Socrates idea of democracy: ( totally history)

The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates hated democracy. He knew its dangers and
spoke against them. To him, a ruler must not be chosen because of his popularity, but a
ruler should be chosen because he possesses the necessary skills to lead a state, just as a
doctor possesses the necessary skills to manage the well-being of a person or how an
architect possesses special skills to design a durable structure. Socrates believed that it
was not logical for everyone to have a chance at governing the state. It saddened him to
think that democracy allows the people to rule even though people do not possess the
necessary skills to do so. He concluded that democracy is absurd. Socrates claimed that
the best form of government is one that is ruled by a leader who possesses virtue,
knowledge, and understanding of the state. Socrates then admired the Spartan
monarchy, describing it as well-governed.

In Socrates’ time, Athenian democracy was a source of pride to its citizens. The
statesman Pericles, who helped advance democracy in Athens, proudly said that their
political constitution was original and not copied from anywhere else. It was a rule for
the majority of citizens and not for the few. As a result, Athenian democracy does not
forbid anyone to begin a political career. Even if you belong to a lower social status,
democracy will grant you a chance to hold a public position. According to Pericles,
Athenian democracy was freedom. All citizens were free to do as they pleased, even in
their everyday lives.

And Pericles had the whole of Athens to back up his words. To many, if not all of
Socrates’ contemporaries, democracy might have posed no danger to anyone. It might
even have seemed to be the most practical political arrangement because political
careers are open to everyone. This characteristic of democracy should have appealed to
Socrates because people like him might have succeeded in this democratic society. He,
too, was open-minded on almost any subject under the sun. Instead, he despised the
rule of the people.

In Plato’s Republic, which contains Socrates’ views on democracy, Socrates says that the
Athenian state is like a ship. He says the ship’s captain is a big, strong man, but he is
deaf, his eyes are blurry, and he cannot see where he is sailing to. Meanwhile, his crew
all lead chaotic lives on the ship, consuming the food supplies, and arguing continually
about who should be the rightful captain of the ship. All this happens while every one of
them is convinced that he is the best qualified to be the captain, knowing that no special
ability is needed to be one. What results is a ship sailing to no specific destination.

In Socrates’ sharp criticism of democracy, the ship’s owners are the citizens of Athens.
The people are powerful, but they do not possess the knowledge and intellectual
understanding to govern themselves. With their blurry eyes and unhearing ears, the ship
called Athens will not be able to plot a clear destination, let alone reach one. Meanwhile,
the crew is the babbling politicians, the skillful talkers, and the arrogant aspirants for
public office. They continually bicker with each other in their attempt to influence and
persuade others that they are the best men for the job of governing Athens.
Socrates clearly wanted his fellow Athenians to think harder about how their ship was
being sailed. He wants them to stop trusting the ship’s owners or crew and instead
search the ship for somebody who does not speak in a loud voice, who has been ignored
by many, but who possesses knowledge and virtue. Socrates is suggesting to his fellow
Athenians that the man who is qualified to rule is the philosopher.

In an ironic turn of history, Socrates was killed by democracy itself. Socrates conversed
with many people and was known for asking questions that involved Athenian culture
and conventional notions about the gods. People had the impression that he was trying
to undermine Athenian values. Athens was politically unstable during that time, having
just combined forces with Sparta to defend Greece against Persia. Then, Athens went on
a 27-year war against Sparta and lost. Sparta then threw aside Athens’ democracy and
ruled her with an oligarchy. This suited Socrates because two oligarchs ruling Athens
happened to be his followers. Then, in 403 B.C., the oligarchs were forced out, and
democracy was restored. Socrates’ political support vanished, and he was persecuted for
his relentless questioning of conventional notions. To the loud-talking, influential
politicians of Athens, not only was his association with the oligarchs a threat, even his
philosophy was a threat to the normalcy of society. He made his last plea to his fellow
Athenians during his trial, telling them that Athens needed a critical person like him. He
said that he was like a gadfly who stings a large horse, like Athens, in order to wake it
up. But his fellow Athenians had already been influenced by the loud-talking politicians,
and Socrates was then charged with inventing new gods and corrupting the youth. The
philosopher was sentenced to death by drinking a potion made from the poisonous
plant, hemlock.

Plato’s The Republic (internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Since the mid-nineteenth century, the Republic has been Plato’s most famous and widely
read dialogue. As in most other Platonic dialogues the main character is Socrates. It is
generally accepted that the Republic belongs to the dialogues of Plato’s middle period. In
Plato’s early dialogues, Socrates refutes the accounts of his interlocutors and the
discussion ends with no satisfactory answer to the matter investigated. In
the Republic however, we encounter Socrates developing a position on justice and its
relation to eudaimonia (happiness). He provides a long and complicated, but unified
argument, in defense of the just life and its necessary connection to the happy life.
The dialogue explores two central questions. The first question is “what is justice?”
Socrates addresses this question both in terms of political communities and in terms of
the individual person or soul. He does this to address the second and driving question
of the dialogue: “is the just person happier than the unjust person?” or “what is the
relation of justice to happiness?” Given the two central questions of the discussion,
Plato’s philosophical concerns in the dialogue are ethical and political. In order to
address these two questions, Socrates and his interlocutors construct a just city in
speech, the Kallipolis. They do this in order to explain what justice is and then they
proceed to illustrate justice by analogy in the human soul. On the way to defending the
just life, Socrates considers a tremendous variety of subjects such as several rival
theories of justice, competing views of human happiness, education, the nature and
importance of philosophy and philosophers, knowledge, the structure of reality, the
Forms, the virtues and vices, good and bad souls, good and bad political regimes, the
family, the role of women in society, the role of art in society, and even the afterlife.
This wide scope of the dialogue presents various interpretative difficulties and has
resulted in thousands of scholarly works. In order to attempt to understand the
dialogue’s argument as a whole one is required to grapple with these subjects.

