You treat your presentation so beautifully. Learning about the ancient greek philosopher by experiencing a philosophically poetic exploration guided by demanding questions to the listener. Thank you so very much cant wait to watch more.
Thank you very much. Just a quick question, do you think that adding Brazilian Portuguese subtitles will make a big difference in the reception of this series in Brazil?
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Absolutely! My friends and I love your channel, but we can't understand some videos completely because we are not fluent in English.
Democracy is disastrous. I live in a so called democracy, India. It's a nightmare. Non Philosophers ruling the country, irrational people everywhere etc etc. I do feel like we need Plato's Aristocracy. Getting rid of democracy can be a problem, as Plato himself would have said. So, we need an Aristocratic Democracy at any cost ...
In reality, Sparta was considered as the idea of a "mixed regime," at least by the Greeks themselves, and it's not entirely fair therefore to call it "totalitarian." Yet, for us moderns, the entire ideal of the Greek "polis" was totalitarian, and in the most basic of definitions: a regime that regulates all aspects of human life. So, the Greek ideal of a Republic is, for us, Totalitarian, and Sparta, by reaching that ideal appears as the most totalitarian of them all. In this video, the word was chosen "en passant" to address the modern rather than the historical concept.
Really enjoying your videos, AGR. I can't help think of the fiasco of Brexit. Asking the uninformed and the easily manipulated how to vote on such an important decision...isn't that why we vote in politicians? To make the decisions that require knowledge of economics, global politics and historical influences should not have been left to the layman.
But that is the actual question. Can we trust the "many?" If not, there is not point talking about Democracy. The point that we tried to make however is that politics is not a science, but an over-science. It's an "episteme" which means "to stand above" all fields of knowledge and define, not the means (that is what sciences do), but the ends.
The social democratic system in the northern countries like Sweden, have referendums often on political policies. Yes, the experts should have the final say. If only because they’re given the responsibility of discerning the data. They chose to let the virus run its course and each citizen to mask or not, without closing the system in lockdown. The results are documented. Recently after analysis of these mRNA inoculations, the health experts have declared it more detrimental than the virus and so it’s only approved for the over 50 age.
I don't understand, do you honestly consider the few so capable? Have you now seen globally who rules? Models, corrupt ex-whatevers and the like. They also leave the people uneducated so that they do not have the ability to make decisions.
Looking at the state of our modern democracies I'd say the results are quite conclusive. The masses simply aren't built to rule themselves, as harsh as this may be to hear. A popularity contest is never going to lead to quality leadership. The majority simply don't want to think about the bigger picture. The only sort of democracy that could function well would be one in which the franchise is limited to those of quality. The question really is how this quality is measured. The majority are simply not thinkers, another cruel truth. Rule by mob is as tyrannical as rule by a vicious dictator - but at least the dictator can be replaced.
Well, like we say in the video, the question is real, it's rhetorical or figurative or right-wing etc. It's real. Can the "many" rule themselves when in their private lives they show no evidence of that? It can be answered either way, and my democratic faith tells me that under certain preconditions... yes they could. But to imply otherwise does not make one a fascist. For the Greeks, it was the question more than the answer which was important.
If the COVID response was truly made by doctors, rather than polls or cynical politics, it may have been more understandable but then again do doctors know how measures like lockdowns and forced vaccinations affect a society? Also, the scale of the decisions affecting billions of people are so different than anything in the times of Athens.
