I'm well aware of The Republic, and have read it more than once. I responded to the reasons as to why the "once mighty democratic Athenian empire was disintegrating." Plato and Aristotle both addressed the issue of democracy, and that "the citizens take liberty to mean anarchy i.e. license." Plato decided that the best rule to live under was an aristocracy, led by a philosopher king - if you can find one.
Aristotle (in his Politics) argued that the city mattered more than the family, which in turn mattered more than the individual (in which it agreed with Chinese Legalism). He also argued that the best states were those constitutional states in which people "possess a moderate and convenient fortune; for when some possess too much, and others nothing at [Book 4, 1296a] all, the government must either be in the hands of the meanest rabble or else a pure oligarchy; or, from the excesses of both, a tyranny; for this arises from a headstrong democracy or an oligarchy, but very seldom when the members of the community are nearly on an equality with each other." But basically, Aristotle argued that no state is healthy, and they all - democracy, oligarchy, and aristocracy - switch back and forth and around, because people are (although he never used the term) sinful and will not obey. But, since aristocracy has a tendency to turn into tyranny, which makes slaves of us all (both Plato and Aristotle agreed with this), and oligarchy tries to get all the money for itself, we should consistently try to return to and maintain constitutional democracy. And I agree.
Absolutely true: once Socrates was executed, Plato pretty much gave up on democracy and went off in pursuit of a philosopher king (for which he almost got killed twice, by successive tyrants in Syracuse). But Aristotle, like so many of us, believe that democracy is fragile, creaky, easily demolished, etc., but still better than oligarchy or tyranny.
Meanwhile, what I find interesting in this whole post and this thread is that so many people comment as if this is the first time, and the worst time, this has ever happened. It's important to remember that Socrates was convicted and executed for "corrupting the youth" and "impiety." He taught them to challenge the imperial democratic regime in power - in fact he taught them to challenge ANY regime, and ANY religion - and many of them did. Most of them were polite, but some of them publicly, rudely, rebelliously, and even traitorously outspoken, of whom the prime example is Alicibiades - who was a very wealthy, very handsome aristocrat, who had always gotten away with every transgression he'd ever done. (And he did a lot of them.)
I'm a retired history teacher and I know that while history doesn't repeat itself exactly, it rhymes a lot. Alcibiades ended up dead by assassination in Phrygia (Turkey), having betrayed Athens for Sparta, Sparta for Athens, etc. But there are very few Alcibiades (Talleyrand and Aaron Burr are the only ones I can think of off hand.) Most people end up like Xenophon, growing up, leading a normal life. Do I predict a glowing future for these yapping students in the video? No. But having watched students go through their stage of experimenting with being radical (either right or left) for years, I do predict that 20 years on, most of them will be living a quiet life and won't even remember this incident.
Part of the reason for that, of course, is that our society as a whole has been promoting wealth and celebrity as the greatest good for a few decades now. (Gordon Gecko, ad nauseum). And various figures, such as Steve Bannon, are actively arguing for strong man rule, with might = right. I find our culture's current obsession with the cult of celebrity, wealth, and power absolutely repulsive. But then my age cohort's entertainment was based on right = might, from Arthurian legends to Tolkein to Star Trek. Seems so innocent now...
Well, I don't really think the Stanford students are going to DO "some very unpleasant things," because these are all elites, i.e., they come from wealthy families, and they will marry and have families, because after their early years of performative excess, they go straight back to the playbook of protecting the wealth. And the only way to do that is through irrevocable family trusts, so they marry and continue the tradition. And even if they do get mixed up in some radical enough politics that they actually DO anything violent, they will (1) immediately turn in their lower class fellows and (2) get bailed out by their families and (3) be represented by the best lawyers money can buy, who will argue successfully that "their lives shouldn't be ruined by one terrible mistake." I've seen it - we've all seen it - before.
Ironically, current marriage statistics are really similar to Victorian marriage statistics, where the aristocracy married early (get heirs, protect the entail, i.e., the money), and most middle class people didn't marry until the husband could provide a home for the wife (often in their 30s or even 40s), and the working class married very late, if at all, because they literally couldn't afford it. And a large number of men stayed bachelors because living that way was... fun. And a large number of women were spinsters, because the men weren't interested or couldn't afford to marry - and their lives were spent taking care of their parents.
