In The Republic, Plato promotes an idea of ​​the democratic soul that is fundamentally erroneous. He postulates that a man with a democratic soul “lives his life in accordance with a certain equality of pleasures that he has established” (The Republic, VIII, 561b). Assuming that a man with a democratic soul is initially governed by equality of pleasures, it is unwise to assume that the man has no knowledge of the consequences of his actions during his life. Contrary to Plato's supposition, man does not maintain this initial equality of pleasures, but rather is governed by an increasing hierarchy of the soul. A democratic soul is not a soul which has no order, but a soul which has no pre-established order; it is therefore the type of character most conducive to asking questions, and to discerning the knowledge of good. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Plato bases his critique of the democratic soul on his verbal model of democratic rule. He assumes that since democracies are ruled by fate and have no hierarchy, they are therefore governed like an empty acropolis (The Republic, VIII, 560b-c) and have no core. "Whatever interest arises, as if drawn by lot, he puts the rule back to himself until he is satisfied, and then again to another, without dishonoring anyone, but favoring them all on the basis of equality” (La République, III, 561a). He posits that because democracies allow such a great degree of freedom and equality, they are therefore governed by arbitrary choice of virtue and can only produce justice by chance. He also argues that “anything done in excess,” such as democracy, “is likely to bring about a great corresponding change in the opposite direction” (The Republic, VIII, 563e), and thus produces slavery. However, in this formulation, Plato fails to integrate the role of laws as historical testimony and as a means of tempering freedom. Even though the city is ruled by lot, the acropolis is not empty; the laws govern the city. Laws maintain the progress made by past generations toward good by serving as a historical document. They bear witness to what was tried and what was accepted by past generations. If there is a law that has been in existence for a long time, it will not be thoughtlessly ignored, nor will an unjust law escape the scrutiny of an entire nation. Socrates proposes that aristocracy is the best regime because it is the most just. . However, this requires that there be a "wise" class; it's impossible. There cannot be a wise class, there can only be a class which questions the foundations of society and thus deconstructs and remakes society, in order to produce a “fairer regime”. Socrates asserts that this is the role of philosopher kings, because they best fit this description. However, the democratic process is a process that produces just laws by questioning the rightness of current laws and debating the best reforms of the laws, just as democratic souls question those souls who progress most toward good by questioning question the correctness of current laws. hierarchy of the soul that they have in place and debate the best reforms of this hierarchy. Seen in this way, democracy seems to correspond to Socrates' description of aristocracy, and democratic souls to his description of philosopher kings. Aristocracy also goes against Socrates' original formulation of the "good life." He maintains that "lifeexamined is not worth living for a human being” (Apologie, 92), and that the virtue of the examined life is that it progresses towards the good. However, if aristocracy is the rule of the wise, then it must be the rule of those who know the good, and if philosophers already know the good, then they cannot lead an examined life because they cannot progress towards knowledge of the good. However, if wisdom is not a function of knowledge of the good, but rather a pursuit of the good, which is the logical conclusion, then aristocracy is not the rule of the wise, but the rule of those who ask questions. This definition is not the exclusive definition proposed by Socrates, but encompasses all individuals who question what is right. The counterargument is that philosophers are the only ones who lead examined lives and the only ones who question the foundations of society. . He exhorts the citizens of Athens "not to mind any of their own affairs until he attends to himself...nor to mind the things of the city until he does not concern itself with the city itself” (Apology, 90). Socrates believes that citizens cannot be considered to lead examined lives because they accept traditions and laws. However, Socrates' tendency toward deconstruction rests on his failure to incorporate history into an individual's or a city's progress toward good. He believes that history cannot serve as the basis of a society and that each individual must begin life trying to determine for themselves what good is. This is based on the a priori claim that an individual cannot pursue the good unless he knows what the good is; since an individual cannot know the good, then he is only capable of seeking knowledge of the good (The Republic, VI, 508d), and Socrates believes that the only way to achieve knowledge of the good is through a model dialectic (The Republic). , VI, 511c), where nothing is considered right unless