An example can be given to this topic exactly: the USA - their many invasions and coups during the Cold War, and some before. But during the Cold War, this destabilizing intervention became sort of an art. Economic blockade of Cuba after Castro's 1959 revolution, war crimes in Vietnam, getting the criminal Augsto Pinochet regime to power in Chile, the invasion of Guatemala, Kennedy's failed imperialist Bay of Pigs invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, supporting the Shah in Iran. Modern examples include the destruction of Iraq, started over false discourse on nuclear warheads, the bombing of Serbia, that aggravated the local tyranny and murderous sanctions over the Afghan people, that have lead to starvation. _The people of America had no grasp over what their country was actually doing. Could understand little to nothing._ Yet the 'trained elites' made terrible choices, got involved in other nation's internal politics without understanding those nations, then the notorious Kirkpatrick Doctrine: we'll support a dictator as long as they're pro-America, not pro-USSR. Of course, the Reagan administration, which Jeane Kirkpatrick was of influence in, commited several atrocities, including supporting Saddam Hussein early on, in his invasion of Iraq. The Cold War has been won. The gaps have not been filled. The consequences of these open wounds we see very well today. Have the ruling elite done a good job? Are they currently doing a good job, tackling the Russo-Ukraine war or a move toward clean energy, and away from climate disaster? Here are some words from Walter Lippman, the theoretical daddy of liberal democracies - current democracies: 'This ... could be used to keep the - the general public - passive and obedient while the self-designated will attend to important matters, free from the '. [Chomsky, Illegitimate Authority, page 252] Does this sound like genuine democracy? Lippman called it, achieved through the media, 'manufacturing consent'. I argue that an informed and energized public, both of which we see more and more today, can hold the ruling class accountable for their mistakes. And activism can push change through. The protests against the Vietnam War opened the way for power in unity. Let's see how a middle ground between the voting populace and trained rulers looks like
Very well written! Thank you. The problem of Democracy remains almost unaltered today: if every man is "good at something" (and bad at something else), and if ruling over others is a skill, like any other, then does this not suggest that some of us will be good at ruling others while some others not? And if we answer in the affirmative, does this not imply that democracy is NOT a good form of government, since it would be like asking a group of random people on how to perform a surgical operation. And yet, here we are, still talking about the possibility of this "democracy," just like Aristotle did so many centuries ago. Which must mean we see something noble in this form of government, something worth pursuing. For us here in AGR, the first step is being able to articulate everything that is wrong with democracy, so that one has a place to start when trying to make it work!
This is a class of problems that cannot be solved through pure reason - as Socrates/Plato attempted with their physician-patient dialogue. All ideal forms of political systems (the best one being aristocracy) tend to degenerate over time (Aristotle's insight). Our representative democracies contrained by the rule of law are a concession in a imperfect world - as most as we watch in dismay the incompetence and corruption of some of our politicians, I'd tend to prefer this over a mob rule.
The point we tried to make is that if there is a special type of knowledge relating to governance, it must also (following Plato) be something that can be taught. This knowledge was traditionally reserved for hereditary kings, but in a democracy, every citizen has to become a "mini-tyrant", and so has to acquire that knowledge somehow. In a technocratic society we have been convinced that the only knowledge needed is technical knolwedge: econometrics, bio-engineering, computer science etc. But considering that only the very few could ever acquire such specialised knowledge ... this "evolution" is the biggest danger to democracy!
@@AncientGreeceRevisited got it. I guess the mini tyrants would not only need that kind of knowledge but a character populated by some crucial (Platonic) virtues. It would not help to have knowledge in the art of government spread throughout the population, if that population is petty.
@@satyricusm Interesting questions haha. Science of Politics and Tyrant Doctors... Any definitions in mind and possible resemblance in the present world?
@@bantuck Science of Politics = Socratism vs. the contemporary Tyranny of Experts (technocrats). Not sure if this addresses your query adequately. Some of my youtube "otherworldly" speeches examine the terms you unearth.
Plato is over rated. History praises his Republic which is based on Spartan society. Aristotle rips his Republic apart rather well. Plato wrote another Republic revised but that is lost to history. Aristotle's Politics is much better. It views all the Greek experiments in government and concluded the Carthiginian was the best although as a Greek Aristotle hated Cartherage. Thomas Jefferson noted Dialogues were biased because Plato never gave us the prosecution 's arguments against Socrates. It was because Socrates also taught Alcabadies who switched back and forth between Sparta and Athens in the war, then tried to fight for the Persian Empire against all Greeks before he was assassinated.