Aristotle’s Politics: ( Grade saver, Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy)

Aristotle (b. 384–d. 322 BCE), was a Greek philosopher, logician, and scientist. Along with
his teacher Plato, Aristotle is generally regarded as one of the most influential ancient
thinkers in a number of philosophical fields, including political theory. Aristotle was born in
Stagira in northern Greece, and his father was a court physician to the king of Macedon. As a
young man he studied in Plato’s Academy in Athens. After Plato’s death he left Athens to
conduct philosophical and biological research in Asia Minor and Lesbos, and he was then
invited by King Philip II of Macedon to tutor his young son, Alexander the Great. Soon after
Alexander succeeded his father, consolidated the conquest of the Greek city-states, and
launched the invasion of the Persian Empire. Aristotle returned as a resident alien to Athens,
and was a close friend of Antipater, the Macedonian viceroy. At this time (335–323 BCE) he
wrote, or at least worked on, some of his major treatises, including the Politics. When
Alexander died suddenly, Aristotle had to flee from Athens because of his Macedonian
connections, and he died soon after. Aristotle’s life seems to have influenced his political
thought in various ways: his interest in biology seems to be reflected in the naturalism of his
politics; his interest in comparative politics and his qualified sympathies for democracy as
well as monarchy may have been encouraged by his travels and experience of diverse
political systems; he reacts critically to his teacher Plato, while borrowing extensively, from
Plato’s Republic, Statesman, and Laws; and his own Politics is intended to guide rulers and
statesmen, reflecting the high political circles in which he moved.

The city is a political partnership that comes into being for purposes of self-sufficiency but exists
primarily for the sake of living well. Man is by nature a political animal, because he has the ability to
communicate and to dialogue and about justice and the good. The city is prior to the individual.

Natural slaves are those who perceive reason but do not have it. It is mutually beneficial that such
people be ruled. There are also slaves according to the law, who may or may not be natural slaves.
Mastery is rule over slaves, but political rule is rule over free and equal persons.
Holding women, children and property in common as Plato suggests in the Republic is not beneficial to
the city. Holding property in common will not reduce factional conflict, but may actually increase
because of a sense of injustice.

A citizen in the strict sense is one who shares in making decisions and holding office. Citizenship is
therefore essentially democratic, but the notion of citizenship in practice must differ according to the
nature of the regime. Commonly speaking, however, a citizen is usually considered to be anyone whose
parents are citizens.

The virtue of a good man and an excellent citizen may be different, because the virtue of a citizen is
determined with a view to the preservation of the regime. To the extent the actual regime approximates
the best regime, the virtue of a good man and an excellent citizen will coincide.

Correct regimes are those which look to the common advantage. Deviant regimes are those which look
to the advantage of the rulers, and they involve mastery rather than political rule. The correct regimes
are kingship, aristocracy and polity; the incorrect regimes are deviations from those and are tyranny,
oligarchy and democracy respectively. Kingship is rule by one person, aristocracy is rule by a few based
on merit, and polity is a mixture of democracy and oligarchy. Democracy is rule by the multitude,
oligarchy is rule by the wealthy, and tyranny is monarchic rule of a master.

Justice is equality for equals and inequality for unequals. Because the city exists for the sake of living
well, virtue must be a care for every city.

Which element of the city should have authority? The multitude may collectively be better judges of
certain things, so it is proper for them to share in deliberating and judging, but they should not share in
the highest offices. Laws need to be made in accordance with the regime. The just one's regime is, the
more just the laws will be. The good of politics is justice. The best claim to rule is education and virtue,
but there is also a claim to rule based on wealth and on numbers. A regime must be based on the rule of
law.

Polity is the best attainable regime and is formed by the mixture of oligarchy and democracy. A well-
mixed polity should reinforce the good parts of each regime while minimizing their shortcomings.

The middling element of city is very important for its stability because it is the most willing to listen to
reason and can arbitrate between the very poor and the rich. The middling sort is the least likely to
engage in factional conflict, and they make the best legislators. As much as possible, the city should be
made up those who are equal or similar.

Factional conflicts arise because of disagreements over justice. There are two types of equality:
numerical equality and equality according to merit. Disputes over different claims to justice can lead to
conflict and revolution.

To preserve regimes, it is necessary to enforce the laws well, and to arrange offices so that one cannot
profit from them. Regimes should take care not to alienate any one portion of the population. The
middling element is very important because they tend to mitigate factional conflict. The greatest
method of preserving a regime is education relative to the regime, which means education to appreciate
the claims of justice that the non-ruling element has.

The problem with democracies is that they define freedom badly, which leads to slavery. The defining
principle of democracy is to claim justice as equality based on numbers rather than merit. Citizens in
democracies rule and are ruled in turn.

The best regime corresponds to the best way of life for a human being. Since the best way of life is living
nobly and according to virtue, the best regime is the one, which promotes this life. The best city needs
to be a partnership of similar persons, and rule needs to be based on education and virtue. However,
the city needs farmers and laborers to provide sustenance and the material necessities of life. Farmers
and laborers do not have the leisure to be well educated and live nobly. Rulers need to come from the
leisured classes. The citizens will be exclusively the ruling class, which will rule and be ruled in turn such
that the young will be soldiers and the old will rule. All the laboring classes will be slaves.

Education should be common for all citizens, and habituate the children to virtue. Education should
consist of letters, gymnastics, music and drawing. Music is important because it is a noble means of
using leisure time and through its harmony it makes the student appreciate the harmony of the soul in
which reason rules the spirit and the appetites.