Cornel West describes The Republic as "Plato's... critique of Athenian democracy as inevitably corrupted by the ignorance and passions of the masses" (preface to Race Matters 1993 xxiv).
What do people think of this description?
There does seem to be a streak in Plato that's suspicious of direct democracy as practiced in Athens. He has a point -- as a system of government it was remarkably volatile, and subject to manipulation by factions (see the U.S. Senate w/r/t the latter), and after all it was the restored democracy that killed Socrates (the thirty tyrants would have, of course, but they ran out of time).
But much as I respect brother West, I'm always disappointed to hear philosophers pronouncing on the Republic in such unsubtle, reductively political terms.
Well it want really much of an argument about its political terms it was more of just a reference to it in the introduction to his book because he had been teaching Republic to a class at the time in which he wrote it.
There does seem to be a streak in Plato that's suspicious of direct democracy as practiced in Athens. He has a point -- as a system of government it was remarkably volatile, and subject to manipulation by factions (see the U.S. Senate w/r/t the latter), and after all it was the restored democracy that killed Socrates (the thirty tyrants would have, of course, but they ran out of time).
ReplyDeleteBut much as I respect brother West, I'm always disappointed to hear philosophers pronouncing on the Republic in such unsubtle, reductively political terms.
Well it want really much of an argument about its political terms it was more of just a reference to it in the introduction to his book because he had been teaching Republic to a class at the time in which he wrote it.
ReplyDeleteAll social institutions are inevitably corrupted by the ignorance and passions of the masses, or of the few.
ReplyDeleteWhich would you prefer?