The Republic - Part III: Decline of the Polis

[MURAI]

Speed earlier in a thread argued if things in life are cyclical than some linear path with something completely new being the result. Plato argued that societies go through politcal cycles too from aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and finally tyranny which brings destruction in The Republic.

Plato's ideal Aristocracy was formed by sound, rational people fit as philosophers. A Timocracy values honor highest. In Oligarchy wealth is the highest good. In Democracy it is freedom. Tyranny is govern by a criminal man with a society enslaved by his whims of desire.

Each of these political systems is a reflection of a type of person. I find it kind of funny, that people believe of how progressive and just democracy is but it is never brought up that the celebrated Socrates and Plato considered it as the second worst system of all. Even Nietzsche, who never cared for Plato or Socrates, considers it to be a feeble system resulting in mediocrity but again never brought up.

 

[speed]

Speed earlier in a thread argued if things in life are cyclical than some linear path with something completely new being the result. Plato argued that societies go through politcal cycles too from aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and finally tyranny which brings destruction in The Republic.

Plato's ideal Aristocracy was formed by sound, rational people fit as philosophers. A Timocracy values honor highest. In Oligarchy wealth is the highest good. In Democracy it is freedom. Tyranny is govern by a criminal man with a society enslaved by his whims of desire.

Each of these political systems is a reflection of a type of person. I find it kind of funny, that people believe of how progressive and just democracy is but it is never brought up that the celebrated Socrates and Plato considered it as the second worst system of all. Even Nietzsche, who never cared for Plato or Socrates, considers it to be a feeble system resulting in mediocrity but again never brought up.

Well I think it is obvious we are the end of our cycle of democracy. Its degenerating like it has throughout history, into a client system for the bettering of the rich and powerful. This is an interesting idea/thread, i need to give more time to later.

 

[infoterror]

Democracy is essentially anarchy, and thus isolates people into their own little political islands, which allows moderate but psychotic people (G.W.B.) to take over and run things into shit.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Ingenious plan for a dictatorship: rather than be an obvious dictator and run the constant risk of being attacked and deposed, the masses are far more easily controlled by having a semblance of democracy. You hand pick some candidates (or create political parties) but all their ideas are what you approve to be appropriate for airing in the public arena. (Any threatening ideas that could become popular must be suppressed). You control all the main media and use it to manipulate people into believing in that things can be changed through the democratic process. And yet your policies are far from the will of the people. Added advantage is that other countries cannot criticise you for being a dictator. Maybe Saddam would still be in power if he'd tried that. Maybe that is what Bush is doing. If he was a straightforward dictator, he probably wouldn't get away with it for so long.

 

[speed]

Speed earlier in a thread argued if things in life are cyclical than some linear path with something completely new being the result. Plato argued that societies go through politcal cycles too from aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and finally tyranny which brings destruction in The Republic.

Plato's ideal Aristocracy was formed by sound, rational people fit as philosophers. A Timocracy values honor highest. In Oligarchy wealth is the highest good. In Democracy it is freedom. Tyranny is govern by a criminal man with a society enslaved by his whims of desire.

Each of these political systems is a reflection of a type of person. I find it kind of funny, that people believe of how progressive and just democracy is but it is never brought up that the celebrated Socrates and Plato considered it as the second worst system of all. Even Nietzsche, who never cared for Plato or Socrates, considers it to be a feeble system resulting in mediocrity but again never brought up.

If I may expand and extrapolate on my previous thoughts: I think yes, the human sphere of things, including politics, is cyclical. Democracy has been, or is all but in name, being replaced at present.

Anyway, the interesting thing here is whether or not politics etc, will break this circular cycle due to the vast changes in science and technology. Advances in technology now make it possible to track citizens every activity (socially and economically). With the obvious strengthening of the elites (as has happened with every single ruling civ's decline--Brits last, Frenchies before them, and so on), and the consolidization of companies into monolithic monopolies, this unprecedented new power in technology, coupled with control of the media, perhaps we shall enter another long, long tyrannical age.

ALso, in te 19th century, scientific socialism etc--or the belief in the merging of science and politics--was the next craze, and spawned many a movement. Yet it was totally untenable to both humanities many flaws, and the limits of science at the time. But now, perhaps science and technology has the power to control or iron out the flaws of humanity with these new powers of pervasive and total surveillance and power. I still think science will be the servant of politics--but a very strong servant.

 

[Lord SteveO]

Interesting ideas there.

I have a question though:

If the "human sphere" as speed put it is cyclical, at what point in history were we at our best? I mean for example, when was democracy at it's best (not the fake type we have these days), when were people really rulling their own lives and not being controlled. Similarly, what would you consider the "darkest" period for humans?

 

[speed]

Interesting ideas there.

I have a question though:

If the "human sphere" as speed put it is cyclical, at what point in history were we at our best? I mean for example, when was democracy at it's best (not the fake type we have these days), when were people really rulling their own lives and not being controlled. Similarly, what would you consider the "darkest" period for humans?

