Plato's Republic and Democratic Moral Decline

20 December 2010

Some of Plato's most powerful criticisms of democracy are found in Book 6 of Plato's Republic. Explaining why philosophers are either regarded as vicious critics or good for nothing star gazers, Plato describes his famous "sea captain" allegory. Relating this allegory to 430BC Ancient Athens, we could imagine the Captain as Pericles, the mutineers as populist politicians such as Alcibiades, and the true pilot as Socrates.

Imagine a ship in which there is a captain who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and a little blind, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering of the ship, every one of them is of opinion that he has the right to steer, though he has never learned the art of navigation, and cannot tell who taught him, nor when he learned the skill. Indeed the sailors further assert that navigation is not a skill, that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying to takeover the helm, and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard. They try to chain up the captain with drink or narcotic drugs, then they mutiny and take possession of the ship. They make free with the stores, and whilst eating and drinking to their hearts content they proceed on their voyage in such manner as might be expected of them. Whomever is their partisan and cleverly aids them, whether by force or persuasion, in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain's hands and into their own they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman. They abuse and call good-for nothing the other sort of man, the true pilot who pays attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds and whatever else belongs to his art. It never seriously enters their mind to think of the steerer's art as a professional calling requiring qualification. Now in this ship, which is in a state of constant mutiny, and which is steered by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?

This parable describes the relationship between the true philosopher and his state. The treatment of the philosopher, and the frustration he feels, is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it. No wonder then that philosophers have no honour in their cities, indeed their having honour would be far more extraordinary. No wonder they are called cranks or good for nothings.

Explaining why society is so corrupt, Plato says:

Do you really think, as people so often say, that our youth are corrupted by Sophists [the liberal atheists and anarcho-capitalists who reject objective virtue ethics and call themselves the wise and elite leaders of men]? Are not the public who say these things the greatest Sophists of all? Do not the people themselves educate to perfection young and old, men and women alike, and fashion them after their own hearts?

When they meet together at assembly, or in a court of law, or a theatre, or a camp, or in any other popular resort, and there is a great uproar, and they praise some things which are being said or done, and blame other things, equally exaggerating both, shouting and clapping their hands, and the echo of the rocks and the place in which they are assembled redoubles the sound of the praise or blame--at such a time will not a young man's heart, as they say, leap within him? Will any private training enable him to stand firm against the overwhelming flood of popular opinion? Or will he not be carried away by the stream? Will he not have the notions of good and evil which the public in general have--he will do as they do, and as they are, such will he be?

Thus Plato describes how populism first overwhelms and gradually completely blinds politicians. Plato goes on to describe this process turns politicians into wild beat trainers:

The Sophists, in fact, teach nothing but the opinion of the many, that is to say, the opinions of their assemblies; and this is their wisdom. I might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong and terrible beast who is fed by him. He learns how to approach and handle him, also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries, and by what sounds, when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated; and you may suppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honourable and that dishonourable, or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute. Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast delights and evil to be that which he dislikes; and he can give no other account of them except that the just and noble are the necessary, having never himself seen, and having no power of explaining to others the nature of either, or the difference between them, which is immense.

So the elite become mindless slaves of the beast in humanity, they know nothing of good nor evil, they are the demonic embodiment of human evil, and they function by pure intuitive assumption without any objective reasoning. Plato's teacher Socrates was the arch-critic of society who exposed the ideological thinking of the elite, and then tried to reinstall intelligence into society. So Socrates was not just a critic, he was also a teacher of objective philosophy. In argument he demanded short to the point answers instead of long speeches, leading his subjects past muddle headed self-contradictory rambling, and reaching down into the deepest abstract ethical substance underlying human decision making. So Socrates was more than just a Hobbes like utilitarian pragmatist, he taught a type of ethical analysis which is rational, but which transcends scientific empiricism and delves into human nature and virtue. The crippling stupidity of the elite destroyed Athens, democracy turned into vicious tyranny, and Socrates was put to death in 400BC.

