Sure, Monday night sounds good. I can make it.
posted by Nora at 7:05 PM

I would be interested in a study group Monday night, 9:00pm sounds great.
posted by Nina at 4:35 PM

Study Group for Tuesday's Quiz? Any interest? Monday night at coffee works - 9:00 ?
posted by Renee at 4:41 AM

It's unfortunate that we aren't reading any Plato this semester. He gives one of the most powerful arguments in favor of expert rulers anyone has ever presented.

When thinking about the possibility of philosopher-kings, think of this: Is it possible to know things for certain? Truth is only subjective if we believe that things cannot truly be known/understood. Plato (and Socrates) taught that there was such a thing as Truth. A person, through the study of philosophy, could learn Truth. Truth is never subjective, something is either true or it is not. If we believe that we, as humans, are capable of knowing whether things are true or not, then we can understand that governing can be made according to understanding.

According to this line of reasoning, then experts should rule. They know whether something is true or not. Should all Americans vote on energy policy? Or those who know about energy (scientists, technicians, economists, etc)? Should all Americans vote on whether or not Iraq is a threat? Or those who have gathered military intelligence and might know more information than we do? Not all policy can (or should) be made using opinion polls. Facts, after all, are relevent.

My point here is not to argue for or against any kind of dictatorship. My point is that if an argument for or against a position is going to be made, both sides will have to analyze their core assumptions. The best way to do this is to use the authors you have read (the text and the reader) as a reference guide. For example, if you want to argue against expert rule, look at Mill's argument against it.
posted by Miguel at 12:38 AM

Kara... its possible even today to have morons making policies on something they know little or nothing about, it happens all the time, sometimes they are elected, and sometimes they run billion dollar corporations... America fought a war to end being ruled by an oligarchy or monarchy, depending on your point of view.

Knowing what is best is subjective, being an expert is subjective... we talked about it class how it's almost impossible to quantify what is best because not everyone is going to agree, and usually one of two things happens, either it results in some sort of compromise or a majority is reached. what might be good for us as Americans may not necessarily be good for someone in Europe or China.
posted by Kimberly at 11:33 PM

Pericles wanted popular democracy. Socrates/Plato wanted philosopher-kings.
posted by Miguel at 11:15 PM

In response to Miguel Centellas' post on 9/17, did Pericles want an oligarchy? If he thought that only experts should lead, wouldn't that be the very few in charge of the masses? I don't think it's a bad idea, one could liken philosopher-kings to the Supreme Court. Most people would want the smartest people in their fields to help lead us; I certainly wouldn't want some moron making policies on something s/he knew little about.

However, I'm not sure if the philosopher-kings would be considered a democracy. How would these people come to power? An aptitude test? Then would they be appointed for life? I think it's an interesting concept worth trying.
posted by Kara at 10:33 PM

A tip on discussing political ideologies: The definition of words is very important. A "dictatorship of the proletariat" means literally that: a dictatorship (absolute rule). Whether or not a dictatorship of the proletariat is a good thing depends, greatly, on one's ideology. Yes, it would mean absolute rule and repression of some groups. But remember, some ideologies justify this kind of rule.

Don't worry about "dictatorship of the proletariat" for now. We'll come to that when we start reading post-Marxist communism. We have about two weeks before we get there. Just concentrate for now on the differences between liberal democracy and social democracy; you aren't reading any (modern) advocates of people's democracy for tomorrow.
posted by Miguel at 7:23 PM

In response to Kashawlic : hmm, your example seems like a shift into a despotism if ya ask me. But in the dictatorship of the proletariat sense, I would think if your group was struggleing then it would lead to a D of P .If you have the mental capability to know whats best for your group than your ideas and ruleing come from your own self interests not the groups because you have a full awareness of the situation and you construct in the best way you know how. Your group would accpet it because its all they know of. Kinda like " the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept" kinda thing.
I would think if you were a D of P you would have to intentionally suppress a group of people in order to succeed with your group as whole anyways. So if they ( your group) couldnt see your supreme ways it would probably be because they dont know better or because your supressing them in the first place.
Kinda confuseing :( Im Not sure if i hit your question, im sorta trying to understand the whole concept myself. Anyone have other thoughts on this subject? ( Sorry for the typos!)
posted by Nora at 5:28 PM

A bit of history is important. Pericles was the great statesman of Athenian democracy, and during the peak of its power. As a young man, Socrates fought as an Athenian foot soldier and was by all accounts brave. As a philosopher, Socrates was highly critical of many principles of Athenian democracy. He taught that only experts should lead (in any field). He endorsed the idea of philosopher-kings.

Socrates was tried after a group of Athenian aristocrats overthrew Athenian democracy and were themselves overthrown in turn. A restored Athenian democracy settled its scores; Socrates was included in this dragnet (several of Socrates' students, including Plato's brother, were involved in the anit-democratic coup). As you know, Socrates was sentenced to death. Plato, Socrates' student, never forgave Athens. Most of his writings condemn Athenian democracy. Plato was also hired, briefly, by the king of Syracuse to train his son as a philosopher-king.