Plato was definitely NOT over-rated. He was a philosopher of such value that some have said he was perhaps the greatest mind to have ever lived! What we need to understand about his Republic is that a version of it has been the NORM of human societies. Ancient Egypt and India, Mesoamerican cultures and Imperial Japan. Most societies have been following a "lesser" and more corrupt version of his Republic: a rigid, hierarchal society that promotes loyalty to the state together with a religion created to maintain the social order. In fact, Plato's reference with Kings, Warriors and Craftsmen reflects the "trifunctional hypothesis" of Proto-Indo-European society, which means that he was truly referencing some ancient traditions. Also, remember that his "Republic" was but one of Plato's dialogues. In the others he tackles epistemology (Theaetetus), linguistics (Cratylus), psychology (Symposium) - or at least what today would classify as the said disciplines - in ways that are still relevant (if not definitive!) today. Finally, the example he gives with the "doctor" being a kind of tyrant, the one we quoted in our episode, is actually a support for democracy, and we need to consider it in our current "constitutional suspension" due to our alleged medical emergency.
Well, look at our civilization. It has been built on Plato's shoulders really. All of the Western philosophy seems to be a collection of footnotes in the margin of his work. He asked most of the important questions, set the tracks for other thinkers, scientists, politicians or even religious leaders. His ideas helped to shape our society in many ways. Even the way we communicate today has been influenced by Plato's philosophy. You will find his fingerprints (if I may say so) in many areas of our modern lives. For instance two rather opposing concepts both draw from Plato's work: Christian theology and scientific reasoning. And finally: we don't have to agree with Plato to aknowledge his major contribution to the development of Western Culture. I don't think he would like to be treated as an authority in the way a devoted Catholic would see the pope for example... It seems to me rather that he would be pleased seeing his ideas being discussed, developed, argued and tested. He always showed Socrated as a person who is willing to learn from others, even though in the end he was the teacher. His main role however wasn't answering questions, but rather asking them. Right questions, valid questions, questions that could provide meaningful lessons. He was aware that writing was a feeble tool because as it helps preserving thoughts it also can contribute to misundertandings and wrong interpretations. Having this in mind we should read his words carefully. And even if we disagree with his worldview and concepts of human life we should be able to see that ultimately we are still playing in his game to some extend, because the rules of the discourse themselves are largely derived from Plato's works. I think that Plato's (Socrates'?) influence on our society is bigger than we areable to admit, probably second best after Jesus of Nazareth in terms of defining European way of thinking and acting.
You treat your presentation so beautifully. Learning about the ancient greek philosopher by experiencing a philosophically poetic exploration guided by demanding questions to the listener. Thank you so very much cant wait to watch more.
Thank you for the equally beautiful comment!
As always, awesome content and very nice scenes !
Glad you like them! :-)
Awesome content! Great production despite the circumstances!
Thank you George! 🤗
Consistently great content from this channel. StJ is never wrong with recommendations.
Thank you for the nice words! Adds to the motivation :)
Wow! Inspiring stuff and beautifully presented. Thank you!
Thank you. It's one of our most difficult episodes, so it's always great to know that you both understand and feel inspired.
One of the best channels! Congrats from Brazil 🇧🇷
Thank you very much. Just a quick question, do you think that adding Brazilian Portuguese subtitles will make a big difference in the reception of this series in Brazil?
@@AncientGreeceRevisited for sure. It will be GREAT! 🙏🙏🙏
@@buenorj1 It's in the works!
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Absolutely! My friends and I love your channel, but we can't understand some videos completely because we are not fluent in English.
@@nic9las1 Are you Brazilian? Have you seen our episodes with Brazilian Portuguese subtitles?
Great channel, great content !!!! Efharisto poli!
Thank you too!
Every video feels like New wine
Thank you man, it's people like you that helps us keep going. Spread the word as much as you can. Love.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited soon more people Will find this treasure, keep up this amazing work! Love you guys!
