Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Philosophy in China

ISSN 1673-3436

ISSN 1673-355X(Online)

CN 11-5743/B

Postal Subscription Code 80-983

Front Phil Chin    2013, Vol. 8 Issue (4) : 530-545
research-article |
Plato the Democrat? Some Thoughts on the Politics of the Laws
Thomas M. Robinson()
Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2J7, Canada
 Download: PDF(252 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

In the Laws (which Plato calls his “second-best society”) Plato asserts that the best attainable form of society will combine the better features of autocracy and democracy. The democracy will be one where aidos (“respect”) will be a prominent feature, as will be the rule of laws underpinned by the belief that God, not man, is the measure of all things. Unlike in the Republic, the accumulation of wealth and property will be the right of all citizens, including rulers. But it will operate under strict limits: a maximum of four quanta of property will be allowed by any citizen, while a minimum of one (which will provide a good life though perhaps not a rich one) will be guaranteed. The affinity of such a view with that of John Rawls is striking. The article ends with a brief interview between the reader and Plato, in which some of the above issues are discussed.

Keywords Athens      autocracy      democracy      equality      God      justice      Laws      property      Plato      Rawls      Republic     
Corresponding Authors: Thomas M. Robinson,   
Issue Date: 05 December 2013
 Cite this article:   
Thomas M. Robinson. Plato the Democrat? Some Thoughts on the Politics of the Laws[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(4): 530-545.
[1] Yumi Suzuki. Moral Falsity in the Eyes of the Superhuman: The Cases of Socrates and Mozi[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 515-532.
[2] SHAN Jiangdong. On Affectionate Respect in Gender Justice: An Inquiry into the Cultural Abuse of Sex[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(3): 483-504.
[3] ZHANG Weite. Descartes’ Metaphysical Doubts about Clear and Distinct Perception[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(1): 151-181.
[4] WANG Xiaowei. A Human Right to Internet Access: A Gewirthian Approach[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(4): 652-670.
[5] Ralph Weber. Confucian Political Philosophy for Non-Confucians[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(4): 547-567.
[6] ZHANG Liwen. Harmony and Justice[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(4): 533-546.
[7] WANG Xiaona. Leibniz and Clarke in Conflict: The Role of “Force” and the Nature of God’s Providence[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(2): 287-297.
[8] ZHAO Meng. The Embodied Subjective Perspective[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(2): 280-300.
[9] Rajesh C. Shukla. Justice and Civic Friendship: An Aristotelian Critique of Modern Citizenry[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(1): 1-20.
[10] CHEN Yuehua. Principle, Knowledge, and Personality: Some Reflections on “the Good” according to Plato[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(4): 585-606.
[11] LIU Wei. Plato’s Attempts at Defining Sophistry[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(4): 566-584.
[12] Olof Pettersson. Plato on Necessity and Disorder[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(4): 546-565.
[13] GUO Qiyong. On Confucian Political Philosophy and Its Theory of Justice[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(1): 53-75.
[14] Michael Slote. On Virtue Ethics[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(1): 22-30.
[15] XU Yingjin. What Does Fodor’s “Anti-Darwinism” Mean to Natural Theology?[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2011, 6(3): 465-479.
Full text