Life in a Democratic Polis

Life in a Democratic Polis

The Republic is a dialogue bibliography by Plato, where he uses Socrates as his main character who explains the Republic in a light different from what people think. Socrates has an outlook of the world that is different from what most people have grown to understand. In his dialogue with various people, he uses symbolism to describe the characters of the Republic and the governance of the city. In this case, we will engage in his democracy argument from the book ‘The Republic,’ where he discusses what democracy and the just man are. A democratic polis can become just if the leaders and citizens cooperate to understand one another and undertake their operations with the best regard.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Life in a Democratic Polis
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

The polis can be democratic if justice prevails for both the stronger and weaker in society. However, in the Republic, Socrates and Thrasymachus have different definitions of justice.  According to Thrasymachus, ” justice is, the same in all cities: what is advantageous for the established rule. Since the established rule is surely stronger…” (338e). Anyperson who breaks the rules is subject to punishment, meaning that since the leaders and the government make the laws and enforce them, they are the stronger to make justice for the interest of the stronger. In this definition of justice, citizens are not given a choice when the rules are made; they must comply with the laws or face the consequence.

Socrates refutes Thrasymachus’s explanation, pointing out that rulers make errors and, at times, pass laws that are not in everybody’s best interest. Socrates goes further to explain that every deed done has an interest and that everyone in power gets to that point to cater to the people’s needs below him.  Socrates notes, “So no kind of knowledge considers or enjoins what is advantageous for itself, but what is advantageous for the weaker, which is subject to it…” (342d). In this case, Socrates explained that justice is about consideringeverybody’s need in society and even the weaker population; that is to say, the ruler makes rules in with the ruled in mind rather than himself. If every political leader considered leadership in this case, they would pass laws and judgments in their subjects’ interests instead of themselves. Without the subjects, they are not ruling anyone.

By treating people in a kind, a just manner through the achievement of desirable goods, democracy is likely to be achieved in the polis. People are more likely to live in happiness and harmony with each other. The discussion about justice and a democratic polis carry on further to describe the relationship between desirable good. Socrates explains to Glaucon that justice is desired for in itself and for the sake of the rewards that accompany justice. He uses happiness as asymbol of happiness when in his words, he said, “…the one that anyone who is going to be blessed with happiness must love both because of itself and because of its consequences…” (358a). Andindeed, justice is to be enjoyed in a polis for just being fair and kind to every individual in the society and the benefits of justice that include harmonious and happy living. Justice brings happiness, and every leader should aspire to be just to their subject. This would be a revival of the true meaning of democracy, and democratic cities will not be as problematic as they tend to be.

However, Glaucon points out that, though from Socrates’ explanation, he agrees with his justice placement, not society’s consensus. The majority of the public put justice in the lowest of ranks, saying that it is only enjoyable for its consequences. Glaucon decides to bring to the way that people generally consider justice and points out that he is not a similar opinion as to the people. Glaucon wants justice to be defended right”… It isn’t, Socrates, that I believe any of that myself… yet to hear anyone defend justice in the way I want, as being better than injustice…” (358d).This prejudice of justice is a common thought to many people. Many opt for the unjust life rather the justice. The oppressive type of justice gives people the chance to get to where they want under any means without worrying about those who are left harmed in their wake. This is how democratic leaders behave, but if they were to put justice into consideration, democracy could be worth it in the polis.

Inbook 6 of the Republic, Socrates explains that true philosophers are rare in leadership because they lack ability but willingness and passion, which are key ingredients for any democratic leader who wishes to rule the polis. Socrates points out that, “At present, those who take it up at all do so as young men, just out of childhood, who have yet to take up household management and money-making. Then, when they reach the most difficult part, they abandon it.” (498a). He describes how the public view encourages them into a money-making venture rather than nurturing them to be passionate leaders. This steers the potential young leaders them in a path far away from politics and leadership Socrates uses an analogy between a ship and a rebellious society. He explains how the crew’s maintenance crew disregard their captain without knowledge that his intellect in the stars is essential in sailing. The revolutionary community rebelsagainst philosophers in the same manner as the sailing crew. In society, politics is considered a game of might and finance and not intellect. Philosophers are pushed away from areas of leadership by the public. In further analysis, Socrates is pointing out that the philosopher would make the best leaders.

