In The Republic Plato promotes an idea of ​​the democratic soul that is fundamentally flawed. He postulates that the man with a democratic soul "lives his life according to a certain equality of pleasures established by himself" (La Repubblica, VIII, 561b). Granting that man with a democratic soul is initially governed by equality of pleasures, it is imprudent to suppose that man acquires no knowledge of the consequences of his actions during his lifetime. Contrary to what Plato supposes, man does not maintain this initial equality of pleasures, but is instead governed by a developing hierarchy of the soul. A democratic soul is not a soul without order, but a soul without pre-established order; therefore it is the type of character most conducive to asking questions and discerning the knowledge of the good. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Plato bases his critique of the democratic soul on his verbal model of the democratic regime. He assumes that since democracies are governed by lot and have no hierarchy, they are consequently governed like an empty acropolis (La Repubblica, VIII, 560b-c) and without a nucleus. “To what happens, as if he had been chosen by lot, he delivers the government to himself until he satisfies him, and then again to another, without dishonouring anyone, but promoting all on an equal basis.” The Republic, III, 561a). According to him, because democracies allow such a large degree of freedom and equality, they are therefore governed by an arbitrary choice of virtues and cannot produce justice, except by chance. He further argues that "anything done in excess", such as democracy, "is likely to bring about a corresponding great change in the opposite direction" (The Republic, VIII, 563e), and thus produces slavery. However, in this formulation Plato fails to incorporate the role of laws as historical testimony and as a means of mitigating freedom. Although the city may be ruled by lot, the acropolis is not empty; laws govern the city. Laws maintain the progress made by past generations toward the good by serving as historical records. They are a testament to what has been proven and what has been accepted by past generations. If there is a law that has remained in place for a long period of time, it will not be thoughtlessly ignored, nor will an unjust law escape the control of an entire nation. Socrates proposes that aristocracy is the best regime because it is the most just. However, this requires that there be a “wise” class; this is impossible. There cannot be a wise class, there can only be a class that questions the foundations of society and therefore deconstructs and remakes society, in order to produce a "fairer regime". Socrates argues that this is the role of philosopher kings because these are the individuals who best fit this description. However, the democratic process is a process that produces just laws by questioning the rightness of current laws and debating the best reforms of the laws, just as democratic souls question the souls that make the greatest progress towards the good by questioning the correctness of current laws. soul hierarchy they have in place and discuss the best reforms to that hierarchy. Seen this way, democracy seems to fit Socrates' description of aristocracy, and the democratic soul to his description of philosopher kings. Aristocracy also goes against Socrates' original formulation of the "good life". He argues that “the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being” (Apology, 92), and that the virtue of the examined life is that it progresses toward the good. However, ifaristocracy is the rule of the wise, then it must be the rule of those who know the good, and if philosophers already know the good, then they cannot lead examined lives because they could not progress towards knowing the good. However, if wisdom is not a function of knowledge of the good, but rather a pursuit of the good, which is the logical conclusion, then aristocracy is not the rule of the wise, but the rule of those who ask questions. This definition is not the exclusive definition proposed by Socrates, but instead incorporates all individuals who question what is right. The counterargument to this is that philosophers are the only people who lead examined lives and the only people who question the foundations of society. . He exhorts the citizens of Athens, "not to take care of any of their own things until they take care of themselves... nor to take care of the things of the city until they take care of the city itself" (Apologia, 90). Socrates believes that citizens cannot be seen as people who lead scrutinized lives because they accept traditions and laws. However, Socrates' inclination towards deconstruction is based on his lack of incorporation of history into an individual's or a city's progress towards the good. He believes that history cannot be relied upon as the foundation of society and that each individual must begin their life trying to determine for themselves what is good. This is based on the a priori statement that an individual cannot pursue the good if he does not know what the good is; since an individual cannot know the good, then he is only capable of pursuing knowledge of the good (The Republic, VI, 508d), and Socrates argues that the only way knowledge of the good can be achieved is through a model dialectical (La Repubblica, VI, 511c), where nothing is accepted as right if it has not been thoroughly examined. He