All right, try this: I live in ruby-red South Dakota. Here is uber-conservative Senator Mike Rounds at a town hall in Spearfish in August, 2022, where angry election deniers booed, shouted for impeachment, and threatened armed rebellion:
This is not the only time or place this has happened in South Dakota.
Now South Dakota has always been pretty conservative, with a strong ethic of hard work, courtesy, (i.e., manners) and a sense of fairness and decency. Most of these people at the town hall were "Blue State Refugees" who moved here to evade Covid restrictions, taxes, etc., and gobbled up most of the scenic, i.e., expensive, areas of the Black Hills. Ever since they've been raising cain at school board meetings, town hall meetings, etc., because - to them - South Dakota is not conservative enough, and they're going to change that, no matter what it takes. They're fairly frightening, because they're willing to go to any lengths to get what they want. Some have already been arrested for being involved in plots against various government officials. So I'm not particularly worried about heckling students.
Oh, and remember, the reason Plato soured on democracy was because the Athenian democracy voted to execute Socrates - for corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens (he certainly challenged the status quo) and impiety. And Socrates was certainly involved with some brilliant minds (Plato, among others), and some very dangerous minds (Alcibiades). Not all of Socrates' students behaved with courtesy and reverence for their elders.
Meanwhile, the two times that Plato definitely faced execution himself were at the hands of tyrants, both of Syracuse, both at the request of Dion, one of Plato's disciples, to try to make philosopher kings out of them. The first time, Plato was threatened with death, but eventually sold into slavery (he was bought by a philosopher who set him free). The second time, Plato barely escaped by the skin of his teeth.
We should be very clear that what the ancients meant by "democracy" was a very different sort of governance than anything present today. By ancient conceptions the United States is not a democracy, althoygh it may have a few democratic features like voter ballot initiaves.
I'm well aware of The Republic, and have read it more than once. I responded to the reasons as to why the "once mighty democratic Athenian empire was disintegrating." Plato and Aristotle both addressed the issue of democracy, and that "the citizens take liberty to mean anarchy i.e. license." Plato decided that the best rule to live under was an aristocracy, led by a philosopher king - if you can find one.
Aristotle (in his Politics) argued that the city mattered more than the family, which in turn mattered more than the individual (in which it agreed with Chinese Legalism). He also argued that the best states were those constitutional states in which people "possess a moderate and convenient fortune; for when some possess too much, and others nothing at [Book 4, 1296a] all, the government must either be in the hands of the meanest rabble or else a pure oligarchy; or, from the excesses of both, a tyranny; for this arises from a headstrong democracy or an oligarchy, but very seldom when the members of the community are nearly on an equality with each other." But basically, Aristotle argued that no state is healthy, and they all - democracy, oligarchy, and aristocracy - switch back and forth and around, because people are (although he never used the term) sinful and will not obey. But, since aristocracy has a tendency to turn into tyranny, which makes slaves of us all (both Plato and Aristotle agreed with this), and oligarchy tries to get all the money for itself, we should consistently try to return to and maintain constitutional democracy. And I agree.
Absolutely true: once Socrates was executed, Plato pretty much gave up on democracy and went off in pursuit of a philosopher king (for which he almost got killed twice, by successive tyrants in Syracuse). But Aristotle, like so many of us, believe that democracy is fragile, creaky, easily demolished, etc., but still better than oligarchy or tyranny.
Meanwhile, what I find interesting in this whole post and this thread is that so many people comment as if this is the first time, and the worst time, this has ever happened. It's important to remember that Socrates was convicted and executed for "corrupting the youth" and "impiety." He taught them to challenge the imperial democratic regime in power - in fact he taught them to challenge ANY regime, and ANY religion - and many of them did. Most of them were polite, but some of them publicly, rudely, rebelliously, and even traitorously outspoken, of whom the prime example is Alicibiades - who was a very wealthy, very handsome aristocrat, who had always gotten away with every transgression he'd ever done. (And he did a lot of them.)
