal relations and its relations with

other cities will be the best possible (428d): the craft of guardianship (428d). Only a small

group of people is the one that inherent possesses a share of the knowledge that alone among all

the other sorts of knowledge should be called wisdom (428e). This is where Plato begins to

reproach democracy.

First, Plato understanding that only a small few are wise enough to be fit to rule (428d)

demonstrates that society should maintain a form of meritocratic oligarchy or wisdom-led

monarchy; democracy means that every single member of society is afforded an equal share in

the constitution and the ruling offices, and the majority of offices in it are assigned by lot

(557a). Instead of trying to strive for a common goal of achieving social harmony and reaching

for the highest knowledge, each person would arrange his own life in whatever way pleases him

[and consequently] multifarious people come to exist (557b). In the long run, this has

ramifications on peoples understanding of life as people with different tendencies towards one

of the three parts of their soul are considered equal, all three parts of the soul are considered

equal even though reason and wisdom are supposed to guide the soul holistically and society

collectively. For just like an embroidered cloak embroidered with every kind of ornament,

[democracy] is embroidered with every sort of character, and so would to be the most beautiful.

And presumably, many people would behave like women and children looking at embroidered
 Pham 3

objects and actually judge it to be the most beautiful (557c), even though they lack enough

knowledge to better grasp what true beauty really is. Yet with democracy making no distinctions

between these different views and people, democracy consequently makes no distinction

between the different parts of the soulreason, spirits, appetitesand everyone with their own

ideas and understanding, no matter how inaccurate, gain equal status relative to each other. the

citys tolerance, its complete lack of petty-mindedness, and its utter disregard for the things we

took so seriously when we were founding the city tramples all [those transcendent natural

gifts of a good person] underfoot, [democracy and its consequential tolerance] gives no thought

to what sort of [good] practices someone (558b-558c) develops and maintains. For Plato, the

highest truth now is as important as every other digression from it, and there is no push towards

trying to attain that high knowledge.

Yet, this diversity leads to an even larger problem for Plato: societal disunity. With

democracy assigning a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike (558c), there would be no

social harmony where every citizen tries to be the best versions of themselves and work for the

greater community. People would act on an appetite that goes beyond [basic necessities] and

seeks other sorts of food [and pleasures]; that if is restrained from childhood and educated, most

people can hold in check; and that is harmful to the body or harmful to the souls [and societys]

capacity for wisdom and temperance (559b). As money [and other desires] would be less

shamelessly pursued in the city and fewer of those evils we were mentioning just now would

develop in it (556a-556b), people risk jeopardizing the social harmony that promotes desiring

the highest truth that Plato discusses. Like a body with different organs not functioning for the

health of the whole body, people of different incentives do not work towards building a healthy

society, which in turn nurtures healthy individuals and souls.

 Pham 4

Furthermore, Plato observes that this equal distribution of status within a democracy also

risks periods of time where society is ruled by the ignorant. People feel that There is no

compulsion to rule even if you are qualified to rule, or to be ruled if you do not want to be; or

to be at war when the others are at war to be any the less free to rule isnt that [an

unheavenly and unpleasant] way to pass the time, while it lasts (557e-558a). In other words, a

democracy is a system where some of the wisest and smartest people can be easily counteracted

with some of the most foolish and idiotic people as each person gets the same voting power and

opportunity to rule. Just as any sensible adult would not want a child playing with knives, Plato

does not want unqualified people should not rule, especially if society is a reflection of its

citizens and their souls. Yet, democracy does not make that distinction. Hence for Plato,

democracy is rule by the ignorant.

To summarize, Platos three criticisms of democracy are that it makes no distinctions

between different people of different capacities and abilities, which in turn paves the way for

social disorder and situations where the ignorant rule society. Now, I will argue that the modern

era should sympathize with Platos concerns as a challenge, but certainly not a dealbreaker, for

democracy by looking at various scenarios in distinct democratic procedures to acknowledge the

shortcomings of democracy at times.

Starting with Platos first concern of equality leading to the equating of people and ideas

that are never equal, Platos fundamental concern is one where the distinction between right and

wrong is blurred. The moral relativist, especially for controversial cases, would insist that morals

are on a spectrum and are dependent on culture, time, and place, but that proves to be

problematic for rape. If rape is a moral question on a moral spectrum, that implies rape to be

morally permissible in some situations, except that seems impossible. If rape cannot be on a
 Pham 5

spectrum despite being a moral question, then morals are then constants, than Platos concerns

hold intact, and there are morals that differentiate between good and bad.

Democracy tampers with this distinction as democratic governments also get involved

with social and moral issues. In some democracies, these social and moral questions are decided

on as popularity contests through a referendum: Hungarys migrant quota, Irelands abortion, and

Nebraskas death penalty. Voting on an issue that impacts people waters down the significance

of the issue as one vote on both sides cancel out each other, and the final decision can be made

with a simple popular majority. Even if these issues are limited to their cases, it implies that

morals are based on popular opinion. One may argue that these issues are too controversial but

need quick resolutions, but that suggests that morals are merely an inconvenience. The more

difficult an issue is, the more likely a society may need to dialogue about it.

This bridges to Platos second concern: social disunity. As a simple majority, or plurality,

in a pure democracy can make the minority feel voiceless, society can easily become fractured:

Brexit, Trumps election, Vietnam War. It may be peoples general inability to see the nuances

of an issue, but democrats (a person in a democratic society) often structure an issue as a simple

for and against and underlying reasons are seldom explored. It becomes an us versus

them and a battle between the left and the right. Yet, a europhile may point out that it is

only within a two-party system. Generally in proportional democracies where more than two

parties tend to dominate, governing becomes difficult as different parties and constituents cannot

come to a consensus. A new party forming is usually a sign of a faction within an existing

coalition. In Brazil where twelve parties each occupy about one-twelfth of the legislature,

governing becomes impossible as no parties can agree enough to make a majority; even within
 Pham 6

the party there are disagreements between members. That disunity can manifest itself as

stagnancy and a broken society.

Circling back to the issue of a simple majority ruling, that leads to Platos third concern:

rule by ignorance. As the truism goes, with great power comes great responsibilities. Yet, voters

and politicians do not illustrate that when voting and campaigning. One prime historical example

is the Nazis democratic rise to power. In retrospect, the Nazis committed grave atrocities, and

that strongly questions the merits of popular opinion. The US can offer its electoral college and

France can offer its two-round system, but even those cushions have failed as modern Nazis

have shown to be capable of overcoming those constitutional obstacles: Trumps post-election

travel ban and Le Pens strong electoral performance.

Altogether, Platos concern is about the state of ones soul. As much as democracy fails

to bring ones soul to a better state directly, I contend that democracy provided individuals with

the opportunities to wrestle with difficult questions. After all, philosophers try to wrestle with

those questions, even if they are not guardians. Unlike other government systems, democracies

open discussion allow all to reach closer to the highest knowledge at their own pace and

challenges those who know more about the highest truth to better grasp them by trying to

persuade others. In this light, democracy may be the best form of government; one may never

understand knowledge without knowing ignorance, or knowing the good without experiencing

the bad.
 Pham 7

Works Cited

Plato. Republic. Comp. C. D. C. Reeve. N.p.: Hackett Pub., 2004. Print.