You know, despite democracy being such a praised system by the majority of people in our modern society who have experienced the “freedoms” of the system, democracy just can’t catch a break from being absolutely verbally grilled on the charcoals of aristocratic or empirical grounds. This time, the culprit is Marcus Cicero, who writes to democracy’s weakness well:
“According to these advocates of democracy, no sooner is one man, or several, elevated by [wealth and power, which produce pomp and pride, than the idle and the timid give way, and bow down to the arrogance of riches. They add, on the contrary, that if the people knew how to maintain its rights, nothing could be more glorious and prosperous than democracy. They themselves would be the sovereign dispensers of laws, judgments, war, peace, public treaties, and finally, the fortune and life of each individual citizen; and this condition of things is the only one which, in their opinion, can be called a Commonwealth, that is to say, a constitution of the people.” (Cicero, 178).
The self-governing principles of democracy are apparently the same that overthrow the system set up in the first place? Seems like the Romans did take after some of the Greek culture after all. This exact conjecture is made by Socrates in Plato’s The Republic, so there is a clear pattern of criticism here. However, this is where I must refute their claims. While it is true that democracy is under the principle of self-governing people, the people must be informed and educated in order for the system to work optimally. Perhaps if there were more individuals in the society like Andrew Carnegie and his philosophy in The Gospel of Wealth where he details how educating those who are not will make for the best nation possible. I would argue that if we applied Carnegie’s idea instead of just handing out money to people who have horrid financial and intellectual habits, then we would be solving around half of the problems that plague the United States currently. What other observations have you guys made? I would love to discuss this more, so don’t hesitate to leave your opinion.
P.S. I commented on Jamie's post and Isabelle's post.
I would agree with you on that if everyone was educated the country would be better off. However, quality of education is very important. Is the quality of education more important than the quantity of people educated? Or is it the other way around? To be hones, I do not know which I would prefer. Do I want more educated but only not very well or less people who are educated with a great education? It is a hard question with a very hard answer.
ReplyDeleteI would use Carnegie's reply where he says, “People who are unable to motivate themselves must be content with mediocrity, no matter how impressive their other talents.” The level of education would be determined on a case-by-case basis where the individual's motivation would determine the level of education they receive. However, there would be a certain level of education that would be taught no matter the individual's motivation, as this would allow teaching of the basics of law and governmental operations so people would at least know who to vote for in elections and things of the like.
DeleteThere is much that can be said about the American Educational System that can make people believe that we are an uneducated people, but I beg to differ. Although it is a little hectic and not at all perfected, the idea that someone can go to school to learn about (theoretically) anything that they want is an unprecedented thought, and it is something that the US excels at. Part of the issue here, though, is that education and nourishment are two different things. Part of the reason that democracy does not work as well as we want it is because not everyone uses their education for good.
ReplyDelete