In the texts of Popper and school books such as those of Nicholas Abbagnano (which from the standpoint of political Popperian a liberal), we want to give the idea of \u200b\u200bPlato the enemy of democracy. But is this true? The rejection of democracy for Plato is a rejection of a priori? As well illustrates Francesco Adorno in his "Introduction to Plato," Plato does not reject democracy a priori, but the reasons "philosophical" to reject it. Plato recognizes that democracy, based on an infinite number of points of view, is based ultimately on doxa, that is opinion (because, according to the greek spirit, the truth can only be one, otherwise we speak of sophistry). The starting point of political debate is to Plato, only philosophers can govern, because it is only through science philosophy that you can know the true and good, and therefore what is good for everyone. Now read the above, they are important: Plato does not reject democracy, he prefers the aristocracy of the philosophers because democracy ideal can never be realized, as ever all men want to take the path of philosophy in search of truth, rejecting the view . Plato in a passage of the "republic" (which for obvious ideological reasons not mentioned by Abbagnano) explicitly states that it would be a much better world in which all were philosophers (because then we would not need the government of the few philosophers, and there would be democratic ideal, namely the Government of all).
Now, it's easy to discredit the arguments of Popper on Plato's totalitarian regime:
a) No totalitarian regime of the twentieth century was led by professional philosophers (he Stalin or Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin belong all'alveo large philosophers, which could belong to the limit Marx, but he never ruled). The few times that a great philosopher came to power (in the case of Marcus Aurelius), often we have seen improvements that have satisfied everyone.
b) In the totalitarian government is not short, but it is only a
c) In the totalitarian regime and the dictator who chooses his successor, in the Platonic communism instead the participation of a man the government is given only by his propensity to philosophy.
d) In Plato's communism is not totalitarianism, because the property is abolished and does not become state property (the philosophers in particular, as the government must remain poor).
And now the best part of the speech: why Popper and his followers as Plato criticize liberals? Why Plato is totalitarian? Obviously that's not why: just because Plato (as opposed to Stalin and all the dictators of the left) is a true "communist" in the sense that it recognizes the problems of existence property, whether public (ie in the final state of the rulers), or private. If in fact there is a dictatorship in the USSR in which the party dominates the multitude, and in communism there is a class dictatorship, in all classes instead of Platonic communism can work together in government, provided within them are no philosophers. For Plato, all classes are equal, the rulers must not have more advantages than others.
Plato and Rousseau inspired, another great enlightenment that is not mentioned by the Liberals, who no doubt prefer Locke and Constant.
0 comments:
Post a Comment