The source of Socrates’ suspicion of democracy stems from the argument that the general public is ignorant and therefore lacks the knowledge or reason to make the best decision for government and electing officials. The foundation of democracy is based on majority rule, however because the majority is unaware of what truly is good for them, by virtue of their ignorance, the masses are not capable of electing a leaders fit to run the state or government. Socrates contends that due to the general public’s ignorance, the majority will vote in favor of what and who panders to their desires and wants rather than what is logical and better for their souls (459b). Because the general public is ignorant, those who have the knack of oratory pander to the desires of the masses and therefore the consequence of democracy is inherent corruption in the governing structure.
Socrates contends that the art of
…show more content…
Socrates asserts the effectiveness of the dialectic relationship and his “method is to call in support of [his] statements the evidence of a single witness, and to take his vote alone” (474a). Throughout the dialogue Socrates attempts to persuade three rhetoricians into a dialogue, with the intention of unearthing the truth, with each conceding to Socrates’ appeal to reason until Socrates’ dialogue with Callicles. This is where the weakness in Socrates’ position is revealed because had Socrates been able to persuade or engage Callicles this would have been a victory for the dialectical relationship, which Socrates’ argues is the only method of exposing the truth. Regardless of how consistent and logical Socrates’ method is Callicles refuses to participate, through the art of not listening, revealing the limitations in Socrates’ method at arriving to the truth and in essence the best way to