Socrates: Innovative Philosopher or Destroyer of Democracy?

From what factually is known about Socrates and the state of Athens then he had that role of advocating for oppression of the demos. The happiness of people does not arise when they are enslaved or subjugated. Mankind naturally desires freedom rather than slavery

That Plato would advocate for female opportunity to oppress the masses as guardian-rulers may have been a political gambit to get feminine support-always important even today for bad political actions as well as good. Certainly women can reason well enough, however abstract reason doesn't compensate for lack of experience for either gender. In the 5th century B.C. childbirth was quite dangerous and in some places still is.

Why did Socrates want to abolish families and have the state raise progeny from mysterious liasons? Socrates might have ruminated about his first wife Xanthippe and alleged second wife Myrto and thought about the good points of a commonality of women in the Utopian Republic. He might have imagined that a prime role of philosopher kings would have been to impregnate lower classes so far as possible and outbreed undesirable characteristics such as the will for independence. In that idea he wouldn't be unique. Yet even from an evolutionary perspective diveristy is better than everyone having the same nose.

Women have tended to rule the home at times while men go out in the streets and fields to fight, strive or labor. The enfranchised agree not to kill one another, dominate the increments of sustainabilty or dump the excrements in the gutters-what could be bettter than that? Well, democracy can try to improve education and assure a fair basic social balance politically. The marketplace of ideas need be free of operant tyranny that excludes the masses from getting a natural selection of the best ideas, songs, poems or science fiction novels etc.

Eventually women too can rise to go out in the streets, fight, agree not to kill one another and labor-and they do. Maids from Mexico maintain homes for cheaper wages than Americans would demand from their middle and upper class employers. Everyone like exploitable labor-even philosopher-kings, the Supreme Soviets of the World and Boss Tweeds.

Set hierarchies are not invariably the most efficient structure for data processing alogirthms. Such are preclusive of much extraneous data and inertially tend to follow pre-determined courses without capibility of restructuring term values, concepts and so forth vital for social good.

The proposal for the education of female potential philosopher-kings may have been unrealisticly patronizing to entice Plato's prospects. The average life span was less than 25 I would guess in the 5th century B.C. One wonders how wise women might have become- guarded themselves as cloistered nun-warrior-Queens forming abstract ideas of the conduct of war and ideal social development planting and nurturing 5th century Athenians relying upon court favorite consultants perhaps-primordial lobbiests from abroad.

One might wonder if elites have a class thing regarding their self-bestowed concept of supremacy that requires that their women too are better than those cattle ruled. Catherine the Great was a competent elite ruler of Russia-quite promiscuous yet Socrates advocated against families and for state raising of all children-a very bee-hive concept that simply isn't very good. In some ways the Republic is a prototype for a fascist, Orewellian communist dictatorship the Khmer Rouge might have appreciated. One musn't forget that the new Kim of North Korea has already been decreed 'the genius amongst geniuses'.

The Roman version of the Republic had a Dictator for a year when war required transcending the joint consulship-a more realistic policy than having female war leaders in that day.

Some generals lead from the rear and others from the front. Alexander led from the front, as did Caesar when necessary. Elites though of a non-democratic sort have a greater tendency to lead in absentia from a comfortable harem, bar or pleasure dome sending the mere commoners to do the menial tasks such as war. On the other hand one might argue that female philosopher kings of a bureaucratic disposition would have been Amazon like warriors. I think war is a specialized occupation though that makes one less philosophical with rank-I am not persuaded that elite rulers can be trained to pursue the good for society and knowledge of war at the same time, nor that the guardians would not have the biased point of view that the good for society is when philosopher kings rule-rather like those tin-pot dictators for life of second and third world nations.

Socrates influenced people like Alcibiades to disrespect democracy and that cost Athenian lives such as in the war against Syracuse when Alcibiades decided to switch sides and turn traitor because he was relieved of command of the Athenian navy after a drunken night defacing statues of demi-urges in some temple (probably the Parthenon).

