“Like many beautiful ideas…democracy travels through our minds shadowed by its doubles – bad ideas that are close enough to be easily mistaken for the real thing. Democracy has many doubles, but the most seductive is majority rule, and this is not democracy. It is merely government by and for the majority” (Woodruff 3). I was shaken by this statement in Paul Woodruff’s First Democracy. I’ve questioned the strength our political system for many years but blamed the politicians for the failure of this system. As citizens, we often believe that we have no real voice. When our party is not the majority in office – and oftentimes even if they are - our interests take second seat to majority or political interests.
Plato was skeptic of the sophists because he recognized the potential for abuse of rhetorical skills for personal gain. After all, at the core, sophists were human, and greed is a very human characteristic. The minority could, possibly then, prevail if the rhetoric was eloquent enough. The interests of one individual could take precedent over those of many because the many could be easily manipulated. But ancient sophists like Protagoras also recognized the humanness of the sophists and the citizens the sophists often engaged and their human potential to do the right thing, to make good judgments for the betterment of many through a sophistic education. For him, political excellence required all men, and these men were capable of learning good judgment. Participation in this process has potential to give voice to both the majority and minority. If as democratic citizens we do not yield to the most plausible (eikos) by exercising good judgment (euboulia) we remain stagnant as a society, not moving forward toward our mutual betterment or personal Truth.
Woodruff says, “Democracy, I believe, is a dream. The ancients did not fully realize it, and neither have we. The job of thinkers is to keep the dream alive, come what may. And the job of doers is to keep trying to approximate democracy as well as circumstances will allow” (vi). The sophists offer a way to keep the dream alive, a way to respond to the circumstances (kairos) in order to pursue this dream, whether we examine sophist pedagogy or its shortfall.
Plato was skeptic of the sophists because he recognized the potential for abuse of rhetorical skills for personal gain. After all, at the core, sophists were human, and greed is a very human characteristic. The minority could, possibly then, prevail if the rhetoric was eloquent enough. The interests of one individual could take precedent over those of many because the many could be easily manipulated. But ancient sophists like Protagoras also recognized the humanness of the sophists and the citizens the sophists often engaged and their human potential to do the right thing, to make good judgments for the betterment of many through a sophistic education. For him, political excellence required all men, and these men were capable of learning good judgment. Participation in this process has potential to give voice to both the majority and minority. If as democratic citizens we do not yield to the most plausible (eikos) by exercising good judgment (euboulia) we remain stagnant as a society, not moving forward toward our mutual betterment or personal Truth.
Woodruff says, “Democracy, I believe, is a dream. The ancients did not fully realize it, and neither have we. The job of thinkers is to keep the dream alive, come what may. And the job of doers is to keep trying to approximate democracy as well as circumstances will allow” (vi). The sophists offer a way to keep the dream alive, a way to respond to the circumstances (kairos) in order to pursue this dream, whether we examine sophist pedagogy or its shortfall.
No comments:
Post a Comment