Skip to main content

If Democracy is Flawed, then Wouldn't that Mean . . . - Hailey Morgan

Are we living in a flawed society here in the U.S.? Without a doubt, the answer to this question is yes, yes we are. (I'm sorry if I offended anyone). 

The way in which Socrates describes democracy as the inferior method of governing a nation is concerning since this is the very form of government that we are subject to. In his mind, abandoning everything in the name of freedom is one of the worst things a nation can do. While I do agree that some people can take their freedoms a bit too far (Karens) or twist the meaning of what their freedoms allow (also Karens), I would much rather live in a nation with freedom as its basis. 

Socrates also believes, that purposely putting the wealthiest people in the highest positions of power is not only extremely unfair and highly biased, but it rapidly increases the overall level of governmental corruption. I have to say, I wholeheartedly agree with the philosopher on this one.

What do you guys think? Do we need to pay more attention to what  Socrates has to say about democracy?

 Edit - Replied to Kaitlyn Terry and Haylee Lynd.

Comments

  1. IsabelleOctober 6, 2020 at 8:38 AM

    It's surprising this book has not been burned by the nationalists who believe our country is without fault. I whole heartedly agree with you! In order to run a campaign, you need money. That's why we rarely see leaders of lower middle class or lower class taking up leadership positions. America is a prime example of how right Socrates was. I love your post!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ian BlairOctober 6, 2020 at 9:20 AM

    I personally believe that Socrates has a point on the wealthiest people being in power, but mainly because of his further points on education rather than social status and popularity. Too often we let someone's status define who we think they are rather than their personality. Great thought-provoking post!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aristotle Might Not Like Me...Or Jesus//Haylee Lynd

      Aristotle says that the man who does not get angry at the things he should be angry at "is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one's friends is slavish" (Aristotle 41). While he states that passivity is preferred to excessive anger, he still gives great criticism to it.  In contrast to Aristotle, the man who Christians believe to be the most just is Jesus who states in Matthew 5:39-40, "...do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." Essentially, arguing that one is not to respond in anger when insulted or hurt, to not defend one's self. Most individual's are unable to achieve this. Our natural instinct is to defend ourselves, especially in physical cases. However, Christians strive to be like Jesus in this way. I would also argue that it is a very admirable wa...
2 comments
Read more

Oedipus’ Children/Siblings—Lily Caswell

Ok, so Oedipus is a bit of a train wreck to say the least. I love the fact that even after Oedipus found out about his less-than-appealing relationship with his mother, he still tried to look after his children/siblings. After he gouged his eyes out, his children came to him at which point Oedipus talked about how that when they were old enough to marry, no one would want them due to them being products of incest. He said for the people not to condemn them based on what their father had done. Even after he knew what he had done and what his children were, he still wanted the best for them. I commented on Logan’s and Ian’s posts.
3 comments
Read more

Overanalyzing Everyone's Intentions Here-Rachael Gregson

 First off, I'd like to say this is going to be a two part blog post, because a lot of things happened in this reading assignment that demands to be discussed.  As with any war I've realized, it's tricky not to fall into the initial perspective I am given. I began this book skeptical of Hector because I was bias toward the movie Troy, which was told mostly through the eyes of Achilles, but neither were what I was expecting. It's actually funny that they both hold values completely opposite from one another. Hector represented everything related to city-state pride, honor, and humility whereas Achilles was everything wild, reckless, and unpredictable solitary. This isn't to say that Hector is all good and Achilles all bad. Both had instances where I rooted for the other more or less. I just thought it was interesting how their two personalities represented something that basically causes all wars: the clash between civilization and savagery.  Secondly, I'm not de...
2 comments
Read more