Plato was right Timocracy vs. Tyranny / Democracy

[slider123456]

Who decides exactly who is the most honorable, knowledgeable, courageous, passionate, etc. or what acts correspond to the definition of those traits? Plato suggests there is some objective measure of these qualities, though he cannot describe it, but there has been no proof to support this assertion in the last 2390 years. The subjectivity of individual views when deciding which acts correspond to the definition of these traits directly precludes the ability to objectively pick philosopher kings. I guess you could rely on consensus but then you are basically back to a democracy except with the constraint that you tell the voters of the consensus that they are voting on which actions correspond to which traits to setup an objective framework. This does not seem to be a viable idea in the real world even though it works in a philosophical mind construct. Plato's idea of taking children from their parents and eugenic breeding programs is just as divorced from reality because it does not take human nature and evolutionary behavior into account. These ideas would all likely end in revolt similar to the ones that prompted you to start this thread.
Platos' timocracy is based on subjective views squeezed into the assumption of the objectivity of traits which has not been shown to exist. One person could view a conscientious objector as possessing all the traits of a philosopher king while another individual could have an exact polar opposite view of the conscientious objector. Those two people may also have polar opposite beliefs about a war hero who killed many enemies. So the question is who decides what actions correspond to the traits mentioned and even further who decides who the people are that will decide which traits correspond to which acts or even what framework to use. It has to begin with either a few people therefore being akin to tyranny or it has to be decided by the masses and therefore essentially democratic but whichever one of those systems is used it is surely going to change the outcome making it an important distinction that undermines the entire idea of Platos' timocracy.

 

[jduster]

There needs to be a balance between power of the government and power of the people; too much power of either party can be harmful to a society. But mainly, whether a government is good or bad depends on the society of people. The government is merely a reflection of society.

Though, I would disagree with Plato's belief in a government ran by an intellectual elite of philosopher kings. Even though mundane knowledge is scattered in individually unimpressive fragments among the masses, a mass of people have more total knowledge than a handful of intellectuals. There is a lot that intellectuals do not know, and intellectuals are just as capable of making disastrous decisions as anybody else.

 

[curiousphoton]

Who decides exactly who is the most honorable, knowledgeable, courageous, passionate, etc. or what acts correspond to the definition of those traits? Plato suggests there is some objective measure of these qualities, though he cannot describe it, but there has been no proof to support this assertion in the last 2390 years. The subjectivity of individual views when deciding which acts correspond to the definition of these traits directly precludes the ability to objectively pick philosopher kings. I guess you could rely on consensus but then you are basically back to a democracy except with the constraint that you tell the voters of the consensus that they are voting on which actions correspond to which traits to setup an objective framework. This does not seem to be a viable idea in the real world even though it works in a philosophical mind construct. Plato's idea of taking children from their parents and eugenic breeding programs is just as divorced from reality because it does not take human nature and evolutionary behavior into account. These ideas would all likely end in revolt similar to the ones that prompted you to start this thread.
Platos' timocracy is based on subjective views squeezed into the assumption of the objectivity of traits which has not been shown to exist. One person could view a conscientious objector as possessing all the traits of a philosopher king while another individual could have an exact polar opposite view of the conscientious objector. Those two people may also have polar opposite beliefs about a war hero who killed many enemies. So the question is who decides what actions correspond to the traits mentioned and even further who decides who the people are that will decide which traits correspond to which acts or even what framework to use. It has to begin with either a few people therefore being akin to tyranny or it has to be decided by the masses and therefore essentially democratic but whichever one of those systems is used it is surely going to change the outcome making it an important distinction that undermines the entire idea of Platos' timocracy.

Yes you have read Republic! Good to know.

I do not agree with your viewpoint on 'subjectivity' and 'objectivity'. I am a scientist and engineer by profession and when you break an observation down far enough, nothing is truly 'objective'.

Now there would be plenty of ways to determine whom is the 'most honorable, knowledgeable, courageous, passionate, etc.' within a society. To make the idea more simple, imagine a group of (20) first graders and call this your society. Follow those (20) first graders until they are 40 years old, and pick (3) or (4) to be the leaders of this society. How would you do this? Through trial and error using a plethora of different exams. Exams would include:

A. Normal subjects (math, science, language, history, etc...)
B. Physical
C. Situational (varioius stressful situations all are placed in. who stayed calm and composed? who led the group out of the troublesome situation? etc...)
D. Leadership Ability (public speaking ability...do people relate to the leader? came he speak a commonperson's language)

So so you have a system implemented for 30 years and whala! You evaluate the results and you choose a few leaders.