Haha! I can totally relate to that! Cheers guys!
If we are to submit to the rule of experts, who is to be the arbiter of expertise?
Well, that's exactly the problem right there! You hit the nail on the head...
Thanks to you my curiosity in Ancient Greek turned to admiration.
Great to hear! We, in AGR, actually went from admiration to curiosity.
I was 15 or so when I read Plato's "Politeia". Since then I was against ochlocracy and favoured a aristocratic system.
Democracy is disastrous. I live in a so called democracy, India. It's a nightmare. Non Philosophers ruling the country, irrational people everywhere etc etc. I do feel like we need Plato's Aristocracy. Getting rid of democracy can be a problem, as Plato himself would have said. So, we need an Aristocratic Democracy at any cost ...
Such incredible content ❤️
❤️
Is it really historically accurate to call Sparta "totalitarian"?
In reality, Sparta was considered as the idea of a "mixed regime," at least by the Greeks themselves, and it's not entirely fair therefore to call it "totalitarian." Yet, for us moderns, the entire ideal of the Greek "polis" was totalitarian, and in the most basic of definitions: a regime that regulates all aspects of human life. So, the Greek ideal of a Republic is, for us, Totalitarian, and Sparta, by reaching that ideal appears as the most totalitarian of them all. In this video, the word was chosen "en passant" to address the modern rather than the historical concept.
ΕΥΓΕ...στους συμμετέχοντες."Ιστορία γράφουν οι παρέες."
Ευχαριστούμε! 🙏
Can you make a video about Plato s idea of philosophy king and epistocracy , Covid 19 , populism etc
It's on the cards...
@@AncientGreeceRevisited thank you :)
Really enjoying your videos, AGR. I can't help think of the fiasco of Brexit. Asking the uninformed and the easily manipulated how to vote on such an important decision...isn't that why we vote in politicians? To make the decisions that require knowledge of economics, global politics and historical influences should not have been left to the layman.
But that is the actual question. Can we trust the "many?" If not, there is not point talking about Democracy. The point that we tried to make however is that politics is not a science, but an over-science. It's an "episteme" which means "to stand above" all fields of knowledge and define, not the means (that is what sciences do), but the ends.
The social democratic system in the northern countries like Sweden, have referendums often on political policies.
Yes, the experts should have the final say. If only because they’re given the responsibility of discerning the data. They chose to let the virus run its course and each citizen to mask or not, without closing the system in lockdown. The results are documented. Recently after analysis of these mRNA inoculations, the health experts have declared it more detrimental than the virus and so it’s only approved for the over 50 age.
I don't understand, do you honestly consider the few so capable? Have you now seen globally who rules? Models, corrupt ex-whatevers and the like. They also leave the people uneducated so that they do not have the ability to make decisions.
Looking at the state of our modern democracies I'd say the results are quite conclusive. The masses simply aren't built to rule themselves, as harsh as this may be to hear. A popularity contest is never going to lead to quality leadership. The majority simply don't want to think about the bigger picture.
The only sort of democracy that could function well would be one in which the franchise is limited to those of quality.
The question really is how this quality is measured.
The majority are simply not thinkers, another cruel truth. Rule by mob is as tyrannical as rule by a vicious dictator - but at least the dictator can be replaced.
Well, like we say in the video, the question is real, it's rhetorical or figurative or right-wing etc. It's real. Can the "many" rule themselves when in their private lives they show no evidence of that? It can be answered either way, and my democratic faith tells me that under certain preconditions... yes they could. But to imply otherwise does not make one a fascist. For the Greeks, it was the question more than the answer which was important.
If the COVID response was truly made by doctors, rather than polls or cynical politics, it may have been more understandable but then again do doctors know how measures like lockdowns and forced vaccinations affect a society?
Also, the scale of the decisions affecting billions of people are so different than anything in the times of Athens.
