-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Price of Apathy
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
an anarchist
Your local anarchist.
Yes.
But if it implies that one should involve themselves in the charade of government, I don't agree with the implication.
But if it implies that one should involve themselves in the charade of government, I don't agree with the implication.
Some see government as necessary to limit the abuse that humans can cause.
However, I suppose government can be its own kind of abuse.
an anarchist
Your local anarchist.
I think instead of "some" it's "most".
Exactly. Government is the abuse that humans can cause.
Insufficient info.
Does he imagine that all but the evil ones are apathetic?
If so, that's unrealistic.
Or does he speak of the individual?
If so, it's insignificant.
Either way, when the populace has a say in politics,
evil men (& women) still attain power at times.
Evil doesn't reside solely in the powerful.
Heyo
Veteran Member
I don't know what Plato thought but if you replace "evil" with "ambitious" it becomes clearer.
Then you could ask what makes people ambitious and you often come the conclusion that they want a return of their investment, power and money. That's "evil" enough to contemplate to stop them.
It does seem to make sense, at least on a surface level. When the masses are more apathetic and ignorant, they can be more pliant - although it still involves a certain level of pacification - whether "bread and circuses" or some other method (religion can help). Apathy requires a certain measure of contentment. If the masses aren't content, then they'll be restless - and that's when the "evil men" can see an opening and a possible opportunity to gain power.
It's the exact opposite of apathy - an intense zeal can pervade the political culture. That's where it can get dicey.
Apathy might play a role in it, but I don't believe it's the cause of it. After all, if the government and leadership were ideal, and they did everything right and people in society were well-provided for and able to live free, fulfilling lives - then nobody would have to care about public affairs.
But that may be part of our own problem these days, as we've had it so good for so long that people have grown too complacent to the point where many believe that we're invincible. Listening to many of the politicians and pundits speak, there's still a certain tone of arrogance and overconfidence - magnified by the intense shock, fear, and indignation they express when things don't go their way.
Only ambitious people achieve leadership...except when inherited.
Ambition =/= Evil
Yes, though I think Plato would also have some comments on a 24 news cycle where people are blasted with more events, over a much larger area, then they can reasonably, productively respond to, as well. Some people's idea of staying engaged and informed runs the real risk of burnout. Especially compassion burnout.
The trick is to find a balance between watching and doing. Even if you can only do something an hour a week, and your impact only is felt by a neighbor or two.
The trick is to find a balance between watching and doing. Even if you can only do something an hour a week, and your impact only is felt by a neighbor or two.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Yes unless you have a bigger and tougher army.
Augustus
…
Not sure that translation is too accurate.
It’s more that if the wise and virtuous don’t seek political office the penalty is to be ruled by lesser men.
Don't you know that to be covetous of honor and covetous of money is said to be and is a reproach?” “I do,” he said. “Well, then,” said I, “that is why the good are not willing to rule either for the sake of money or of honor. They do not wish to collect pay openly for their service of rule and be styled hirelings nor to take it by stealth from their office and be called thieves, nor yet for the sake of honor, for they are not covetous of honor. So there must be imposed some compulsion and penalty to constrain them to rule if they are to consent to hold office. That is perhaps why to seek office oneself and not await compulsion is thought disgraceful. But the chief penalty is to be governed by someone worse if a man will not himself hold office and rule. It is from fear of this, as it appears to me, that the better sort hold office when they do, and then they go to it not in the expectation of enjoyment nor as to a good thing, but as to a necessary evil and because they are unable to turn it over to better men than themselves.
Republic (book 1)