Monday 7 May 2007
Criticism of Democracy -Ship/Beast simile
· Plato agrees that philosophers in Athenian society are either useless or dangerous, although they only become a danger when they’re corrupted. He proceeds to explain the democratic Athenian society has no use for them, and so they have no alternative but to stand aside from the corruption of political life. He uses the simile of the Ship to illustrate his point (pg 210)
The Simile of the Ship
· In the simile, each feature represents a part of Athenian society:
Ship = Democratic Athenian Soceity
Captain = Athenian people (the masses) He is big and strong, yet deaf and short-sighted, representing the short-sightedness of the people, who cannot see what is good for them in the long run. Lack the skills of statesmanship.
Crew = Politicians. Quarrelling amongst themselves, wanting control of the captain and the helm. They form factions, much like the political parties of the democratic society, and try to manipulate and persuade the captain in order to overthrow him. When a faction succeeds in taking control, the Ship’s journey becomes a drunken pleasure cruise. The crew members do not believe that navigational skills are needed to bring the ship into port.
Navigator = Philosopher. One who knows how to bring the ship to its port through using his knowledge of the star maps and the changing seasons. This represents the Philosophers ability to bring the state, and its people, to its ultimate destination through his knowledge of the Forms.
Port = The destination of human civilisation
Evaluation of the Simile of the Ship
Strength Effectively describes the role of people and politicians in the Athenian State and similarities can be drawn between our modern day democratic societies. Politicians do manipulate the voters, as their ethics change in accordance to the opinion of the masses. They do persuade people to vote them into power. The masses are powerful in democracy, for example, protesters can force politicians to take a particular course of action.
Criticism The masses may not be experts in long term economics, but can be said to know what is good for them, what makes them happy and what creates the most comfortable and fulfilling existence. Who’s to say that a drunken pleasure cruise is such a bad path to take?
Strength However Plato makes a valid point in that people do not necessarily know what is good for them in the long run. For example, people complain of taxes, yet if someone were to be involved in an accident they would benefit from the national health service.
Criticism Yet his criticism may not necessarily apply completely to our modern day democracy and our politicians. Can’t we be said to have become more aware of the problems and solutions to our civilisation’s difficulties? I.e. we are not so ‘in the dark’ about what is considered good for our society and that we aren’t leading a drunken pleasure cruise as Plato suggests? Aren’t we becoming more like experts?
Strength Though even if it was proven that, on average, the competence of the population was high enough to ensure that ‘the right choice’ was being made, we cannot be so equally sure of people’s motivations for their choices. In this aspect Plato makes a valid point on the reliability and expertise of the people.
Criticism Is it possible to be an expert at ruling a state? (Refer to criticisms of the Philosopher ruler)
Criticism What is the destination of the state? Plato does not fully explain what it is we should be striving for.
Criticism The simile demonstrates that sight-lovers (non-philosophers) will not take heed the Navigator. They find it difficult to comprehend navigational skills (the intelligible realm) as it has no immediate practicality in their lives. It appears that a shift in the collective consciousness is required to allow the philosopher to rule.
The Simile of the Beast
The Simile of the Ship
· In the simile, each feature represents a part of Athenian society:
Ship = Democratic Athenian Soceity
Captain = Athenian people (the masses) He is big and strong, yet deaf and short-sighted, representing the short-sightedness of the people, who cannot see what is good for them in the long run. Lack the skills of statesmanship.
Crew = Politicians. Quarrelling amongst themselves, wanting control of the captain and the helm. They form factions, much like the political parties of the democratic society, and try to manipulate and persuade the captain in order to overthrow him. When a faction succeeds in taking control, the Ship’s journey becomes a drunken pleasure cruise. The crew members do not believe that navigational skills are needed to bring the ship into port.
Navigator = Philosopher. One who knows how to bring the ship to its port through using his knowledge of the star maps and the changing seasons. This represents the Philosophers ability to bring the state, and its people, to its ultimate destination through his knowledge of the Forms.
Port = The destination of human civilisation
Evaluation of the Simile of the Ship
Strength Effectively describes the role of people and politicians in the Athenian State and similarities can be drawn between our modern day democratic societies. Politicians do manipulate the voters, as their ethics change in accordance to the opinion of the masses. They do persuade people to vote them into power. The masses are powerful in democracy, for example, protesters can force politicians to take a particular course of action.
