i would like to explain that i am not well read, nor particularly intelligent. the following position i recognise to be partially untenable.
in my experience, traditional moral and political philosophy has relied on the idea of a sovereign self, one which can make rational decisions, which can reason, debate, and consider before arriving at a conclusion based on the result of this reasoning. moreover, it asserts that this is the norm. this is touted as the cornerstone of democracy, namely, an informed electorate. after pondering this briefly, and with the aid of plato, i realised that this was largely untrue. Plato’s argument was that (i am summarising) in a democratic society/polis the electorate can be too easily swayed by emotional appeals and clever rhetoric to electing the person who is the best speaker rather than one who is the best for the job. he uses the metaphor of the course of a ship (Athens being a naval society) being directed by the consensus of the crew rather than the navigational officer. while churchill, among others, asserts that although democracy is flawed, it is the least flawed system of government, remarks by Hitler and the Nazis most famously, as well as countless events both historical and current show that sophistry can be used far too easily to pervert democracy.
not merely this, but the modern electorate is far from informed. the mass media with its sensationalised and frequently biased view of events provides readymade opinions to people often too tired/uninsterested/impressionable to think critically for ourselves. moreover, we are actively encouraged not to think too hard, if not by our educational institutions (although this is debatable) than by our society at large. public debate and language are laughable, often our lexicography is used to obfuscate and circumlocute (redirect, conceal, hide and confuse) and many people no longer recognise logical fallacies or inadequate arguments. not to mention the corrupting influences of peer pressure, familial pressure (most children are profoundly influenced by the political opinions of our parents) and general apathy. i have thus ccome to the conclusion that almost none of us (perhaps not even myself ) are capable of informed decision, that indeed, the task is nigh impossible. thus democracy loses its cornerstone.
if there are any authors/thinkers out there with thoughts on democracy and other alternate systems of government, please let me know.
I see democracy as a system whereby the people have the power to elect governments. In the case of the sophist, the people still elected him, and if democracy is proper, they ought to have the means to vote him out.
Plato believed that a Democracy is absurd, imagine one has a swollen arm that is turning purple and yellow. Why would that person go to his local supermarket and ask to be treated by any old randomer. He says it would be absurd to seek medical help from somebody who is not a medical expert. He argues that one would rather put his trust into someone who is an expert in the medical field. So now that we have got this straight, he moves on to say that how can trust in a goverment elected by these non professionals of that field, we clearly gathered that we think one ought to have obtained a certail level of expertise before we can seek their help/advice on paticular matters, byt then we trust in a democracy?
Quite true i think, who knows for what reason people vote, out of self interest? Do they vote because the rest of theior friends are voting for he/she?
Plato believed that a Democracy is absurd, imagine one has a swollen arm that is turning purple and yellow. Why would that person go to his local supermarket and ask to be treated by any old randomer. He says it would be absurd to seek medical help from somebody who is not a medical expert. He argues that one would rather put his trust into someone who is an expert in the medical field. So now that we have got this straight, he moves on to say that how can trust in a goverment elected by these non professionals of that field, we clearly gathered that we think one ought to have obtained a certain level of expertise before we can seek their help/advice on paticular matters, byt then why do we trust in a democracy?
Quite true i think, who knows for what reason people vote, out of self interest? Do they vote because the rest of their friends are voting for he/she?
Plato also said that either Philosopher’s would need to become Kings, or vice versa.
It would seem Democracy might have a vague chance of coherent functioning if Philosopher’s became the Electorate, or vice versa.
But that would be an awful lot of people schooled in philosophy (and also specificially, I guess, political philosophy), and one might wonder whether that would be plausible.
That, or Philosopher’s would have to leave their ignorant brethren behind and create a neew country. But then could this be maintained? And do philosopher’s really agree on enough for this to work? It would seem that the field of Philosophy itself would require some significant advances before it could be implemented to assist in Democracy’s creaking cogwork.