Why Socrates Hated Democracy

[Sucuk Ekmek]

What do you guys think?

 

[Oeaohoo]

Democracy Now! Demagoguery Then!

[Jannes]

If only a few of the elite have the power to rule the country they will act in their own benefit and not for the people. If all people rule the country, everybody will have a voice but this makes the decision making of a country as stupid as the average citizen of the country.

The ideal case would be a population of people who deeply trust their leaders which are trained to be very intelligent and wise and who only have the interest of the population in mind. That would work if everybody would selfless. 
But given that everybody is selfish democracy is maybe the best solution for a bad situation. 

[Danioover9000]

@Jannes

On 11/12/2022 at 10:37 PM, Jannes said:

If only a few of the elite have the power to rule the country they will act in their own benefit and not for the people. If all people rule the country, everybody will have a voice but this makes the decision making of a country as stupid as the average citizen of the country.

The ideal case would be a population of people who deeply trust their leaders which are trained to be very intelligent and wise and who only have the interest of the population in mind. That would work if everybody would selfless. 
But given that everybody is selfish democracy is maybe the best solution for a bad situation. 

   Basically, the mind of a schizophrenic/multiple personality disorder, versus the mind of a OCD/autism, scaled up to government/culture. That's one way to explain the difference between democratic governance versus authoritarian dictatorship governance. One is far more centralized, the other a bit more decentralized in power.

[Devin]

Socrates lived during an age of constant war between many different small nations, Socrates was actually like a General at a time. much more primitive time, much smaller nations, he was pre Roman empire, pre alexander the great (greek empire)

in times like those democracy would be death or oppression. we live in a much more connected and peaceful world so robust debate is more important than decisiveness and tribal loyalties as it was back then

 

reminds me of churchill, Britain wanted the authoritarian during the war, but immediately ditched him once it was over. Democracy has that card when need be, but it doesn't work the other way around

 

a noble king or representatives would be great, but we've had that experiment go under time after time. *Rome was a Republic by the way

Edited December 14, 2022 by Devin

[Sucuk Ekmek]

On 12.12.2022 at 1:37 AM, Jannes said:

 If all people rule the country, everybody will have a voice but this makes the decision making of a country as stupid as the average citizen of the country.

 

This won't make the decision stupid because when average sperson is stupid enough you can take any action and justify it as good or bad. Because they don't know what is good or bad anyway. So you have more room to make intelligent decsions. This is a double edged sword.

[Sucuk Ekmek]

11 hours ago, Devin said:

Socrates lived during an age of constant war between many different small nations, Socrates was actually like a General at a time.

They had the word strategos for general. Indeed he was a master strategist.

 

11 hours ago, Devin said:

We live in a much more connected and peaceful world so robust debate is more important than decisiveness and tribal loyalties as it was back then

 

How can it be peaceful or warful when it's all staged. It's not a matter of debate , for example when I employ the both sides outcome is irrelevant, as long as you guys are in a certain circle of thinking I am fine.

 

11 hours ago, Devin said:

 

reminds me of churchill, Britain wanted the authoritarian during the war, but immediately ditched him once it was over.

 

He also said ''The empires of the future are the empires of the mind..."

"...Gentlemen, I make you my compliments. I do not wish to exaggerate, but you are the head-stream of what might well be a mighty fertilising and health-giving river. It would certainly be a grand convenience for us all to be able to move freely about the world - as we shall be able to do more freely than ever before as the science of the world develops - be able to move freely about the world, and be able to find everywhere a medium, albeit primitive, of intercourse and understanding. Might it not also be an advantage to many races, and an aid to the building-up of our new structure for preserving peace?

All these are great possibilities, and I say: "Let us go into this together. Let us have another Boston Tea Party about it."

Let us go forward as with other matters and other measures similar in aim and effect - let us go forward in malice to none and good will to all. Such plans offer far better prizes than taking away other people's provinces or lands or grinding them down in exploitation. The empires of the future are the empires of the mind..."