Criticism The masses may not be experts in long term economics, but can be said to know what is good for them, what makes them happy and what creates the most comfortable and fulfilling existence. Who’s to say that a drunken pleasure cruise is such a bad path to take?
Strength However Plato makes a valid point in that people do not necessarily know what is good for them in the long run. For example, people complain of taxes, yet if someone were to be involved in an accident they would benefit from the national health service.
Criticism Yet his criticism may not necessarily apply completely to our modern day democracy and our politicians. Can’t we be said to have become more aware of the problems and solutions to our civilisation’s difficulties? I.e. we are not so ‘in the dark’ about what is considered good for our society and that we aren’t leading a drunken pleasure cruise as Plato suggests? Aren’t we becoming more like experts?
Strength Though even if it was proven that, on average, the competence of the population was high enough to ensure that ‘the right choice’ was being made, we cannot be so equally sure of people’s motivations for their choices. In this aspect Plato makes a valid point on the reliability and expertise of the people.
Criticism Is it possible to be an expert at ruling a state? (Refer to criticisms of the Philosopher ruler)
Criticism What is the destination of the state? Plato does not fully explain what it is we should be striving for.
Criticism The simile demonstrates that sight-lovers (non-philosophers) will not take heed the Navigator. They find it difficult to comprehend navigational skills (the intelligible realm) as it has no immediate practicality in their lives. It appears that a shift in the collective consciousness is required to allow the philosopher to rule.
The Simile of the Beast
The Philosopher Ruler
The Philosopher Ruler
Definition of the Philosopher – His natural qualities
· The philosopher is in love with truth, not with the changing world of sensation, which is the object of opinion. He is interested in the unchanging reality which is the object of knowledge.
· Those who are only interested in the changing world of the senses are called ‘sightlovers’ and Plato likens them to blind men who have no true knowledge of reality, and no clear standard of perfection in their mind to which they can turn to and study before laying down rules of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. These sightlovers are not fit to be guardians nor rulers of Plato’s ideal society
· The philosopher will never willingly tolerate an ‘untruth’. He will hate falsehood.
· His pleasures will be in things purely of the mind, and physical pleasures will pass him by.
· He will be self controlled, and not grasping about money.
· He will not be petty, as this trait is incompatible with the constant attempt to grasp things, divine or human, in their entirety.
· He won’t think death anything to be afraid of.
· A well-balanced man, who is neither mean nor ungenerous, nor beastly nor cowardly.
· He must have a good memory and be very willing and capable of learning.
How should Philosophers be educated?
· As children they are only to be taught the amount of philosophic training their age can stand.
· As they grow, they should devote a great deal of time and attentions to their body
· As their minds mature, they’re mental training is to be intensified
· Once they’re strength fails, they will devote their main energies to philosophy.
Corruption of the Philosopher
· The fact that philosophers are of a better quality than normal makes them more susceptible to a poor environment. Eg. A rose is likely to perish in bad soil, whereas a weed shall continue to thrive.
· Their qualities natural leave them liable to become corrupted, especially if these qualities are coupled with good looks, good family connections and wealth. This may distract from philosophy.
· He will be a natural born leader who people will flatter to get what they want. He therefore may become very ambitious and proud.
· As a result of this pride, he won’t easily listen to those that would correct him with the truth.
· Friends may try to draw him away from philosophy for fear of loosing his support and society. Common people will disapprove of philosophy because they do not understand the forms. He will therefore be punished/threatened for not going along with the powers that be.
· They will turn him into the kind of person they want. Their ‘boos’ and applause will swamp the philosopher with praise or blame until he finds himself agreeing with popular ideas of what is admirable or disgraceful.
· Philosophers have a bad reputation because, after all, ‘it is men so gifted who inflict the deepest injuries on communities and individuals, and indeed, if their inclinations run that way, do them the greater good. Small natures never do that much good or harm to either’. (495 b)
The bald headed tinker.
Evaluation of the philosopher ruler
· Criticism Plato claims that knowledge leads to the right action. A counter example is of a very intelligent person who, despite their knowledge, does the wrong thing.
