plato and Aristotle

Philosophical Discourse on Democracy in "Gorgias" and "The Republic" by Plato and "Politics" by Aristotle

In Greek philosophy, two important thinkers had made their mark in human history because of their profound contributions to the contemporary society's social organizations, ideologies, and political thought. Plato and Aristotle, philosophers who have dominated (in succession) Greek philosophy in the early 4th century BCE, were known for their opposing points-of-view about human knowledge and reason. Plato, who first coined the term 'philosophy' to mean "love of knowledge," has been known to create discourses that seek to obtain knowledge by subsisting to the belief that there is an ideal realm of being within each human. Aristotle, meanwhile, opposes his mentor Plato's claim of knowledge obtained through the ideal and real, and instead proposes that knowledge is obtained through sensual experience -- that is, through the manifestation of the physical world.

These opposing viewpoints of Plato's and Aristotle's philosophies are reflected in their discourses on various fields or areas of study, which includes literary theory, science, and politics. This paper centers its discussion on each philosopher's discourses about democracy and governance. Through a comparative analysis, this research argues that while both Plato and Aristotle have the same concept and definition of democracy as it applies to the society (or "polity), these philosophers differ in the way they operationalize democracy within human society. That is, Plato considers the concept of democracy as self-contradicting, while Aristotle considers democracy as made of different levels or degrees of 'freedom' (i.e., various kinds of democracy). The texts that follow discuss these important points, with references to "Gorgias" and "The Republic" by Plato and "Politics" by Aristotle.

In "The Republic," Plato discusses his own concept of what democracy is like in the human society. In this political discourse, he claims that democracy contradicts itself, since it is in giving up every individual's free will that s/he becomes subject to the 'law of man,' which, in effect, results to his/her "imprisonment" as an individual, where it now becomes imperative, as a member of the society, to conform and follow the rules made by humans. This point is best elucidated by Plato through the analogy between law-abiding individuals and offenders and criminals in the society: "...in democracy...there's no compulsion either to exercise authority if you are capable of it, or to submit to authority if you don't want to..." In which Plato immediately remarks, "And isn't there something rather charming about the good temper of those who've been sentenced in court? You must have noticed that in a democracy men sentenced to death or exile stay on...and go about among their fellows, with no more notice taken of their comings and goings than if they were invisible spirits."

This passage reflects Plato's view of democracy as contradicting to the people's belief that it will ensure freedom and equality among individuals. As discussed in "Republic," democracy, when operationalized, achieves to the opposite of its goal -- that is, it only leads to the perpetuation and toleration of inequality among people of different classes in life, between those who are poor and rich, those who are powerful and not. Indeed, he glorifies those people who seek not to follow the laws of humanity, the bondage of humans in the world, which makes them more imprisoned than those who were "sentenced in court," offenders and criminals who exercise their freedom without exclusivity or restrictions.

This point is once again discussed in "Gorgias," where Plato's character, Socrates, argues with Gorgias and Polus about the functional role that rhetoric plays in society. As Socrates argues against rhetoric and its use as an "art" (as Gorgias identifies it), he exemplifies the freedom of the criminal as opposed to the law-abiding individual, subsisting to the same argument that Plato had presented in "Republic." In arguing against rhetoric and freedom obtained in democracy, Socrates states: "...the unjust or doer of unjust actions is miserable in any case,-more miserable, however, if he be not punished and does not meet with retribution, and less miserable if he be punished and meets with retribution at the hands of gods and men." This passage means that punishment inflicted upon those who deviated and did not follow the laws of humanity is a form of reiterating inequality among humans, between those who are right, just, and powerful, and the wrongdoers and powerless. Moreover, this train of thought in "Gorgias" elucidates the freedom of deviants in society, since once punished, society will consider them as 'outcasts,' whereby these people achieve a degree of anonymity, of freedom, from the society and its rigid laws and rules.

Plato's arguments against democracy in "Republic" and "Gorgias," respectively, oppose Aristotle's thoughts about the said concept in "Politics." In his discourse, Aristotle claims that human laws and rules are not detrimental to the freedom and rights of people; in fact, it further reinforces them, with the creation of organizations and institutions, which shall serve as entities that ensure that freedom and rights of individuals are truly preserved.