Aristotle was Plato's student. Although Aristotle is less anti-democratic than Plato, he also was influenced by his time. Greek city-states were declining in Aristotle's time. Alexander the Great was conquering Greece (and much of the known world) and the city-state seized to exist. So Aristotle is partially anti-democratic because, for Greeks, democracy required a city-state. Yet city-states weren't able to compete with powerful empires. Aristotle promotes polity (the mixed constitution) in part because he thinks it's more flexible and can overcome the weaknesses of democracy (such as civil wars between the poor and the aristocrats).
posted by Miguel at 5:13 PM

In regards to Cindy, the way I preceived it Pericles was in favor of the Athaenian democracy, hence being the famous leader of them. He advocated their legit way of doing things in the Athanenian Democracy, were as Plato and Socraties opposed the norm of the A. Democracy. So as Periceles embraced democracy as a good thing, philosphers Socrates and Plato saw it as a dangerious thing.
posted by Nora at 1:41 PM

I understand that Socraties and Plato are related in some ways, but yet they are still different. They have different views on what democracy should be. I am not sure I understand where Pericles fits in. Is there a way to understand and sort out the differences between Pericles and all the other important people of the history of democracy?
posted by Cindy at 12:17 PM

To expand on our discussion earlier today in class, Miguel asked us about a dictatorship of the proletariat… could someone rule in the interests of the people knowing best (expert) however the people are not aware of what is best or right. I was thinking and trying to connect that to my life.. Granted this may be a stretch but does it work? Help me out… granted my analogy is fabricated quite a bit…

I’ve received a great deal of training via conferences, seminars, retreats, and such in the area of leadership and have much experience in this field as well. Lets say these factors granted me the title “expert or specialist”. I am a member of an organization (city-state) that is not fully living up to its potential due to lack of leadership, organization, moral, ect. With my experience and “expertise” I believe I have ideas, means, and ways of running things more effectively; however, in a different manner in which things have been done in the past. I have an understanding greater than the members (citizens) but I’d be acting on their accounts and for the betterment of everyone within the organization. Could my ruling be compared (in an abstract sense of course) to a dictatorship of the proletariat? I’d be ruling the members of my organization in their best interests however they may not be able to see my supreme ways?

I know this is a bit cheesy but hay it popped in my head and got me thinking. Let me know what you think… even if it’s that I’m wrong. Thanks.
posted by Renee at 11:56 AM

Be careful not to confuse Socrates with Pericles. Pericles was a strong supporter of Athenian democracy. Socrates was not (sort of). It's difficult, of course, to know what Socrates really believed, since he never wrote anything. We only have the writings of Plato (which are written as dialogues featuring Socrates). There is strong debate, of course, about how much of the writtings are Plato's and how much are Socrates' thoughts. It is clear, however, from other people's transcripts of the Scorates' trial, that Socrates was accused (among other things) of associating with young aristocrats (some of his students even overthrew Athenian democracy briefly).

But there's no evidence that Socrates wanted to overthrow democracy. In his defense, Socrates cited his military service and general patriotism. He was offered exile as a punishment but refused it. He did think that his jury wasn't really fit to try him and that his punishment should be a lifelong pension for his service to Athens. The second sentence after that was death. Socrates also refused to flee (he had the chance) and defended the sentence (and his obedience to it) as his duty as an Athenian citizen.

Bottom line, I don't think Socrates really wanted a democracy (not the way it was practiced in Athens, anyhow). He did promote the idea that philosophers should rule, though he did seem to practice a lifestyle that suggested he believed almost anyone was capable of philosophy (once they took the time to learn it).
posted by Miguel at 11:09 AM

I don't really have much time to post anything, but I did have to say that I find it great that values don't necessarily pass from student to teacher (Socrates to Plato). One said rule by the people is the only way to go, and the other says that rule by the people is "evil" because it risks letting the ignorant make decisions.
posted by Lisa at 9:06 AM

Some good comments on Aristotle so far. We'll discuss them at greater length on Tuesday and again on Thursday. If you get a chance, look over the different ways in which the word "democracy" has evolved over time. That might help frame a discussion of Aristotle and our government a bit better.

About the "companion" website for the text: I don't think one exists. If so, I don't know about it (it wasn't advertised when I chose the text and reader). If anyone does find anything, of course, please let us know.
posted by Miguel at 12:11 AM

I think our system of checks and balances is a good analogy to the extent that each branch of government has limited control over other branches of government, but to say that our system of government is a polity is perhaps oversimplifying things... I think that polity is more of an grand ideal. Aristotle describes Polity as the truest form of government by "many" for the common good, and portrays democracy as a perverted form of government by "many" that rule with their own self interest in mind. If we were to use Aristotle's definitions, I would consider us a democracy, ie, our elected representatives tend to vote or promote legislation that will benefit their constituents in their state, but frequently do not necessarily benefit the nation as a whole and therefore guarentees constituent votes for re-election. Representatives are also lobbied by special interest groups that often request certian legislation in return for campaign funds and votes. To me there seems to be a lot more self interest than altruism in our government, but that is just my opinion. :)
posted by Kimberly at 10:00 PM

This is a question concerning the companion website for our text. I went to the Longman homepage, found our text listed, but did not come across a link to the website. Has anyone been successful in accessing the page? I would greatly appreciate some assistance! Thanks!
posted by jessica at 9:11 PM

In the Democratic Ideal chapter, it talks about Aristotle and his classifications of governments. Polity is one of them. He considers it a good form of rule by the many. I am curious if this form of government can be compared in anyway to the democracy we have in the United States today. He says that in this type of government (Polity) each group keeps an eye on each other. Could that be compared to the checks and balances we find in our three branches of government, and if so does that mean our system resembles that of Polity?
posted by Nina at 5:29 PM

In order to jump start weblog postings ... I will give extra credit to anyone who posts this week in the weblog. I will give double extra credit to anyone who posts at least twice (but the second time has to be a direct response to at least one other person's post). Of course, to qualify for extra credit the posts have to be related to the course in some obvious/relevant way.
posted by Miguel at 7:56 PM