The relationship between the individual and state is something that often remains a constant pendulum swing between liberty and tyranny based on the circumstances of the age. The death of Socrates was quite a visceral and traumatic experience for Plato, naturally giving him a bias against the mob rule of pure democracy. This aversion to and lack of faith in democratic processes is well embodied in his book “The Republic”, where he describes his ideal state that has a ruling class of philosopher kings that are elevated to the top by scholarly merit, while the peasants at the bottom listen. This viewpoint represents a staunch aversion to populist uprisings and assumes that the institutions set up by the higher class of philosophers are incorruptible, which is a highly unrealistic proposition.
Both mob rule and aristocratic upper class rule (be it intellectual based or resource based) have an absurd amount of bias and self-interest to adhere to, rather than true virtue. Plato was biased by way of his personal experiences with the incompetent nature of pure mob rule, just as any man facing the corruption of the upper class may have a bias in favor of wealth redistribution. Aristotle’s examination of the world included more than just abstraction without confirmation through the senses, a more empirical and scientific approach to philosophy. Plato often let his emotion fueled confirmation bias lead him to beliefs that are not truly applicable to reality, but rather sound ideas in a utopian sense. Essentially The Republic was a manifesto of what the world “ought to be” without any logical path to this standard. Aristotle’s more refined examination of human interaction was rooted in human virtue and asserted that morality was the goal, rather than a hyper focus on central planning......
Check out the rest of this writing piece at http://www.ceccpointnews.com/TrueMorality-7-10-17.html