Plato categorised the political systems of the time, in increasing order of injustice, as:

(a) Timocracy: A government whose rulers are selected and perpetuated based on the degree of honour they hold relative to others in their society. Sparta was the prime example - it was said to be run by an idealistic, disciplined, proud and honour loving warrior class who, between themselves and in collective harmony, voted on policy matters which were then applied to the society at large. Although Plato considered this to be the most admirable of the existing systems, he believed the aspirational push on the masses was flawed as it did not focus on open minded intellectual refinement, but rather some ossified vision of honour or goodness. Perhaps we can think of Timocracy as a quasi-religious society. Plato's dream was to take the next step and build a less traditional society ruled by an elite class of enlightened philosophers, a reason based rather than an honour based government. In the Republic he speculates what structure a theoretically perfect society might take. His radical ideas include the collective upbringing of children who do not even know whom their parents are, which should promote a more advanced sense of brotherhood.

(b) Oligarchy: A government in the hands of a wealthy subset of the productive class. Power is not longer the exclusive preserve of the honourable, rather simply the wealthy. This society, Plato said, is characterised by an appetite for wealth, but appetites are at least to a degree reined in, leading to a careful and orderly albeit highly materialistic character. We can see how Plato considered Oligarchy to be a less idealistic and more materialistic society than Timocracy. In Greek history, or mythology, we have the era of heroes and aristocrats described by Homer giving way to wealthy merchantman and modern materialism.

(c) Democracy: A state in which any member can participate equally, according to his wishes. He believed that so much freedom and the lack of a upwardly guiding force led to disorder, moral decline, even in the very long term, chaos and tyranny. Today's democracy is representational. Therefore, in theory, if the majority decisions of society are of a high enough quality, and aimed simply at the selection of honourable representatives with a proven track record of success, today's Democracy and Timocracy would conflate. In practise, however, modern representatives are clearly more often shallow embodiments of fickle and factional political parties - they are the wild beast trainers mentioned ealier. In the Timocracy of Sparta the ruling class were democratically elected by the citizens at large, but they had to be of a certain age and standing, and once elected ruled for life (a lifetime tenure, subject to good behaviour, as with the Supreme Court of the United States, imparts subsequent impartiality, ie the tendency to work for the greater good without political motives).

(d) Tyranny: A state with a single ruthless dictator, who maintains rule by force and fear. Society looses all upward push, becomes utterly un-idealistic, ruthless, often perverse and sometimes violent.

For a feeling of life in democratic Athens, consider this quote from Plato's Republic:

Democracy?... In the first place, are they not free, is not the city full of freedom and frankness, a man may say and do what he likes. And where freedom is, the individual is clearly able to order for himself his own life as he pleases. Thus in this kind of State there will be the greatest variety of human natures. This, then, seems likely to be the fairest of States, being an embroidered robe which is spangled with every sort of flower. And just as women and children think a variety of colours to be of all things most charming, so there are many men to whom this State, which is spangled with the manners and characters of mankind, will appear to be the fairest of States... Is not their humanity to the condemned in some cases quite charming. Have you not observed how, in a democracy, many persons, although they have been sentenced to death or exile, just stay where they are and walk about the world -- the gentleman parades like a hero, and nobody sees or cares?... Is not this a way of life which for the moment is supremely delightful...

Eventually we find... complete equality and liberty in relations between the sexes... the father standing in awe of his son, and the son neither respecting nor fearing his parents, in order to assert what he calls independence... the teacher fears and panders to his pupils, who in turn despise their teachers and attendants... You would never believe - unless you had seen it for yourself - how much more liberty the domestic animals have in a democracy. The dog comes to resemble is mistress, as the proverb has it. They are in the habit of walking about the streets with a grand freedom, and bump into people they meet if they don't get out of their way. Everything is full of this spirit of liberty....

What it adds up to is this, you find that the minds of the citizens become so sensitive that the least vestige of restraint is resented as intolerable, till finally, as you know, in their determination to have no master they disregard all laws written or unwritten.

Thus Plato describes how democracy deteriorates. At first it's a light hearted disregard for the ideals of statesmanship and honour, but gradually the decline becomes progressively more serious. Perhaps one could say that Democracy is the most philosophically attractive system, but it fails to take into account the tendency of humans, without upward pressure, to languor and decline.