[Devin]

@Sucuk Ekmek Anabasis by Xenophon is pretty good if you haven't read it, he speaks about Socrates fighting. There's a free audiobook on one of those free audiobook sites

[How to be wise]

@Sucuk Ekmek Because he was at Blue. 

[axiom]

Yeah, Socrates was a proto technocrat, believing that a society should be ruled by a Philosopher-King. He respected the rule of law as a greater good. When sentenced to death, he drank the poison willingly.

[Sucuk Ekmek]

2 hours ago, Devin said:

@Sucuk Ekmek Anabasis by Xenophon is pretty good if you haven't read it, he speaks about Socrates fighting. There's a free audiobook on one of those free audiobook sites

I'll give it a shot.

 

1 hour ago, How to be wise said:

@Sucuk Ekmek Because he was at Blue. 

I think you are kinda crossing the border.  So my fish and his lucky bamboo friend  at turquoise .

[Oeaohoo]

Socrates’ views on Democracy are much more interesting when viewed within his overarching framework of history as cyclical decay and rebirth, as laid out in The Republic. This vision was also adapted by Polybius and called Anacylosis. The cycle is something like this: 1. Monarchy, 2. Kingship, 3. Tyranny, 4. Aristocracy, 5. Oligarchy, 6. Democracy, and 7. Ochlocracy (mob rule). As a cycle, the final phase (mob rule) brings about a rejuvenated form of the first phase.

The view of democracy as a progressive innovation is of course an inversion of this traditional view.

3 hours ago, axiom said:

Yeah, Socrates was a proto technocrat, believing that a society should be ruled by a Philosopher-King. He respected the rule of law as a greater good. When sentenced to death, he drank the poison willingly.

Technocracy is a complete parody of what Plato was talking about!

Edited December 14, 2022 by Oeaohoo

[Tyler Robinson]

There is no evidence to suggest that Socrates had a particular hatred for democracy. In fact, it is believed that Socrates lived and taught in Athens during a time when democracy was flourishing and was generally seen as a positive force. However, Socrates was known for his critical approach to examining ideas and for his willingness to challenge conventional wisdom, and this may have led some people to believe that he was opposed to democracy.

[Danioover9000]

@Tyler Robinson

2 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

There is no evidence to suggest that Socrates had a particular hatred for democracy. In fact, it is believed that Socrates lived and taught in Athens during a time when democracy was flourishing and was generally seen as a positive force. However, Socrates was known for his critical approach to examining ideas and for his willingness to challenge conventional wisdom, and this may have led some people to believe that he was opposed to democracy.

   It also didn't help that Athens was on the decline, and suffered a famine and disease outbreak. Naturally, they looked for a scapegoat, and Socrates fit the bill.

[Tyler Robinson]

Just now, Danioover9000 said:

@Tyler Robinson

   It also didn't help that Athens was on the decline, and suffered a famine and disease outbreak. Naturally, they looked for a scapegoat, and Socrates fit the bill.

Yes. Although. Socrates was indeed accused of corrupting the youth of Athens and not believing in the gods of the city, which were considered crimes under Athenian law. However, it is important to note that there were probably other factors at play in his trial and eventual execution.

Athens was a democracy, and the citizens had the power to bring legal charges against anyone they believed was acting against the best interests of the state.

It is possible that Socrates' accusers saw him as a threat to the traditional values of the city and used the legal system to try to silence him. Not a great way to deal with things, for all I know. 

Additionally, Socrates' uncompromising moral philosophy may have made him unpopular with some members of the Athenian elite, who may have seen him as a threat to their own power and influence.

It is also worth noting that Athens was going through a difficult time during Socrates' trial. The city had recently suffered a major military defeat in the Peloponnesian War, and there was widespread social and political unrest. In this context, it is possible that Socrates was seen as an easy target for those looking for someone to blame for the city's troubles.

So yea I don't assume he was directly against democracy.