Critically discuss the simile of the large and powerful animal and of the ship as an argument against democracy.

The simile used, I believe, demonstrates his point well, as Plato is trying to tell us that society does not value its philosophers.  Plato believes that a state run by ‘Philosopher Kings’ would make society more surprising than currently is.  However, I also believe that Plato’s analogy of the ship and its captain is not as detailed as it could be.  I believe that the sea captain could have been described as a man, who all look up to, yet few understand, as he makes decisions that the crew believe are wrong, but eventually the crew, after much contemplation, agree that the captain’s decision is the correct one.

We are reminded of the qualities the rulers will need and told that their education will have to be long - or he/she will never reach the "highest form of knowledge". This of course is the FORM OF THE GOOD. All other knowledge will be useless without this. One we get knowledge of it we will have the key to life - we'll know why things are good and be able to make the right political and ethical choices.

The other simile Plato uses, is the simile of the large and powerful animal;

"Suppose a man was in charge of a large and powerful animal, and made a study of its moods and wants; he would learn when to approach and handle it, when and why it was especially savage or gentle, what the different noises it made meant, and what tone of voice to use to soothe or annoy it. All this he might learn by long experience an familiarity, and then call it a science, and reduce it to a system and set up to teach it. But he would not really know which of the creature's tastes and desires was admirable or shameful, good or bad, right or wrong; he would simply use the terms on the basis of its reactions, calling what pleased it good what annoyed it bad."

Plato believes that the large and powerful animal is potentially dangerous. The trainer observes its mood, behaviour changes and studies the noises it makes. He calls his study a ‘science’ and professes to teach it. He calls what makes the animal happy ‘good’, what angers it, ‘bad’. He has no conception of what is really

good for it. He merely panders to its whims and gains control in this way. The animal corresponds to

the crowd, the trainer to the sophist politician.

The beast analogy is essentially about control. It could be argued that this is not or should not

be the ultimate end of politics, control is also seen in terms of pacification rather than in terms

of respect for a system, a way of life or leaders.

Electioneering is one aspect of the democratic process and it is this, which the analogy fits best,

if it fits at all. I would also like to refer to voting in accordance with conscience regardless of public opinion and the ultimate nature of accountability.  The accuracy of the analogy with the people can be questioned. An educated public can be distinguished from a rabble, there are also similarities and differences between the Greek and western system of democracy of today.

When the beast reacts, people judge.  A simile can be distinguished from any argument to a degree and

some of the alternatives, e.g. Plato’s preferred system, could be represented by even more damning/lurid              similes.  It is preferable to judge what we want ourselves rather than having it imposed externally as this is the only way in which the concept of responsibility can get a foothold.  The simile presupposes a pessimistic view of human nature, but can this be justified?  We should all remember that politics is not an exact science, and the obvious route, may not turn out to be the right one to choose.