· Criticism Plato’s description seems to define perfection in the philosopher ruler. It is improbable that a person can fit this criterion.
· Criticism Philosopher leader too remote culturally/socially? Refer to the freed prisoner being killed in the analogy of the cave.
· Criticism Can Plato’s idea of a philosopher ruler create a paternalistic society? Too restricting?
· Criticism Can Plato’s idea of a philosopher ruler create an authoritarian society? We have seen in the past the corrupting nature of authoritarian roles. Isn’t there something intrinsically good about having your say – in defence of the democratic society.
· Criticism The masses are not encouraged to develop as individuals. They are ruled by their betters and are not taught philosophy. This can be described as unfair and demeaning.
· Criticism Too much focus on intellectual superiority?
Definition of the Philosopher – His natural qualities
· The philosopher is in love with truth, not with the changing world of sensation, which is the object of opinion. He is interested in the unchanging reality which is the object of knowledge.
· Those who are only interested in the changing world of the senses are called ‘sightlovers’ and Plato likens them to blind men who have no true knowledge of reality, and no clear standard of perfection in their mind to which they can turn to and study before laying down rules of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. These sightlovers are not fit to be guardians nor rulers of Plato’s ideal society
· The philosopher will never willingly tolerate an ‘untruth’. He will hate falsehood.
· His pleasures will be in things purely of the mind, and physical pleasures will pass him by.
· He will be self controlled, and not grasping about money.
· He will not be petty, as this trait is incompatible with the constant attempt to grasp things, divine or human, in their entirety.
· He won’t think death anything to be afraid of.
· A well-balanced man, who is neither mean nor ungenerous, nor beastly nor cowardly.
· He must have a good memory and be very willing and capable of learning.
How should Philosophers be educated?
· As children they are only to be taught the amount of philosophic training their age can stand.
· As they grow, they should devote a great deal of time and attentions to their body
· As their minds mature, they’re mental training is to be intensified
· Once they’re strength fails, they will devote their main energies to philosophy.
Corruption of the Philosopher
· The fact that philosophers are of a better quality than normal makes them more susceptible to a poor environment. Eg. A rose is likely to perish in bad soil, whereas a weed shall continue to thrive.
· Their qualities natural leave them liable to become corrupted, especially if these qualities are coupled with good looks, good family connections and wealth. This may distract from philosophy.
· He will be a natural born leader who people will flatter to get what they want. He therefore may become very ambitious and proud.
· As a result of this pride, he won’t easily listen to those that would correct him with the truth.
· Friends may try to draw him away from philosophy for fear of loosing his support and society. Common people will disapprove of philosophy because they do not understand the forms. He will therefore be punished/threatened for not going along with the powers that be.
· They will turn him into the kind of person they want. Their ‘boos’ and applause will swamp the philosopher with praise or blame until he finds himself agreeing with popular ideas of what is admirable or disgraceful.
· Philosophers have a bad reputation because, after all, ‘it is men so gifted who inflict the deepest injuries on communities and individuals, and indeed, if their inclinations run that way, do them the greater good. Small natures never do that much good or harm to either’. (495 b)
The bald headed tinker.
Evaluation of the philosopher ruler
· Criticism Plato claims that knowledge leads to the right action. A counter example is of a very intelligent person who, despite their knowledge, does the wrong thing.
· Criticism Plato’s description seems to define perfection in the philosopher ruler. It is improbable that a person can fit this criterion.
· Criticism Philosopher leader too remote culturally/socially? Refer to the freed prisoner being killed in the analogy of the cave.
· Criticism Can Plato’s idea of a philosopher ruler create a paternalistic society? Too restricting?
· Criticism Can Plato’s idea of a philosopher ruler create an authoritarian society? We have seen in the past the corrupting nature of authoritarian roles. Isn’t there something intrinsically good about having your say – in defence of the democratic society.
· Criticism The masses are not encouraged to develop as individuals. They are ruled by their betters and are not taught philosophy. This can be described as unfair and demeaning.
· Criticism Too much focus on intellectual superiority?
The Divided Line
The Divided Line
· One purpose of the divided line is to provide an analogy of the visible to intelligible world.
