[Ultra Sonic 007]

Something different; final paper for History of Philosophy. I usually like to insert my own conservative tone in my articles, but it's kind of hard to do this considering the material.

Wonder what Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle would've thought of the constitutional republic our Founding Fathers conceived...

Works Cited page included for any historians who want to confirm anything.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Ping.

[pissant]

I’ll take the wisdom of Franklin, Hamilton and Madison over that of the ancient greeks. These founders had 2000 years of other wise men to cull wisdom from in addition to the greeks. Not only that, they worked for a living.

[airborne]

What if, as a majority, the people decided to commit a heinous act, such as an unjustified military action against another nation for the sake of resources, no matter the cost in human lives? Such an action would lead to death and suffering for a great many people. Also, consider that the majority would not judge or correct themselves, for they were the ones who agreed to partake in that course of action.

Something to think about.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Probably not GGG-ping worthy, but I thought you’d be interested anyway.

[Blind Eye Jones]

In Plato's Republic democracy was second to the last, just below tyranny, in the breakdown of just or good regimes and all that was needed to slip into tyranny was a strong demagogue to persuade men to believe that he could give to the masses what them want. In the Germany's Wiemar Republic we see how the fledgling democracy fell to the dictator Adolf Hitler and this could possibly happen again... perhaps in Iraq. Plato hated democracy for a number of reasons, least of all was Athens putting his friend Socrates to death. However, Socrates challenged the Athenian democracy by questioning the existence of their gods (he was supposedly an atheist), corrupting their youth to do the same in challenging traditional authority, and being a general pain in the ass. Socrates had opportunities to escape a number of times but chose not to.

Interesting that Hegel thought that the state was justified for condemning Socrates and putting him to death, but Hegel always believed in the supremacy of the state as the absolute over the individual. And Hegel was also the inspiration for Marx and his idea of the collective. The individual always gets subsumed as part of the collective will.

The idea of the purity of the soul implies nature and a natural law that governs man. Today, there is no belief in nature, rather just a belief in the conventions of society and the relativism of all culture. We are more sophisticated and perhaps more the sophists as well.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks US007. Reading The Republic is an eye-opener for anyone thinking Plato liked democracy. :') I've added this to the catalog, and think a ping would not be out of line.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

[Quick or Dead]

I tend to believe little to nothing of what was written about Socrates, especially when it comes to Plato. Reading the Republic, I always got the sense that Plato was simply using Socrates as a mouthpiece for his own ideas. Plato did not despise democracy because of Socrates, he despised it because he, like so many other historical detractors of ochlocracy (mob rule, ancient Greek slur against Democracy), believed that most people were too stupid to be trusted with civil power.

What Plato proposes for government looks like an "enlightened" variation of Sparta.

[Publius6961]

What if, as a majority, the people decided to commit a heinous act, such as an unjustified military action against another nation for the sake of resources, no matter the cost in human lives? Such an action would lead to death and suffering for a great many people. Also, consider that the majority would not judge or correct themselves, for they were the ones who agreed to partake in that course of action. As such, they inflict evil upon many more people than an individual could ever hope to; after all, as a democracy, the majority’s actions affect the entirety of the state and its citizens.

Argument by appeal to higher authority. Suppose we change that statement slightly, maintaining the same conclusion:

What if, as a majority, the people decided to commit a heinous act, such as surrendering to an aggresive foreign country, for the sake of their habitual safety and hedonist existence no matter the enemy's stated intentions of complete and utter slavery? Such an action would lead to death and suffering for a great many people, and a permanent subjugation of all. Also, consider that the majority would not judge or correct themselves, for they were the ones who agreed to partake in that course of action. As such, they inflict evil upon many more people than an individual could ever hope to; after all, as a democracy, the majority’s actions affect the entirety of the state and its citizens.

[RightWhale]

what Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle would've thought of the constitutional republic

All Gov'ts are constitutional. Aristotle had an immense collection of constitutions of Gov'ts existing at his time, and just about everything was represented. What he didn't have is the XIVth Amendment that we have now as the central controlling portion of our constitution and it isn't at heart essentially a Republic.

[Sherman Logan]

A philosopher, to Plato and Socrates, is the ideal ruler of a state.

What a shock!

Philosophers consider philosophers to be the ideal rulers.

Little changes. Today, intellectuals still believe they are deserving of absolute power over others.

[cornelis]

1,253 views.