Entry 1: Plato v Aristotle (kinda) on the subject on democracy

 Since we are not having regular discussion in the class, I wanted to say one thing first. I think it is totally fair and healthy to admit when you have a hard time understanding something. For example the style of writing found The Republic is definitely a challenge for me, when it comes to being able to digest it in large chunks. Even if the subject matter was not so complex and nuanced, the verbiage and the style itself would be hard to comprehend. Combine the deep concepts of Plato with long bygone style, and I certainly struggled in reading huge chunks at a time. However I do want to hit on a few key points that were present in both sources.

Message from both: “Buyer Beware of Democracy”

Aristotle: In the article from prospect, the writer makes it clear that while Aristotle's views on a variety of subjects are out of date, he had visionary warnings about democracy. The viewpoint seems to indicate that Aristotle had worries about democracy that have come to prove themselves many times throughout history. He argued that in its purest form the sovereign of a democracy is the majority. Which is both its most redeeming and intimidating quality as a form of governance.  Because as I learned in Political Philosophy last year with professor Andrews, “the mob” or in this case “the people” are not logical actors. The mob can be swayed, whipped into a frenzy or even weaponized. 

Plato: (from what I understood) Platos criticisms of democracy are not in the same vain as Aristotle. Instead Plato sees the threat of democracy coming from its easy and natural evolution into a tyrant or oligarch. That if elected governors or kings, gain a taste for power, wealth and the finer things, they may do whatever is needed to maintain them. 


*Also very interesting point made here, that there is a time limit on even the most perfectly created state. That at some point the constitution would be dissolved as it would be irrelevant to the size or kind of people living within the city. A discussion I'm sure we are likely to have in class at some point.


How they connect

How do they not, over the course of American history we have seen our country fall victim to every single one of the ills described in either work. Being as we are Republic, we have many cases where vane public servants have done anything and everything to hold onto their status and power. We have seen the danger in populist thinking that leads to an entire race of people being second class citizens. Recently we have began to see the effects of populism play out nationally, empowering a “leader with a mandate.” I think the takeaway when looking at both, is that they are both kind of right, and both kind of wrong.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Birth of a Nation Paper

  The Birth of a Nation is a historically important film made in  1915, that covers the era of reconstruction flowing into the films present day. While the film is controversial, and in this writer's eyes downright disgusting, it is historically important for a number of reasons. Many of which will be listed in this paper. To note, being of African American heritage and having been partially raised by the daughter of black-Indian sharecropper born in 1929, my views on the subject matter, and the film are inherently biased. Despite my fervent hate of this film, and the makers of it, and the experience of watching it, there are some important notes that can be taken away.  One of the most impactful things the film portrays is a country still grappling with the legacy of the Civil War. The idea of brother against brother or Kin against Kin, that the Civil War did touch upon almost every aspect of American life, and every American life. As shown by the effect it has on both f...
Read more

Entry 2: Connecting class readings, and the Idiocracy to the 2004 Presidential election

  The film Idiocracy, by Mike Judge features many humorous and scarily accurate assessments of American Democracy. Like most Utopian or dystopian tales, the story largely reflects on the time it was written/made, which in this case was during or in the immediate fall out of the Bush V Kerry election. While understanding of the 2004 election has grown in the decades following, at the time of the film one of the major talking points of the race was the “electability” of George W Bush, with much emphasis put on his someone “you'd want to grab a beer with” persona.  What stemmed from that persona was an assumption (and was hoped to be an overreaction) that the American people wanted someone like them to be president.  A horrible idea when one considers that America is one of the most unhealthy, overweight, and poorly educated nations on earth, but a perfect setting for the film Idiocracy.  One of the cornerstones to George W Bush's electable persona was his plain spok...
Read more

Module 6: “Call in the attack dogs” The Vice Presidential Debates

       Over the course of American electoral history presidential debates have changed the course of elections, drawn millions upon millions of eyeballs, and led to more arguments than the state of Israel. Yet throughout this contentious history of yelling, lies, counter lies, and nonsense, one political event usually gets somehow more contentious, the vice presidential debate. This is because historically the President or the Presidential candidate is supposed to maintain an element of decorum and respect, in order to inherit or keep the office of the Presidency. However, as we have found over the course of Donald Trump's political career that he himself is his own attack dog, and Mike Pence is a more traditional face for the administration. Thus the Vice Presidential debate that took place resembled what a Presidential debate should look like. While neither side had a revelatory win or moment, both sides maintained their talking points, forced each other into awkwa...
Read more