claims that "...in one part of it the soul, using previously imitated things as images, is forced to investigate on the basis of hypotheses and directs itself not towards a beginning but towards an end; while on the other starts towards a beginning free from hypotheses, starting from a hypothesis and without the images used, on the other hand, by means of the forms themselves, through them he makes his investigation" (La Repubblica, VI, 510b). true dialectics rejects the images, traditions and laws of the city, and subjects them to examination for knowledge of the good. However, in Socrates' initial statement that an individual cannot pursue the good unless he knows so 'is the good, it is admitted that the individual must have some intrinsic knowledge of the good. It could therefore be argued that although the individual knows the existence of the good they do not necessarily seek the good a democratic soul, "... lives day by day, gratifying the desire that comes to mind, drinking and listening to the flute at the same time... and there is neither order nor necessity in his life, but calling the her sweet, free and blessed life follows her everywhere" (La Repubblica, VIII, 561c-d). This may be true; however, if an individual has a democratic soul, then in observing which dominant interest benefits him the most, the individual inadvertently acquires knowledge of the good. However, the fact that this knowledge is not sought by the individual does not make it any less valuable. If an individual did not admit the existence of the good, the effects of his experiences would be lost. This is imitated in the city in the form of laws that provide knowledge of justice. Knowing that good exists, it is implied that justice must exist since justice is simply law or action governed by good; and although knowing that justice exists does not require a city to seek what is right,However, it allows citizens to acquire knowledge of justice by seeing the effects of the laws they enact. Citizens do not wish to live under unjust laws and will accordingly rectify any injustice they find there. Therefore, even if they do not seek knowledge of the good, their laws will be governed by whatever knowledge of the good they have found. Therefore in democracy, by abandoning the laws and traditions of the city, the knowledge of justice contained in them is eliminated. Seen this way, the acceptance of laws and traditions in the city is not an ignorant act that eliminates the possibility of knowing the good, but is instead an intelligent act that leads to a greater knowledge of the good. Laws occupy the acropolis of the democratic regime. In Crito, Socrates allows the laws to support his stay and to accept the punishment set for him by the courts. In their argument, the laws state that “the law that orders the sentences passed in trials is authoritative” (Crito, 109) – even if wrong – because they maintain political order. The argument that the laws, and therefore Plato, fail to make is that, although the laws are not infallible, they are self-correcting. This argument also applies to the democratic soul. In a democratic soul there is initially no order, but as the individual grows older he establishes certain laws for himself. These laws form a moral core and this core governs his actions. Although it can be "ruled by lot" (La Repubblica, VIII, 561a), there are certain standards of behavior to which the dominant component is forced to submit; these standards of behavior are established by law. If the ruling component of his soul is unable to abide by the laws that the individual has developed through experience, then that part of his soul is not allowed to rule. An example of this is that although it is common for children to have "tantrums", these are almost never found in adults. Children have not learned that this way of acting is generally not profitable, so they allow that part of their soul to rule them. However, as adults, most people have come to understand that fits of anger are not constructive and in many cases can be destructive; therefore they do not allow that part of themselves to govern their actions. This mimics the role of law in democratic rule: just as unjust laws are eliminated, so the destructive and base elements of a man's soul are kept in check. Although in adopting the laws and traditions of a city, which are a collection of the citizens' ideas of the good, an individual might accept false conceptions of the good, the mechanism of democracy is formulated to rectify this. The ability of laws to serve as a historical document, as well as their ability to demand compliance, results in a progression towards good and political stability. The democratic process allows for the positive effects of questioning laws, but prevents the negative effects of political instability or prolonged rule by the unjust. While it is not guaranteed that an unjust law will not be passed, it is certain (through Plato's statement that through questioning we will be led to knowledge of the good which will produce a greater knowledge of justice) that unjust law will be eliminated in future generations. The ability to pass an unjust law may be seen as a flaw in democracy, but it also produces greater knowledge of justice. By admitting the dominion of the unjust, the unjust is questioned and recognized; learning what is unjust produces a clearer picture of what is right. So far, democracy and aristocracy of both the city and the soul..