I'm a retired history teacher and I know that while history doesn't repeat itself exactly, it rhymes a lot. Alcibiades ended up dead by assassination in Phrygia (Turkey), having betrayed Athens for Sparta, Sparta for Athens, etc. But there are very few Alcibiades (Talleyrand and Aaron Burr are the only ones I can think of off hand.) Most people end up like Xenophon, growing up, leading a normal life. Do I predict a glowing future for these yapping students in the video? No. But having watched students go through their stage of experimenting with being radical (either right or left) for years, I do predict that 20 years on, most of them will be living a quiet life and won't even remember this incident.
Part of the reason for that, of course, is that our society as a whole has been promoting wealth and celebrity as the greatest good for a few decades now. (Gordon Gecko, ad nauseum). And various figures, such as Steve Bannon, are actively arguing for strong man rule, with might = right. I find our culture's current obsession with the cult of celebrity, wealth, and power absolutely repulsive. But then my age cohort's entertainment was based on right = might, from Arthurian legends to Tolkein to Star Trek. Seems so innocent now...
Well, I don't really think the Stanford students are going to DO "some very unpleasant things," because these are all elites, i.e., they come from wealthy families, and they will marry and have families, because after their early years of performative excess, they go straight back to the playbook of protecting the wealth. And the only way to do that is through irrevocable family trusts, so they marry and continue the tradition. And even if they do get mixed up in some radical enough politics that they actually DO anything violent, they will (1) immediately turn in their lower class fellows and (2) get bailed out by their families and (3) be represented by the best lawyers money can buy, who will argue successfully that "their lives shouldn't be ruined by one terrible mistake." I've seen it - we've all seen it - before.
Ironically, current marriage statistics are really similar to Victorian marriage statistics, where the aristocracy married early (get heirs, protect the entail, i.e., the money), and most middle class people didn't marry until the husband could provide a home for the wife (often in their 30s or even 40s), and the working class married very late, if at all, because they literally couldn't afford it. And a large number of men stayed bachelors because living that way was... fun. And a large number of women were spinsters, because the men weren't interested or couldn't afford to marry - and their lives were spent taking care of their parents.
All right, try this: I live in ruby-red South Dakota. Here is uber-conservative Senator Mike Rounds at a town hall in Spearfish in August, 2022, where angry election deniers booed, shouted for impeachment, and threatened armed rebellion:
https://www.bhpioneer.com/local_news/tables-turn-on-rounds-at-round-table-talk/article_4c7a0b9e-1ffe-11ed-82b2-af4c0b0e3652.html
This is not the only time or place this has happened in South Dakota.
Now South Dakota has always been pretty conservative, with a strong ethic of hard work, courtesy, (i.e., manners) and a sense of fairness and decency. Most of these people at the town hall were "Blue State Refugees" who moved here to evade Covid restrictions, taxes, etc., and gobbled up most of the scenic, i.e., expensive, areas of the Black Hills. Ever since they've been raising cain at school board meetings, town hall meetings, etc., because - to them - South Dakota is not conservative enough, and they're going to change that, no matter what it takes. They're fairly frightening, because they're willing to go to any lengths to get what they want. Some have already been arrested for being involved in plots against various government officials. So I'm not particularly worried about heckling students.
Well, maybe where you live. Not here.
Oh, and remember, the reason Plato soured on democracy was because the Athenian democracy voted to execute Socrates - for corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens (he certainly challenged the status quo) and impiety. And Socrates was certainly involved with some brilliant minds (Plato, among others), and some very dangerous minds (Alcibiades). Not all of Socrates' students behaved with courtesy and reverence for their elders.
Meanwhile, the two times that Plato definitely faced execution himself were at the hands of tyrants, both of Syracuse, both at the request of Dion, one of Plato's disciples, to try to make philosopher kings out of them. The first time, Plato was threatened with death, but eventually sold into slavery (he was bought by a philosopher who set him free). The second time, Plato barely escaped by the skin of his teeth.
We should be very clear that what the ancients meant by "democracy" was a very different sort of governance than anything present today. By ancient conceptions the United States is not a democracy, althoygh it may have a few democratic features like voter ballot initiaves.