Good question. I have no idea. And I dont know if Democracy is any better than any other form of government. I suppose our present age in terms of raw quality of life is best. However, I think most would agree one probably would have had more potential and opportunity 50 years ago.

And worst of the civilized age? Hm, from the time of Diocletian (he started serfdom to pay for the ROman state and army) up to say the 15h century was pretty damn bad. I sure the hell wouldnt want anything to do with it.

 

[speed]

Another idea that has not been mentioned, is that of economics. Money has become more important than any ideology, any ethical or political stance, etc. Money has become politics--or is politics. This has always been the trend though. Anyway, my point being, is perhaps it is not democracy thats to blame, but unrestrained, unchecked capitalism (of course the counterpoint to capitalism didnt work either).

 

[Lord SteveO]

Money is to todays world like a slave driver to his slaves.

It enslaves most of the world, to the extent that rational thought is simply ingored. How many examples of things happening can you think of where if money was not involved they would have turned out very different, and possibly better off?
I could list a fair few, and i reckon most of us could.

 

[derek]

Interesting ideas there.

I have a question though:

If the "human sphere" as speed put it is cyclical, at what point in history were we at our best? I mean for example, when was democracy at it's best (not the fake type we have these days), when were people really rulling their own lives and not being controlled. Similarly, what would you consider the "darkest" period for humans?

Probably never. Polybius puts forward the idea that everything is fantastic in its infancy, and then it begins to decay. To be fair though, I think ideas in their infancy are remarkable, but pretty much none of them ever work in reality.

 

[derek]

Good question. I have no idea. And I dont know if Democracy is any better than any other form of government. I suppose our present age in terms of raw quality of life is best. However, I think most would agree one probably would have had more potential and opportunity 50 years ago.

And worst of the civilized age? Hm, from the time of Diocletian (he started serfdom to pay for the ROman state and army) up to say the 15h century was pretty damn bad. I sure the hell wouldnt want anything to do with it.

+1 Diocletian was insane.

I'd say the early imperial period was a peak of human civilisation. Octavian was hugely able. I'm a whore for late republican/early imperial Rome, however.

 

[speed]

+1 Diocletian was insane.

I'd say the early imperial period was a peak of human civilisation. Octavian was hugely able. I'm a whore for late republican/early imperial Rome, however.

I disagree. Diocletian saved the Roman empire from breaking for what 150-200 years in the west, and almost a thousand in the east. He stopped the civil war of succession that had been going on for almost a century. Sure, he split the empire into two, and formed the tetrachies. He abolished the ineffectual and pointless republic and senate, he curbed inflation and spending, and he basically made himself, total autocrat. And lets not forget his lovely persecution of the Christians.

As for the peak: Well I dont think we've ever had one in totality (but, I do agree, comprehensively its hard to beat the early Roman Empire up through Claudius, with a few pauses, and on up till the Antonines (the true Golden Age in my opinion), ending with Marcus Aurelius; it was in the agora of Athens in the mid 5th century, in the palazzos of Florence in the 15th century, in Scotland from 1700-1800--hume, smith, etc., in Vienna around the turn of the century. I could go on. In essence, to me, its wherever great minds, artists, scientists, etc, congregated and created.

 

[derek]

I disagree. Diocletian saved the Roman empire from breaking for what 150-200 years in the west, and almost a thousand in the east. He stopped the civil war of succession that had been going on for almost a century. Sure, he split the empire into two, and formed the tetrachies. He abolished the ineffectual and pointless republic and senate, he curbed inflation and spending, and he basically made himself, total autocrat. And lets not forget his lovely persecution of the Christians.

As for the peak: Well I dont think we've ever had one in totality (but, I do agree, comprehensively its hard to beat the early Roman Empire up through Claudius, with a few pauses, and on up till the Antonines (the true Golden Age in my opinion), ending with Marcus Aurelius; it was in the agora of Athens in the mid 5th century, in the palazzos of Florence in the 15th century, in Scotland from 1700-1800--hume, smith, etc., in Vienna around the turn of the century. I could go on. In essence, to me, its wherever great minds, artists, scientists, etc, congregated and created.

Well, I do suppose I was being quite flippant. I do quite like Diocletian, but I tend to pay little attention to anything post-200AD

The second part of your post makes much sense.

 

[speed]

Well, I do suppose I was being quite flippant. I do quite like Diocletian, but I tend to pay little attention to anything post-200AD

The second part of your post makes much sense.

Yeah, well the whole period after 200 AD is so poorly documented, but it is utterly fascinating. Really, Diocletian and then Constantine (with Eusebius and the Arian, Athanasian controversies), set the groundwork for the next twelve hundred years of European history--especially religiously, and economically.

 

[derek]

Yeah, well the whole period after 200 AD is so poorly documented, but it is utterly fascinating. Really, Diocletian and then Constantine (with Eusebius and the Arian, Athanasian controversies), set the groundwork for the next twelve hundred years of European history--especially religiously, and economically.

I've spent much time on Constantine, but my expertise (and the demands of my job) generally end around 200AD. Although with some free time this summer, I may induldge upon some reading to fill in the gaps