· Another purpose of the divided line is to show the series of steps by which the mind is led to greater knowledge.
Evaluation of the Divided Line
· Strength. Plato makes a clear distinction between the different cognitive states of the mind, giving us a better understanding of his theory.
· Criticism. The lowest segment, D, ‘shadows and images’ does not seem to correspond with a state of mind, since we do not spend any significant amount of time looking at shadows and images – rather, we learn about shadows and images at the same time as we look and learn about physical things (segment C)
This is because Plato wants the line to do two things at once.
· Criticism. The assumption of Plato’s argument is that real knowledge must be beyond all doubt. There must be absolute certainty and no assumptions. However is such knowledge possible, or has Plato set an unrealistically high standard for knowledge?
· Criticism. Why is knowledge of the unchanging or universal superior to that of the changing particular?
· Criticism. Knowledge without assumptions sounds desirable, but what could such knowledge possibly be? Don’t we always have to make at least some assumptions, for example, that we are not experiencing a dream?
· One purpose of the divided line is to provide an analogy of the visible to intelligible world.
· Another purpose of the divided line is to show the series of steps by which the mind is led to greater knowledge.
Evaluation of the Divided Line
· Strength. Plato makes a clear distinction between the different cognitive states of the mind, giving us a better understanding of his theory.
· Criticism. The lowest segment, D, ‘shadows and images’ does not seem to correspond with a state of mind, since we do not spend any significant amount of time looking at shadows and images – rather, we learn about shadows and images at the same time as we look and learn about physical things (segment C)
This is because Plato wants the line to do two things at once.
· Criticism. The assumption of Plato’s argument is that real knowledge must be beyond all doubt. There must be absolute certainty and no assumptions. However is such knowledge possible, or has Plato set an unrealistically high standard for knowledge?
· Criticism. Why is knowledge of the unchanging or universal superior to that of the changing particular?
· Criticism. Knowledge without assumptions sounds desirable, but what could such knowledge possibly be? Don’t we always have to make at least some assumptions, for example, that we are not experiencing a dream?
The Forms
The Forms
· The forms give us an ultimate standard for ethics and a foundation for knowledge.
· The forms cannot be touched, smelt, tasted or heard in any way. We use our reason to perceive them through our minds’ eye.
· Plato believed that we existed in the world of the forms before we were born into our physical bodies. Because of this, we already have knowledge of them and can recognise beauty, for example, in particulars of the visible realm. Anamnesis = recollection of the forms.
· The forms give us an ultimate standard for ethics and a foundation for knowledge.
· The forms cannot be touched, smelt, tasted or heard in any way. We use our reason to perceive them through our minds’ eye.
· Plato believed that we existed in the world of the forms before we were born into our physical bodies. Because of this, we already have knowledge of them and can recognise beauty, for example, in particulars of the visible realm. Anamnesis = recollection of the forms.
Knowledge and Opinion
Knowledge and Opinion
· Plato wishes to demonstrate the failings of the world of ordinary experience.
· Plato writes that Opinion lies between Ignorance and Knowledge.
Ignorence--------Opinion--------Knowledge
Differences that distinguish knowledge from opinion
· Opinion and knowledge are different faculties and thus have different fields and effects. The faculty of knowledge is our ability to know what is (the truth), and the faculty of opinion is our ability to hold an opinion of something.
· Opinion is fallible and is gained indirectly through our senses, whilst knowledge is infallible and seen directly through our mind’s eye, using our reason.
· People who are only ever interested in the world they perceive through their senses, such as a beautiful sight or a just act, - but who cannot see beauty itself and justice itself - can be said to have opinions, but cannot be said to know any of the things they hold opinions about. They are described as sight-lovers and are essentially dreaming.
· Those who seek to know the truth, disregarding their sensual experiences and using their reason to experience the intelligible realm can be said to have actual knowledge of the particulars through their knowledge of the forms. They are described as philosophers who are essentially awake.
· Knowledge needs permanence and certainty. For example, something can be beautiful to one observer, but can be seen differently by another. Particulars are in constant flux and are liable to die or be destroyed. Particulars can be both x and non-x.
· The object of opinion is the changing particulars, whilst the object of knowledge is of the forms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)