For a feeling of life in authoritarian Sparta, by contrast, consider this quote about the education of male children:

A child deemed worth of raising is given to its mother to be cared for until the age of 7, although during the day, it accompanies its father... picking up Spartan customs by osmosis... Children are barefoot to encourage them to move swiftly, and they are encouraged to learn to withstand the elements by having only one outfit. Children are never satiated with food or fed fancy dishes.

At the age of 7 the boys are organized into divisions 60 strong, living in barracks under the supervision of an elder youth. There they are encouraged to give their loyalty to their fellows rather than their families. They are intentionally underfed and if they want more food must hunt or raid. After dinner, the boys sing songs of war, history, and morality, or the eiren quizzes them, training their memory, logic, and ability to speak laconically. The boys play ball games, ride, swim, wrestle and do gymnastics. They sleep on reeds and suffer floggings -- silently, or they suffer them again.

At 18, the young men become reserve members of the Spartan army. At 20 they become full members and are finally permitted to marry but continue to live in barracks and compete for a place among the the royal guard of honour. Any who do not successfully pass through the agoge [educational system] are denied Spartan citizenship.

The Spartans despised wealth and luxury and hedonism, they were an idealistic cohesive self sacrificing army of the worlds best and bravest fighters. Fans of Democracy today champion the advanced culture of the Athenians and denigrate the comparatively backward Spartans. But this is to loose site of the historical context of an unsafe world constantly at threat of invasion, also the accusation that Athens had plundered much of her wealth from surrounding states. In ancient times many of the noblest Athenians considered the Spartan state near ideal. The word "Laconophilia" was coined to indicate love or admiration of Sparta. Classical historians consistently championed Sparta. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (whose political philosophy influenced the French Revolution and the development of modern political and educational thought) contrasted Sparta favourably with Athens in his Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, arguing that its austere constitution was preferable to the more cultured nature of Athenian life.

The extreme bravery of the Spartans has been immortalised by the film "The 300 Spartans" which tells the story of a small unit who willingly sacrificed their lives by engaging the entire Persian Army. Their formidable fighting prowess blocked the only road through which the massive invading army could pass, delaying the Persian assault for three days, giving the Athenian fleet time to prepare, and possibly saving the entire Greek world from defeat.

It is said that Spartan King Leonidas who commanded the small unit was convinced that the invading army needed to be delayed and he and his men would certainly die in the process. He told his wife who, despite her love for him, encouraged him. As he was leaving she asked what she should do afterwards. He replied "Marry a good man and have good children". The Persian King Xerxes laughed when he saw the small force but his advisers warned him "they are as brave as any man living, and together they are the best warriors on earth". Xerxes sent emissaries offering to make Leonidas ruler of all Greece if he joined with him. Leonidas answered: "If you had any knowledge of the noble things of life, you would refrain from coveting others' possessions; but for me to die for Greece is better than to be the sole ruler over the people of my race". It is said that when one of the Spartan soldiers was told the Persian arrows would be so numerous as "to block out the sun", he responded with a characteristically laconic remark, "so we shall fight in the shade".

We can see that Ancient Greece was a time of intense idealism, personal self sacrifice and social cohesion. Democracy was accused of corrupting this structure, of creating moral decline and cowardice. Perhaps we can say that Plato was a modernist who rebelled against historical traditions and proffered an advanced new values system based on progressive intellectual and spiritual analysis. This elite revolutionary movement began in the democracy of Athens, but the philosophy that took hold of the masses was instead a postmodernism in which traditions were simply discarded without a compensating new value system. As this un-idealistic philosophy took hold society gradually failed, both as a result of internal chaos and Darwinian competition with its neighbours. Some will see a parallel with what they consider to be today’s increasingly rudderless democratic societies. Many Westerners find the self sacrificing idealism of the Chinese people so extraordinary they can only attribute it to government indoctrination.

One of my favourite moral dilemmas which I ask people in both the West and the East is this: Suppose, hypothetically, it was discovered that your blood, and your blood alone, by some genetic anomaly, contained the cure for Aids. Unfortunately, in order to mass produce the cure the government must take your life. Would you volunteer? The majority of people in the West say no. In China almost everyone says yes. This Western moral choice would have been inconceivable both to the old fashioned Spartans and more modern idealists like Plato. I suspect too, that even our great grandparents would have been horrified.

