You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Socrates and Individualism, Part III - Historical & philosophical underpinnings of a graphic novel
Great piece! Socrates is probably my all time favorite Philosopher but as you pointed out to he really only existed as himself in Plato's early works. When I was younger I agreed with much of Plato's teachings. As I grew and learned more i began to recognize his disregard for the individual and the faults in his forms. It seems to have seeded a collectivist movement that never truly dies regardless of the cost to the people. Anyway I found Aristotle and logic and never looked back. I kind of see Plato as the philosopher of sheep and Aristotle as the philosopher of thinking men. Again great job! I look forward to reading the previous posts and your graphic novel.
Thanks for giving it a read! Yeah, I was immediately turned off by Plato when I read The Republic as a teen. It was only later when I started studying Greek history that Socrates really stood out as a personal hero, and as separate from Plato.
Back when I first read The Republic, I saw Plato as a forerunner of Christianity (some have compared the Catholic Pope and priestly hierarchy to his Philosopher King) and also a champion of communism - though much of what might be considered communism in Plato was being done by the Spartans for a long time before. That could make him a philosopher of sheep; but I think he's more attractive to an elite kind of person that sees him or herself as a Philosopher King. :)
There is certainly a totalitarianism feel to The Republic and (dare I say) some hints of modern media disinformation in the form of "The Noble Lie" and The Myth Of Metals that echoes modern day circumstances. I think we can perhaps ( at least in theory) see the appeal of Plato's idea of a Philosopher King( meaning someone uniquely educated to lead). I think we can all see the downfalls of having an unqualified world leader but education itself does not necessitate a good leader as we see in response to Socrates's student Critias and the Thirty Tyrants. I guess this is maybe where we can bring in Aristotle in terms of his idea of a moral education. It does seem that contemporary politics is run amok with Machiavellian tactics that leads me to question if we have ever seen a truly "great" leader?
Thanks for the read! Have a phil-AWE-sophical day! :)
All very well said. Though I'd add that politics through the ages has had its Machiavellian tactics. Now, though, we have technology with more powerful levers.
As much as some of the thinkers of the time complained about how easy it was to sway the uninformed demos - the people - of Athens, citizens of that time took it as a duty and point of honor to be informed and to be involved in political debate. A citizen had both a responsibility and an impact on their city-state's actions. Very different for the majority population of most modern democratic republics. (Though I agree that a direct democracy of millions would be impractical and unwieldy.)
I have difficulty thinking of contemporary politics as a democratic process sometimes. When we are voting for the "lesser of two evils" or in Canada, engaging in strategic voting practices, it doesn't make one very hopeful. But I won't lament the "hoi polloi" because that is just an easy scapegoat for what we all participate in and are more or less forced to be part of. The virtues of slow and critical thinking are vastly becoming skills of the past as the rise of anti-intellectualism seems to permeate much of the masses or at least what seems to be represented on the internet.
That's a good point, a philosopher for Shepherds would have been more accurate. I feel like as far as democracy, giving control of the schools to government was probably our biggest mistake. An informed public is the biggest threat to a corrupt democracy, or philosopher king/dictator. They have no real motivation to create a well informed citizenry. Looking at the state of the union, I feel like Socrates was definitely right about voting for sweetshop owners.
I'm going to have to disagree there. Public schooling is absolutely necessary for an informed citizenry. We can certainly debate on whether or not public schooling is as effective as it should be, and attempt to adjust accordingly - but without "free" education, the lower levels of society wouldn't have a chance to better themselves. And, really, that means society does better as a whole.
Opportunity for education is one important thing. But I think there also has to be some kind of consensus on what exactly is being taught too, and that is really only going to come from government. If everyone is fractured in their basic facts and values, well, we get the current state of social media. :)