it has been thoroughly examined. He maintains that “. in one part of it a soul, using as images those things which have been imitated before, is obliged to investigate on the basis of hypotheses and moves not towards a beginning but towards an end; while in the other part, it moves towards a beginning free of hypotheses; starting from hypotheses and without the images used in the other part, by means of the forms themselves, he carries out his investigation through them” (La République, VI, 510b). Thus, a true dialectic rejects the images, traditions and laws of the city, and subjects them to examination to obtain knowledge of the good. However, in Socrates' initial statement that an individual cannot pursue the good unless he knows what the good is, it is assumed that the individual must have some inherent knowledge of the good. good, they do not necessarily seek good. Socrates believes that the individual who has a democratic soul "...lives from day to day, satisfying the desire that comes to him, drinking and listening to the flute...and there is neither order nor necessity in his life . life, but calling his life sweet, free and blessed, he follows it throughout” (The Republic, VIII, 561c-d). This may be true; however, if an individual has a democratic soul, then by observing which dominant interest benefits him most, the individual thereby inadvertently acquires knowledge of the good. The fact that this knowledge is not sought by the individual does not make it any less valuable. If an individual did not admit the existence of good, then the effects of his experiences would be lost. This is imitated in the city in the form of laws providing knowledge of justice. By knowing that a good exists, it is implicit that justice must exist sincejustice is only a law or an action governed by good; and although knowing that justice exists does not require that a city seek justice, it does, however, allow citizens to acquire knowledge of justice by seeing the effects of the laws it passes. Citizens do not want to live under unjust laws and, therefore, they will correct any injustice they find there. Therefore, although they do not seek knowledge of good, their laws will be governed by whatever knowledge of good they have found. So in democracy, by abandoning the laws and traditions of the city, you eliminate the knowledge of justice contained therein. Seen in this light, acceptance of the city's laws and traditions is not an act of ignorance that eliminates the possibility of knowing the good, but rather an intelligent act that leads to greater knowledge of the good. The laws occupy the acropolis. of the democratic regime. In Crito, Socrates allows the laws to make his case so that he stays and accepts the punishment imposed on him by the courts. In their argument, the laws assert that "the law which commands that the judgments rendered in trials is authoritative" (Crito, 109) --- even if they are wrong --- because they maintain political order. The point that the laws, and therefore Plato, fails to make is that while the laws are not infallible, they are self-correcting. This argument also applies to the democratic soul: in a democratic soul there is initially no order, but as the individual grows he establishes certain laws for himself. These laws form a moral core, and this core governs one's actions. Although it can be “governed by fate” (The Republic, VIII, 561a), there are certain norms of behavior to which the ruling component is obliged to submit; these standards of behavior are established by laws. If the ruling component of one's soul is not capable of upholding the laws that the individual has developed through experience, then that part of one's soul is not allowed to rule. An example of this is that although it is common for children to have "temper tantrums", this is almost never seen in adults. Children have not learned that this course of action usually does not yield anything, so they let this part of their soul rule them. However, as adults, most people have understood that angry outbursts are not constructive and can be destructive in many cases; therefore they do not allow this part of themselves to reign over their actions. This mimics the role of law in a democratic regime: just as unjust laws are eliminated, the destructive and base elements of a man's soul are kept in check. Although by adopting the laws and traditions of a city, which are a compilation of citizens' knowledge of the good, an individual might accept false conceptions of the good, the mechanism of democracy is formulated to rectify this. The ability of laws to serve as a historical document, as well as their ability to demand respect, results in progression toward good as well as political stability. The democratic process allows for the positive effects of challenging laws, but avoids the negative effects of political instability or prolonged rule by the unjust. Although it is not guaranteed that an unjust law will not be passed, it is certain (through Plato's assertion that questioning will lead us to knowledge of the good which will produce greater knowledge of justice) that the unjust law will be eliminated by future generations. The possibility of an unjust law being passed may be seen as a flaw in democracy, but it also produces better..