Dyslexia
I agree with the first part of your post. In fact, that was the concept of "justice" to Plato.
But I don't agree with the question of slavery. Plato never said that there are humans born to be slaves. Indeed, he were a slave himself, for a short period. In his Republic there are no slaves. And the leading class is subjected to a rigid communism, where it is forbbiden private property.
About his critics to democracy I remind you this: it was democracy that killed Socrates, it was democracy that gave the power to Hitler, it was democracy that decided to make war against Iraq, it is democracy that is poisoning our planet, refusing the Kyoto agreements.
And do you think that a man who works all day in a factory can return home and start writting a philosophy book? Who are the philosophers of our time time? Professors. Just like Plato was. An elite. And the same goes to science, arts.
Plato's Republic might be better accepted as thought experiments than as a practical proposal. He was surely serious about politics. But it is the writing in the ancient times where philosophers were not experienced compared with modern/contemporary thinkers. Through about 2500 years humans have had experienced many things.. Catholicism, Parliament, French Revolution, Marxism, Nazism, and many. Those who live in the 21st century cannot take the proposal by Plato as it is. Plato's writing must be a good fountain to scoop up many aspects of problems about human society. Frameworks of thinking are still within the arena which Plato layed out.
val, I really like your idea that Socrates we killed by a democracy. Let's look at that, the city/state of Athens had about 300,000 people and the "democracy" consisted of about 300 male property/slave owners of wealth. Well yeah, I suppose you could make a case for athens being a "democracy" in the same sense of the US being a "democracy" in that the US also has a few wealthy peeps running our "democracy" all in their own interest. As I read it though, Plato simply wanted to exchange a few hundred wealth land/slave owners for non-wealthy land /slave owners, his philosopher kings, who would not be burdened by their wealth and therefore truly altruistic in serving the needs of the people. Sort of an oligrachy. I guess I see Plato as tossing aside one branch of coercion of the masses by the few into another coercion of the masses by the few. On the other hand, I can't really say that I can offer a more appealing solution to the needs of a free society. On another topic/thread I offered that I was not totally against a benevolent dictatorship and got pretty well blasted over that idea. For the time being, I shall remain a philosophical anarchist and hope for the best. Don't we all?
ps, It would be my guess that Socrates was sentenced to death for much the same reason as was Sparticus and Jesus, not so much for being a gadfly but more along the lines of inciting the commoners to question the validity of the ruling class.
Dys, I know about the identification of Plato with Socrates, but Plato could not have taken the hemlock; if he had we would know about Socrates' execution. Was it not Plato who informed us of Socrates' execution in the Phaedo (the one on the immortality of the soul and his notion of the nature of ideas)?
Yes, Val. Democracy does fall far short of the ideal because of its corruption by lack of true education and the powerful forces of capitalism. But it is the best prospect we have. I feel that true democracy, like true Christianity, have not been tried and found wanting; they have yet to be tried.
Jl is right, I would prefer however, that the candidates in a democracy should at least have good education and I also want the public to be informed on the choices that would be made. However, perhaps that is unrealistic.
I agree, Dys. Their undoing was the ideas that challenged the legitimacy of the rulers.
