Introduction
Any political, social, or economic concept emerged as a concept first based on clever and calculated assumptions and logic. However, it is rather a common occurrence to have something theoretical manifest unexpectedly and differently in practice. The given article critique focuses on R. W. Sharples’s “Plato on Democracy and Expertise,” published in 1994. The core message made by the author is that conceptual frameworks and systems need to acknowledge the malleability of the truths underlying these ideas to allow future flexibility and improvement.
Thesis
The central message permeating the writing is that the rigidity of truth on which the conceptual model of democracy is built is a problem since any system needs to acknowledge the malleability of the underlying assumptions. In other words, all complex systems originate from a series of assumptions, which creates a long logical chain with an increased possibility of miscalculations and misjudgments. Therefore, it is critical for the authors of an idea to be aware of such issues in order to create room for improvement while preserving the central tenets.
Summarization
The first argument is that the general populace and public opinion are not irrational but rather vulnerable to manipulation. The second one is made in regard to Plato’s desire to reach the correct judgments and knowledge, even if that means deceiving the public. The final argument is about Plato’s view on education and public ignorance, where even an ideal version of democracy does not lead to the perfection of the educational system for discussions but rather indoctrination under the ruler.
Assessment of Article
In order to support the thesis, the author used the direct and explicit interpretation of Plato’s work on democracy to highlight the logic and truths behind it. For the first argument, the author states that “political goals which from their very nature are best settled in practice by general discussion and agreement, not by a relatively small group of experts” (Sharples, 1994, p. 51). In other words, the author critiques Plato’s logic of public irrationality by showing that the alternative offered by the philosopher is not better. Relying on a small group of experts creates an incentive to put their well-being above the public. For the second argument, it is stated that “indeed Plato explicitly says that rulers can lie to their subjects for the subjects’ own good, though the subjects must not lie to the rulers” (Sharples, 1994, p. 52). The author arrives at this conclusion within the bounds of a reasonable logic based on Plato’s statements.
Moreover, the arguments are made on Plato’s take on education and the knowledgeability of the public. The third argument is substantiated by the statement that “Plato … does not see the consultation and involvement of all citizens in decision-making as something that could have any value in itself” (Sharples, 1994, p. 53). The arguments support the thesis rather well, but more improvements could be made by referring to the current systems. The logical sequence in the thesis support process made sense since the author questions the rigidity of Plato’s assumptions and truths. No major error, mistake, or logical inconsistency was uncovered, but exemplifying evidence from the real world would have illuminated the arguments better. The strengths of all three arguments are a direct and close interpretation of Plato’s statements, but the weaknesses include the lack of examples and real-world implications. In general, the thesis is well-supported, but further improvements can be made.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the overall evaluation of the article is positive, informative, and insightful, but the arguments could be improved by adding real-life examples from a wide range of republics and democracies existing today. A person interested in the systemic flaws of democracy and democratic institutions will benefit from the reading since it reveals the questionable assumptions made at the origins of democracy. The benefits will include gaining insight into the role of a ruler, education, public opinion, and power structures in Plato’s vision of an ideal democracy. Therefore, it becomes evident that the author’s critique of the philosopher is substantiated and well-supported since the system in which many people live needs to be explored for potential flaws noted by its initial founders and establishers.
Reference
Sharples, R. W. (1994). Plato on democracy and expertise.Greece & Rome, 41(1), 49-56. Web.