1. Socrates was highly suspicious of democracy and believed that voting in an election is a skill that needs to be taught systematically to people.
2. Socrates did not believe in an elitist system but insisted that only those who had thought about issues rationally and deeply should be allowed to vote.
3. Socrates warned against demagoguery and the danger of electing sweet shop owners instead of doctors, but we have forgotten his warnings and elected many unqualified leaders.
The article "Why Socrates Hated Democracy" by The School of Life presents an interesting perspective on democracy and its flaws. However, the article is biased towards the idea that democracy is flawed and needs to be reformed. The author uses Socrates' views on democracy to support their argument, but fails to provide a balanced view of the topic.
The article starts by praising democracy and Ancient Athens for giving rise to it. However, it then goes on to criticize democracy by using Socrates' views as evidence. The author argues that voting in an election is a skill that needs to be taught systematically, and letting the citizenry vote without an education is irresponsible. While this may be true, the author fails to acknowledge that many democracies have systems in place to educate voters about political issues.
Furthermore, the article suggests that Socrates was not elitist in his views on democracy, but only believed that those who had thought about issues rationally and deeply should be allowed to vote. This statement contradicts itself because it implies that only a select few should be allowed to vote based on their level of education or intelligence.
The article also fails to consider the benefits of democracy, such as freedom of speech and equal representation for all citizens. While demagoguery is a risk in any democratic system, it does not necessarily mean that democracy as a whole is flawed.
Additionally, the article makes unsupported claims about how we have forgotten about Socrates' warnings against democracy and have elected many sweet shop owners instead of doctors. There is no evidence provided for these claims, making them seem like mere opinions rather than factual statements.
Overall, while the article raises some valid points about the flaws of democracy, it presents a one-sided view of the topic without considering its benefits or acknowledging potential counterarguments. The author's bias towards reforming democracy undermines their credibility and makes their argument less convincing.