Aristotle Vs Popper Essay
Plato's Republic was a construct of an elaborate system that would put philosophy as the ultimate judge of good, and halt all ideas of political and social change.1 Popper goes on to argue that Plato's vision of utopia in the Republic, was inspired by Sparta, because Plato saw Sparta as a perfect construct of the closed society.2 Popper accused Plato of laying the groundwork for totalitarianism by establishing a community in which individual rights and liberties are sacrificed for the community.3 As suggested by Popper, it seems that within the creation of a dictatorship, the will of the people have no importance. In both Wolff's and Popper's critiques of The Republic, an evident picture starts to emerge that perhaps Plato's rule of the
…show more content…
Now that a narrative and discussion of Plato's rule by philosopher kings have been forwarded, the same treatment needs to be given to democracy. The modern definition of democracy is usually interpreted, and quoted, from Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address as a “... government of the people, by the people, for the people...”6 The thought-provoking thing about this interpretation of democracy, and Wolff also uses this definition to describe democracy eo ipso, is that it defines a particular form of democracy viz., the representative democracy. It may seem an ambiguous distinction, but it is important to recognize that this definition of democracy already presupposes two of the main tensions of democratic theory that Wolff …show more content…
It has been said of old, that in a despotism there is but one patriot, the despot himself; and the saying rests on a just appreciation of the effects of absolute subjection, even to a good or wise master.14
This for Mill is attestation that albeit the managerial function of a State can be carried out by the philosopher king, those affairs have little or no interest to the people being ruled. Consequently, the State is actually made weaker, and does not flourish.15 There are two impressive arguments that Mill uses in “Essays on Politics and Society,” that seem to straightforwardly address the problems of Plato's philosopher kings. The first argument is that the voice of the people is the best technique of serving their interests. Mill expresses the dangers of the people not having a voice in society when he asserts: The nation as a whole, and every individual composing it, are without any potential voice in their own destiny. They exercise no will in respect to their collective interests. All is decided for them by a will not their own, which it is legally a crime for them to
Now that a narrative and discussion of Plato's rule by philosopher kings have been forwarded, the same treatment needs to be given to democracy. The modern definition of democracy is usually interpreted, and quoted, from Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address as a “... government of the people, by the people, for the people...”6 The thought-provoking thing about this interpretation of democracy, and Wolff also uses this definition to describe democracy eo ipso, is that it defines a particular form of democracy viz., the representative democracy. It may seem an ambiguous distinction, but it is important to recognize that this definition of democracy already presupposes two of the main tensions of democratic theory that Wolff …show more content…
It has been said of old, that in a despotism there is but one patriot, the despot himself; and the saying rests on a just appreciation of the effects of absolute subjection, even to a good or wise master.14
This for Mill is attestation that albeit the managerial function of a State can be carried out by the philosopher king, those affairs have little or no interest to the people being ruled. Consequently, the State is actually made weaker, and does not flourish.15 There are two impressive arguments that Mill uses in “Essays on Politics and Society,” that seem to straightforwardly address the problems of Plato's philosopher kings. The first argument is that the voice of the people is the best technique of serving their interests. Mill expresses the dangers of the people not having a voice in society when he asserts: The nation as a whole, and every individual composing it, are without any potential voice in their own destiny. They exercise no will in respect to their collective interests. All is decided for them by a will not their own, which it is legally a crime for them to