An example can be given to this topic exactly: the USA - their many invasions and coups during the Cold War, and some before. But during the Cold War, this destabilizing intervention became sort of an art. Economic blockade of Cuba after Castro's 1959 revolution, war crimes in Vietnam, getting the criminal Augsto Pinochet regime to power in Chile, the invasion of Guatemala, Kennedy's failed imperialist Bay of Pigs invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, supporting the Shah in Iran. Modern examples include the destruction of Iraq, started over false discourse on nuclear warheads, the bombing of Serbia, that aggravated the local tyranny and murderous sanctions over the Afghan people, that have lead to starvation. _The people of America had no grasp over what their country was actually doing. Could understand little to nothing._ Yet the 'trained elites' made terrible choices, got involved in other nation's internal politics without understanding those nations, then the notorious Kirkpatrick Doctrine: we'll support a dictator as long as they're pro-America, not pro-USSR. Of course, the Reagan administration, which Jeane Kirkpatrick was of influence in, commited several atrocities, including supporting Saddam Hussein early on, in his invasion of Iraq. The Cold War has been won. The gaps have not been filled. The consequences of these open wounds we see very well today.
Have the ruling elite done a good job? Are they currently doing a good job, tackling the Russo-Ukraine war or a move toward clean energy, and away from climate disaster?
Here are some words from Walter Lippman, the theoretical daddy of liberal democracies - current democracies: 'This ... could be used to keep the - the general public - passive and obedient while the self-designated will attend to important matters, free from the '. [Chomsky, Illegitimate Authority, page 252]
Does this sound like genuine democracy? Lippman called it, achieved through the media, 'manufacturing consent'.
I argue that an informed and energized public, both of which we see more and more today, can hold the ruling class accountable for their mistakes. And activism can push change through. The protests against the Vietnam War opened the way for power in unity. Let's see how a middle ground between the voting populace and trained rulers looks like
Very well written! Thank you.
The problem of Democracy remains almost unaltered today: if every man is "good at something" (and bad at something else), and if ruling over others is a skill, like any other, then does this not suggest that some of us will be good at ruling others while some others not? And if we answer in the affirmative, does this not imply that democracy is NOT a good form of government, since it would be like asking a group of random people on how to perform a surgical operation.
And yet, here we are, still talking about the possibility of this "democracy," just like Aristotle did so many centuries ago. Which must mean we see something noble in this form of government, something worth pursuing. For us here in AGR, the first step is being able to articulate everything that is wrong with democracy, so that one has a place to start when trying to make it work!
This is a class of problems that cannot be solved through pure reason - as Socrates/Plato attempted with their physician-patient dialogue. All ideal forms of political systems (the best one being aristocracy) tend to degenerate over time (Aristotle's insight).
Our representative democracies contrained by the rule of law are a concession in a imperfect world - as most as we watch in dismay the incompetence and corruption of some of our politicians, I'd tend to prefer this over a mob rule.
The point we tried to make is that if there is a special type of knowledge relating to governance, it must also (following Plato) be something that can be taught. This knowledge was traditionally reserved for hereditary kings, but in a democracy, every citizen has to become a "mini-tyrant", and so has to acquire that knowledge somehow. In a technocratic society we have been convinced that the only knowledge needed is technical knolwedge: econometrics, bio-engineering, computer science etc. But considering that only the very few could ever acquire such specialised knowledge ... this "evolution" is the biggest danger to democracy!
@@AncientGreeceRevisited got it. I guess the mini tyrants would not only need that kind of knowledge but a character populated by some crucial (Platonic) virtues.
It would not help to have knowledge in the art of government spread throughout the population, if that population is petty.
@@alexanderpeca7080 True! The whole of Socrates teachings can be seen as an attempt to rise the "many" to the level of the "few."
Plata definitely wasn’t talking about the flu
Why? He talked about viral disease and it’s political implications often throughout his works
Brilliant!
💪
«της λοιμώδης»;!
Της λοιμώδους νόσου, διορθώθηκε.
Κα εμεις που δεν ξέρουμε την γλώσσα.
