From The Student Room
TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Philosophy > AQA AS Philosophy - Discuss the Simile of the Large and Powerful Animal
Critically Discuss the Simile of the Large and Powerful Animal as an Argument Against Democracy.
The parable of the large and powerful animal serves as a critique against Athenian democracy and the Sophists, who value the art of rhetoric and the power of persuasion more highly than reason. Adeimantus criticises the Dialectic method which Socrates uses, comparing it to being “hemmed in” in a game of draughts, but also criticises his description of a philosopher-ruler. He highlights the difference between Socrates’ a priori description of a philosopher (which portrays them as being truthful, controlled and quick to learn etc) and the a posteriori observations of philosophers as being corrupt and useless. Socrates does not disagree that philosophers are corrupt and useless, but instead continues to explain why this is not the fault of philosophy (evident again in the simile of the ship). People often claim that philosophers are corrupt due to confusion between the philosophers and Sophists. This simile highlights the different nature of the Sophists.
Socrates compares the Sophist to a man who, after rearing a beast for a long time, learns how to please the animal, when it is likely to be especially vicious, and what the different noises it makes mean. He supposes the man then sets up to teach this system, calling it a science. It is evident, however, that the man does not really know the reasons behind the animal’s behaviour; which of its actions are admirable or shameful. He would simply call that which pleased the animal “good” and that which displeased it “bad”. This criticises the Athenian democracy, where the best Sophists often delivered speeches or were bribed. In the same way as the man in the parable learnt what pleased the animal, not what was good for it, the Sophists would only give the public what they wanted and not what they needed or what was best for them. Socrates emphasised the need for a resolute leader rather than a responsive leader. The Sophists merely pander to popular taste, calling their understanding of human emotions a science. Modern political theorists call Plato’s thesis a form of paternalism, as his analogy seems to imply that, because our leaders know what is in our best interests, we should allow them to decide laws accordingly.
There are many criticisms which could be raised against Plato’s use of the simile of the large and powerful animal. One would be that the analogy itself is weak. The care and understanding of an animal is indeed a science (zoology) whereas running a society varies according to peoples’ values. These values are not objective, but differ from one person to another, and one society to another. Running a society is a prescriptive matter, and there cannot, therefore, be a set of laws and universal facts which dictate how to tackle it, whereas there may well be laws regarding the care and understanding of animals. Science should have some claim to know what factors, such as food or living conditions, could improve an animal’s health.
Some people, however, dismiss this criticism, arguing that there are sufficient similarities between the two processes to be compared. Plato would reject the distinction between descriptive facts and prescriptive values. He would argue that the Forms ensure there is an objectivity, even in judgements of values which are apparently subjective. The philosopher would understand the Form of “good”, and therefore Plato would believe they are justified in forming laws for general benefit. However, this counter argument only holds if one accepts Plato’s original metaphysical theory of the Forms, which can be in itself flawed.
Another criticism which could be drawn against the parable of the wild and dangerous animal is that it highlights Plato’s probable pessimistic view of humankind. It could be argued that a pessimistic view towards mankind is indeed justified and logical, however it is also evident that Plato offers no defence of this notion. Without any form of justification, some would argue that this analogy is fundamentally weakened. Given this opinion; that Athenian citizens are not sophisticated or thoughtful, it is no surprise that Plato believes Democracy is a flawed system.
There is the possibility to reply to this criticism. One could draw attention to the Argument from Opposites, which attempts to show that a majority of people are merely “sight lovers”, unaware of forms and therefore without knowledge without offering any forms of justification. Plato could point out the a posteriori evidence that Democracy cannot work, as the political system was not running smoothly in Athens at that time, and blame this upon the nature of the ordinary people. The fact that they have no knowledge of forms does not, however, label them as “bad people”, but does mean that, in Plato’s opinion, these people are generally fundamentally mistaken in their views. Plato still, however, offers no support for his view within The Republic.
Another criticism of the analogy of the large and powerful animal would be that it emphasises Plato’s belief in the natural inequality of human beings. The public are effectively all lumped together as the large and powerful animal. This belief plays a major role within his idea of society, as people are assigned into various positions according to which field they are naturally or essentially suited. It could be argued, however, that peoples’ aptitudes are not genetically pre-determined. Education provides a large influence upon someone’s intelligence or capabilities. It could be that, with proper training, all people would be able to reach the standards Plato designates for the ability to make informed decisions about policies. If this were the case, the rigid distinctions between the public, the philosophers and the sophists would collapse.
This criticism could, however, be challenged by raising the fact that certain abilities appear to be at least partly determined by genes. For example, someone must be born with the innate motivation for learning. It could be argued that, regardless of the amount of education someone is given, if the subjects do not interest them, they will not be motivated and will be likely to fail. Characteristics such as this motivation, or a person’s capacity to memorise, are at least partly determined by their genetic lines. This contradicts the notion that everyone is capable of making decisions regarding the well-being of society, and supports Plato’s view that the only way to form a Just society is to allow philosophers to rule.
In conclusion, the analogy of the large and powerful animal does offer a clear explanation as to the reasons why many people view philosophers as useless and vicious. It also successfully criticises the sophist leadership, as well as democracy in general, as Plato intended. However, the flaws which can be highlighted within the analogy cannot be ignored. The two processes which are being compared are fundamentally different, and therefore the analogy in itself is dramatically weakened. Although counter arguments can be drawn against this flaw, I personally feel they do not entirely resolve the initial criticism. Also, although it is evident that people are not born completely equal, Plato does appear to focus predominantly upon the genetic aspect of peoples’ capabilities. He does not address the effects of nurture and environmental factors such as education. This selectivity also significantly weakens the analogy, and, as a result, I feel that the simile of the large and powerful animal is not particularly successful.
Comments