The Wall Street Quant traders and cdo packagers were/are the nation’s elites nurtured in misguided economic philosophy. Adam Smith’s capitalism was less accentuated than the concept of self-regulated social fee-enterprise. Free enterprise today should have regulations to preserve competition and access to capital by the masses as opposed to a reduction in concentration of wealth.

Corporations should be allowed to have no more than 5000 employees and individual could invest in no more than three corporations. It is possible to restore Adam Smith’s intentions in formalizing capitalism as an economic theory so that the economic good of the citizenry is maximized rather than that of a few. Smith and Hume were anti-aristocratic economic power instead of proponents of it.

One may admire Plato creating the foundation for philosophical realism with his realm of forms paradigm. Even Kripke in 'Naming and Necessity' keep a semblance of imperputability in names while Russell's theory of names is a forerunner of Quine's ideas about language as linguistic units derived from association with objects or events/procesesses etc.

Temporal change and classes of objects in the world of perpetual change does present the idea that some Univeral designs for objects exist that precede any particular expression in the temporal world. One learns through particle physics that select forms do exist for quanta. Only a certain amount of energy may exist in particular orbits, and radiation or fusion exists to renormalize those atoms. In some regards Plato was correct about a realm of forms in physics then after all. Socrates.

In spite of the brilliance of the realm of forms idea and laying the foundation of realism as well as advancing the classification of word and objects etc the will to elevate a Republic that isn't much more than primitive tribal rule is a regressive rather than a positive contribution to posterity. Modernity requires that discrete ad hoc procesing of data and education in ecopheric and social reality be common coin of mass thought as they pursue their own self interest aware that several billion other people are doing the same thing and that their are unintended, concatenated effects of those actions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The will of Socrates to subvert the Athenian democracy and have a regime change against the will of the majority was a dark side to the man. Socrates, like various supremists throughout history had a political personal egoistic eudeamon calling him to put his fellow citizen in chains held by the few, the proud and the rich including himself presumably.

Socrates had a inclination to support revolt against the government and was thrice convicted of fomenting insurrection. His philosophical method was political organizing to persuade others to end the existing government and subjugate the people. People that wish to subjugate one to political non-equal status are on the wrong side of things morally speaking.

-------------------------------------------------------------

The Athenian democracy was a utopian experiment-as much then as in 1776. Socrates sought to regress to a primitivist tribalism with philosopher-king co-chiefs, kyshatria-warrior guardians and helot-slaves. He might have been designing a modern corporation or zaibatsu of immense size.

Athens had no oppresion by the majority-all citizens were free and voters. Slaves of whatever origin were that or dead-what could one in that time do with captives of war and others not of one's tribe that one contacted? In world war I more than 50,000 soldier died of blood poisoning from infected blisters I believe. In the 5th century B.C. human physical contact tended to be more violent because any contact was dangerous medically speaking, as well as for other reasons of history.

Jingoism officially was invented by the British-and they were an aristocratic-democratic hybrid then. In 5th century B.C. Athens war newspapers and radio didn't yet exit for jingoitic utility. If one had a sword or a spear drill team one could have a crash at the foes of course-dash across the ground-yet it alsway ressulted in many deaths and killing off of proto-jigoites. The Spartans, very good at war gaming, were not invariably happy about going to the killing fields-heck, even abcessed tooth removal could be painful for 5th century do-it-your-selfers I would guess.

Achilles earlier beleived a warrior death was best, yet it was swift and life with cancer or a myriad other chronic diseases very common then were not. The Roman emperor Sula perished when worm rotted his guts enough that they fell out.

The Athenian democracy wasn't terribly militaritic either-I think that you have imbibed some more 20th century propaganda because of 20th century war historical evaluations made by people with inadequate historical understanding. The Persians attacked the Greeks,and of course later so did the Romans. Alexander was not a democrat.

Democracy does not need to be anti-intellectual. The United States is one of the best places for intellectual efforts. Anti-intellectual is a human trait rather than a democratic trait. In a free society an intellectual may live in a tent and read Quine while the unintellectual can visit Talledega for NASCAR and help advance global warming support (they should use electric cars at least).