Κάντε μια μετάφραση παρακαλώ ωω
Settings ⚙️ > Subtitles/CC > Greek... and... voila!
Κρεμάμενος απ τα χείλη σου...
_Salus populi, suprema lex._
Good catch!
Science vs Politics
Doctors vs Tyrants
Emergency vs Democracy
Why not a science of politics? How else could we counter the rise of tyrannical doctors?
@@satyricusm
Interesting questions haha. Science of Politics and Tyrant Doctors...
Any definitions in mind and possible resemblance in the present world?
@@bantuck Science of Politics = Socratism vs. the contemporary Tyranny of Experts (technocrats). Not sure if this addresses your query adequately. Some of my youtube "otherworldly" speeches examine the terms you unearth.
Aristotle's Insight: How Science Fails to Grasp the Essence of Politics
th-cam.com/video/fXVkhdgG1F4/w-d-xo.html
Plato is over rated. History praises his Republic which is based on
Spartan society. Aristotle rips his Republic apart rather well.
Plato wrote another Republic revised but that is lost to history.
Aristotle's Politics is much better. It views all the Greek experiments
in government and concluded the Carthiginian was the best
although as a Greek Aristotle hated Cartherage.
Thomas Jefferson noted Dialogues were biased because
Plato never gave us the prosecution 's arguments against Socrates.
It was because Socrates also taught Alcabadies who switched
back and forth between Sparta and Athens in the war, then
tried to fight for the Persian Empire against all Greeks before
he was assassinated.
Plato was definitely NOT over-rated. He was a philosopher of such value that some have said he was perhaps the greatest mind to have ever lived! What we need to understand about his Republic is that a version of it has been the NORM of human societies. Ancient Egypt and India, Mesoamerican cultures and Imperial Japan. Most societies have been following a "lesser" and more corrupt version of his Republic: a rigid, hierarchal society that promotes loyalty to the state together with a religion created to maintain the social order. In fact, Plato's reference with Kings, Warriors and Craftsmen reflects the "trifunctional hypothesis" of Proto-Indo-European society, which means that he was truly referencing some ancient traditions. Also, remember that his "Republic" was but one of Plato's dialogues. In the others he tackles epistemology (Theaetetus), linguistics (Cratylus), psychology (Symposium) - or at least what today would classify as the said disciplines - in ways that are still relevant (if not definitive!) today. Finally, the example he gives with the "doctor" being a kind of tyrant, the one we quoted in our episode, is actually a support for democracy, and we need to consider it in our current "constitutional suspension" due to our alleged medical emergency.
Well, look at our civilization. It has been built on Plato's shoulders really. All of the Western philosophy seems to be a collection of footnotes in the margin of his work.
He asked most of the important questions, set the tracks for other thinkers, scientists, politicians or even religious leaders. His ideas helped to shape our society in many ways. Even the way we communicate today has been influenced by Plato's philosophy. You will find his fingerprints (if I may say so) in many areas of our modern lives. For instance two rather opposing concepts both draw from Plato's work: Christian theology and scientific reasoning.
And finally: we don't have to agree with Plato to aknowledge his major contribution to the development of Western Culture. I don't think he would like to be treated as an authority in the way a devoted Catholic would see the pope for example... It seems to me rather that he would be pleased seeing his ideas being discussed, developed, argued and tested.
He always showed Socrated as a person who is willing to learn from others, even though in the end he was the teacher. His main role however wasn't answering questions, but rather asking them. Right questions, valid questions, questions that could provide meaningful lessons.
He was aware that writing was a feeble tool because as it helps preserving thoughts it also can contribute to misundertandings and wrong interpretations. Having this in mind we should read his words carefully. And even if we disagree with his worldview and concepts of human life we should be able to see that ultimately we are still playing in his game to some extend, because the rules of the discourse themselves are largely derived from Plato's works. I think that Plato's (Socrates'?) influence on our society is bigger than we areable to admit, probably second best after Jesus of Nazareth in terms of defining European way of thinking and acting.
Okay, Thomist