Discussion Questions (answer one). Be sure to relate your answer to Plato’s discussion of democracy in
Readings on Citizenship
1. Democracy was a major point of pride for the citizens of ancient Athens — except for Plato. Though an Athenian citizen himself, Plato was very pessemistic about his regime, and predicted it was always headed toward collapse. But was he right to be so hopeless? Is democracy always declining? What is a better type of regime? Or can democracy be defended — and maybe made better than what Plato described?
2. A democratic revolution is always a matter of the many overthrowing the elite few (i.e., the rich oligarchy), and maybe those few deserve it if they are corrupt and selfish. But what if they are good elites — honorable and virtuous statesmen, perhaps, or simply wise me who really do know better than the masses? Is there any difference between those types, and others who are simply wealthy, powerful, and out for their own interests? Can the people tell the difference?
3. One of Plato’s biggest criticisms of democracy was that even when it was successful, it tended to degrade its citizens. They become obsessed with equality, and scorn excellence. The soul of each citizen is short-sighted, frivolous, and selfish; they ignore their ancestors and the great traditions of their city; and, what was worst, they have little sense of anything of permanent value, finding themselves swept up the latest fads of public opinion. But is this always true for people living in a democracy? Is it always at odds with virtue? Does it always make us shallow and prone to live meaningless lives? Or can there be a kind of democratic excellence?