However, Admetus immediately points out to Socrates that no matter how passionate he is about that specific discussion, not many will be convinced by it. Most would challenge his reasoning on the issue of philosophers. “…be arguing with real passion, Socrates. But I am sure that most of your hearers will oppose you with even greater passion and won’t be convinced in the least…” (498d). It is not common in most societies, if any, where a philosopher has been regarded as someone worth leading. Mostly the works left to them are those of teaching and motivation. This is why Socrates is defending them so fiercely since, in his view, they are the only members of the society that have all the attributes a democratic leader should have.

Democracy can only prevail in the absence of social stratification in society as social stratification corrupts democracy as it becomes the majority’s rule, who, in most cases, is the elite class. Socrates says that democracy is only democratic to the rich while the poor are left to answer to their whims in power. Plato divides the rich and the poor in his Republic, where these two classes of people do not see eye to eye. Most politicians use this rivalry to their advantage, poisoning the poor people’s minds and using their rage to rise to power. Once in power, however, they overlook the poor and go about enriching themselves and pleasing their supporters with finances to catch their attention “…pretending not to see them, inject the poison of their money into any of the rest who do not resist,..” (555e). One would wonder, is this precisely not the situation in most states’ politics and governance. Not many leaders say that they considered those of different classes from theirs asequals. Each member of the society considers themselves superior to the other. During the election, these are the strings politicians pull, dividing people just for their benefit by poisoning them with money.

In the Republic of Plato, Socrates explains the corrupt democracy and the magnitude of damage caused by democratic politicians maintaining their power through their social class influence. Politics is a dirty game where manipulation and incitement have caused conflict between previously neighbourly citizens.  Democracy in itself is the outcome of wars against dictatorship, where the leaders of this conflicts or Drones as Socrates terms them take over the leadership after the revolution has been accomplished”…that is how a democratic political system gets established, whether it comes to exist by force of arms or because intimidation…” (557a). Socrates tells his counterparts that these new ‘democratic’ leaders understand how fierce the citizens can get; therefore, use incitement to continually keep the people at war, keeping their attention away from him while he does the worse than the dictators.

The Republic by Plato offers a fairground where all social areas have been scrutinized and dissected to understand how and why democracy is failing. In the scrutiny, there are points that, if put across possibilities that would make a democratic polis just. This book was written in the early years, but the information relates to the current governance and social organization system. A democratic city can become just only if everyone in society changes their attitude in leadership and justice.

In conclusion, Plato gives a real analysis of the shortcomings of democracy using precise descriptions and symbolism to show how political leaders have used democracy to earn themselves more power and money. Despite that, the reality that democracy allows people to choose their leaders is still valid. Those leaders use manipulation to get in power, and the suggestions put into attention in the dialogues if put into consideration. They would overcome the shortcomings associated with democracy. Democracy was not meant to be wrong, and in fact, it began with a good cause in mind, but it had loopholes that were noticeable to the greedy, and they took their chance at it.

 

 

 

Reference

Reeve, C. (Ed.). (2004). Plato Republic. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments from ta

There were lots of good aspects of this paper: clear thesis statement, an attempt to use of direct quotes to support your claims, and a consideration of different points of view. However, your main argument – that democracy can be just – was not argued for in any detail. You stated it a number of times but never provided a robust defence of the idea. More importantly, perhaps, you never seriously engaged with Socrates’ argument that democracy can *never* be just. You did tell us about one problem with democracy (manipulation by the rich), but this is not one of Socrates’ big problems with democratic regimes. You just didn’t discuss the part of the book that you should have focused on for nearly all of the essay – i.e. the explicit discussion of democracy in ch. 8 (from 555 onwards). So the target for the next essay is: make sure you are focusing on the most relevant passages of the text when you are answering the question. It is great that you used quotes, which shows some real engagement with the text, but you need to be careful to discuss the parts of the text that are most relevant to the question.

 

 

Homework Writing Bay
Calculator

Calculate the price of your paper

Total price:$26
Our features

We've got everything to become your favourite writing service

Need a better grade?
We've got you covered.

Order your paper