|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 4:29 pm
( eek You! *twitch*
Hey, Lemurlady. Sorry I forgot to send you the link, looks like you found it ok on your own. biggrin )
You have a point, but I don't think that's what Plato intended. He talks of a class of educated citizens, kept carefully away from everything construed as dangerous. (ie, heavily censored) They would be selected by a higher power once they reached a certain point. That higher power being, one supposes, Plato himself. Our education is free, and anyone can decide to run for president.
And one does not have to be highly educated to become president. College graduation is nice for a candidate to have, but you don't exactly have to have a Phd.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:29 pm
people as a group are stupid. its the inaviduals that are smart. and I read that book and love it! he is not arrogant although he is a bit hard to understand from time to time sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 5:22 pm
I think that anyone presuming to order the lives of thousands of people is the height of arrogance.
Of course, there is the question of whether Plato would ever have actually carried through his idea of Utopia if given the chance. But assuming he would, it seems extremely arrogant to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 6:57 am
I definitely think that everyone should be part of the process. That way stupid things can't be done (*cough* fighting in unncessary wars) in the name of everyone in the country without there being able to do anything about it. I can't remember the name of the country but many years ago there was a country where all the men of the country were able to participate in its governing (hence all men are created equal) even though it left all of the women out of being able to make any decisions - they never had to worry about having a president who doesn't know his right hand from his left.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 6:59 am
Maze1125 Perfectly fine. Most people are idiots and have know idea about what would be best for themselves. Philosophers are the seekers of truth about everything. Aren't the people who know or are at least trying to know everything the best people to rule? If you don't know the truth about something how can you make a good judgement about it? I agree that philosophers would be great people to run a country if a country was to be run by an elite few, but in the case of the US - can you really tell me that there are any good philosophers in our government?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 7:01 am
smoovegeek Well, let me be the first to disagree. An elite group of people (be they Philosopher-Kings or not) does not have the moral right to make decisions for others. Neither does a majority of citizens in a democracy. The only just government is one that is strictly limited to protecting the natural rights of its citizens, who have delegated their right of self-defense to the government in order to facilitate a society based on the rule of objective law. I have a hard time agreeing with delegation. Even if you were to delgate your decisions to someone else you can't be gaurenteed that they'll actually do what you think they should or do what you think would be the right way to go about something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