NOTE: Each category carries the same weight...ie the person with the highest iq (best scoring in A.) may score poorly in C. and D. Therefore they might not be the best fit to lead, rather more fit for research and a PHD...

 

[slider123456]

Yes you have read Republic! Good to know.

I do not agree with your viewpoint on 'subjectivity' and 'objectivity'. I am a scientist and engineer by profession and when you break an observation down far enough, nothing is truly 'objective'.

Now there would be plenty of ways to determine whom is the 'most honorable, knowledgeable, courageous, passionate, etc.' within a society. To make the idea more simple, imagine a group of (20) first graders and call this your society. Follow those (20) first graders until they are 40 years old, and pick (3) or (4) to be the leaders of this society. How would you do this? Through trial and error using a plethora of different exams. Exams would include:

A. Normal subjects (math, science, language, history, etc...)
B. Physical
C. Situational (varioius stressful situations all are placed in. who stayed calm and composed? who led the group out of the troublesome situation? etc...)
D. Leadership Ability (public speaking ability...do people relate to the leader? came he speak a commonperson's language)

So so you have a system implemented for 30 years and whala! You evaluate the results and you choose a few leaders.

NOTE: Each category carries the same weight...ie the person with the highest iq (best scoring in A.) may score poorly in C. and D. Therefore they might not be the best fit to lead, rather more fit for research and a PHD...

There is still going to be observer influence though based on nothing else but the subjective views of the observers. Two different sets of observers could come to radically different viewpoints of who has the best traits of leadership etc because those value judgments are based on their own views and experiences. So the question is who observes the first graders and who chooses who those people should be that observe the first graders or what the metrics for choosing leaders should be. This could go on ad-infinitum. Even setting up a framework has the same problems.

Also their is nothing that really says those traits would translate from one situation to another. Government officials probably show all those traits when they are in a family unit but a completely different outcome emerges when they have positions of leadership in Government due too different motivations and enviroment.

"I do not agree with your viewpoint on 'subjectivity' and 'objectivity'. I am a scientist and engineer by profession and when you break an observation down far enough, nothing is truly 'objective'."

I completely agree with this point that there is really nothing that is truly objective. The closest we can get to that is some type of consensus and even that is problematic because it does not equate with objectivity but with a group sharing subjective views, beliefs and assumptions. That is the problem.

As the post after my previous post points out the marketplace of ideas is what governance and society has increasingly evolved towards since Platos time and going to a Timocracy would be a step backwards not forwards. A society that creates ideas from within the masses who then attempt to choose the best idea offers the best chance, through experimentation, of creating the most ideal solutions. Letting a small group of people have absolute control is the same rational inherent in communism. The problem is a small group of people does not have the same information and intelligence as a very large group of rational people acting on their own behalf does.

If Plato wrote "The Republic" today it would likely be vastly different than what he wrote millennia ago. He was likely constrained by the Government of the time and what was considered possible and acceptable along with the widespread acceptance of ideas such as slavery and the absence of widespread education. Also relative to Platos time the prosperity of todays world would be unimaginable to Plato. A poor person in a developed country has a better quality of life than the nobility of his time. Their was nothing in Plato's world or history that would indicate that this would be the case because at the time things were approximately the same as they had always been in recorded history. The philosophies of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle likely changed the course of human history while setting up the foundations of modern philosophy and were therefore important but they are archaic compared to current understanding and in the context of the changes that have taken place since then. The idea of widespread freedom is also much more cherished now then it was then.

To switch to a Timocracy based on subjective "traits" seems like a step backwards not forward because as I wrote before it would need to be imposed by a few people (tyrannical) choosing which individuals have the best "traits" or some sort of democratic framework (democracy). Then there is the problem of who would decide which of those two systems to use. Changing anyone of those variables will change the entire outcome as would choosing what traits correspond to what actions. So the question is who decides these things or even how would we be able to choose who chooses? Does the current Government pick the philosopher kings or choose those who will? A democratic vote? Philosohy majors with the best grades? Whatever is chosen will change the result though and at its roots it will still be either democratic or tyrannical.