Chinese paternalism really does appear to be paying dividends. It's not just about the rapidly expanding education system and the hard working people. Chinese leaders now deem Classical Music an essential component of the “advanced culture” it vows to create in order to make the country a true great power. Not only is China producing musicians of the highest quality, Classical Music is becoming popular with the masses. Amongst the Chinese people there is a palatable sense of optimism, idealism, hard work and self sacrifice the likes of which we have not seen in the West for many generations. This enviable ethos is a quality patently lacking in most developing countries.

Film-maker Zhang Yimou principle director of the Chinese Olympic Cerominies spoke of his frustrations when working with New York's Metropolitan Opera. "In one week, we could only work 4 1/2 days, we had to have coffee breaks twice a day, couldn't go into overtime and just a little discomfort was not allowed because of human rights. You could not criticise them either. They all belong to ... unions. We can work very hard, can withstand lots of bitterness. We can achieve in one week what they can achieve in one month." In the segment showcasing the Chinese invention of movable type, the nearly 900 performers who crouched under 18kg boxes donned adult nappies to allow them to stay inside for at least six hours. Despite the sacrifices, performers were grateful for the opportunity to participate in the historic event and viewed it as an honour. In the West we find this behaviour so baffling we write it off as brain washing. No doubt the Athenians felt the same way about Spartan bravery - before they died.

From “China Today”:

In many cultures it is taboo to raise the topic of death in everyday discourse, but this is not the case with the Chinese people. To them life and death are a common conversational topic. Their matter of fact approach is illustrated in the sayings: "Human life is nothing but a stage over which the sun and the moon function as two spotlights"... "Life is not to be rejoiced as death is not to be resented".

This could be construed as negative on the grounds that it encourages hopeless passivity at the prospect and inevitability of death, viewing life as something to be muddled through in the comforting knowledge, as described in the Chinese saying, that "The misery one suffers in life is no worse or greater than the death of their heart". Waiting for the Damocles sword of death to fall and make an end of it means that to be or not to be is no longer a question, as living life this way is in itself a kind of death.

From another point of view, however, the Chinese Daoist attitude toward death can engender a positive life stance. Acceptance of death's inevitability gives rise to a sense of meaning and purpose in the natural passage from birth to death that motivates a person to make the most out of it, treasuring every minute. The knowledge that time is on the wing and can never be recaptured creates a sense of mission and social commitment. The resultant redoubling of effort and hard work so as to live life to the full extends the significance of an existence within society into history. Transcending the mortal limitations that arise from the mystique of death thus makes it possible to handle hardship, difficulty, misery and suffering. This, in turn, creates a particular mindset, most obvious in revolutionaries and religious martyrs, who willingly devote their waking hours to worthy causes and sacrifice themselves for the sake of their ideals. In Confucianism there is also the idealized character junzi (superior man), who is expected to give up his life unthinkingly in the interests of preservation and advancement of humanity. Such a spirit of devotion can arise only from a positive conception of death.

This article mentions also the concept of the “superior man”. Plato’s objections to democracy also revolve around the inequality of mankind. He said running a government requires specialist skills. When we fall sick we don't walk into the market square and ask people to vote on the best treatment, we consult a doctor. Democracy not only corrupted Athenian values, it made irrational policy decisions. The partisan climate and irrationalty further damaged idealism, creating a vicious circle of increasing irrationality and moral decline.

Explaining the fall of Athens, which occurred in spite of its vast wealth during the 430BC Peloponnesian War with Sparta, the historian Thucydides wrote:

Pericles indeed, by his rank, ability, and known integrity, was enabled to exercise an independent control over the multitude--in short, to lead them instead of being led by them; for as he never sought power by improper means, he was never compelled to flatter them, but, on the contrary, enjoyed so high an estimation that he could afford to anger them by contradiction. Whenever he saw them unseasonably and insolently elated, he would with a word reduce them to alarm; on the other hand, if they fell victims to a panic, he could at once restore them to confidence. In short, what was nominally a democracy became in his hands government by the first citizen. With his successors it was different. More on a level with one another, and each grasping at supremacy, they ended by committing even the conduct of state affairs to the whims of the multitude... [many blunders then led to total military defeat]