Plato has long been unfairly characterized as the intellectual progenitor of totalitarianism. Although the most influential critique emanates from Popper’s pen in his work The Open Society and Its Enemies (Popper, 1945), the premises from which the Austrian-born philosopher proceeds derive from a literal and anachronistic reading of Plato’s Republic, from which he draws conclusions that allow him to fit his critique into his paradigm of the open society. In essence, Popper conceptualizes this as a system wherein the advancement of knowledge and the amelioration of social conditions are achieved through the criticism and refutation of ideas via a falsificationist approach applied to sociology.
In Popper’s vision of the open society, individuals are expected to exercise creativity, critical rationality, and tolerance, thereby enabling ideas to be perpetually questioned and refined, rather than accepted dogmatically. Put differently, a society is deemed open when its institutions foster critique and the pragmatic pursuit of solutions to social and political challenges, grounded in the framework of modern liberal democracy. Popper contrasts this model with what he perceives as Plato’s holism (as though the libertarian framework of Hayek were not equally holistic), which, according to the Austrian-born philosopher, leads to the totalitarian and reactionary vision of the ideal state described by the Greek in the Republic. Popper condemns this vision as utopian, static, and impracticable. Instead, he advocates for addressing social problems incrementally, pragmatically, and heuristically, to facilitate a framework for the kind of incremental social engineering imbued with the scientistic aspirations his notion of progress demands.
However, as noted at the outset, despite the widespread acceptance of Popper’s biased critique of Plato in the Anglo-Saxon academic world and its cultural satellites, the truth is that interested misrepresentations of Plato have a protracted history, traceable to the very political circumstances surrounding the Athenian philosopher’s life (Annas, 1981). From this vantage point, a less simplistic analysis allows us to cast Plato’s image in a markedly different light.
The central axis of this policy of interference revolved around the cult of Apollo, originating in the East under the priesthood of Marduk in Babylon, which maintained close ties with Persia, whose political interests it served. Among its achievements, one may note the destruction of the Lydian kingdom, the weakening of Ionian resistance, and the undermining of Athenian interests during the Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian War (Herodotus, 2003). The temples of Apollo functioned as potent financial centers and hubs for the exchange of confidences and directives, managed in accordance with Persian interests through an extensive clerical network. The cryptic prophecies of Apollo, relayed by the Pythia, were interpreted by priests and used to influence the actions of those consulting the oracle (Parke & Wormell, 1956).
This had been made possible by the fall of the Babylonian Empire to the Persian Cyrus the Great, who, with the complicity of Babylonian priests, consolidated Persian control over the Near East (Herodotus, 2003). Although this marked the end of the Babylonian Empire, the oligarchic priesthood continued to govern through the Persian Empire: with the fall of the Ionian city-states, Persia controlled the mercantile centers of Asia Minor. The democratic movement in Greece, influenced by Persia, was instrumental in suppressing the Ionian Revolt, led by Aristagoras of Miletus, who sought Greek support for resistance against Persia. The intervention of the democratic faction, which sided against the Ionian leaders and the traditional Athenian elite, proved decisive in thwarting Greek support for the rebellion.
Indeed, the rise of Cleisthenes, the first democratic leader of Athens, was not achieved through a popular movement or social confrontation but through the palace intrigues of the priests of Apollo at Delphi, who secured the intervention of the city-state of Sparta to install Cleisthenes in power. Consequently, Cleisthenes’ Alcmaeonid family came to dominate Athenian democracy for nearly a century, with the support of the Delphic priests. Cleisthenes sent traditional symbols of submission to Persia, thereby sealing the first official contact between Persian imperialism and Greek democracy, which implied Athens’ temporary vassalage to Darius (Herodotus, 2003). With these foundations, Darius’ son-in-law, Mardonius, led a fleet of some six hundred ships in a “liberation campaign” against Ionia, establishing formal democracies that celebrated their newfound liberty, though, in practice, they remained politically subordinate to Persia.
Meanwhile, Athenian democrats promoted their political program as the sole alternative capable of delivering justice for the populace. Accordingly, they criticized the landholding practices and foreign policy of the landed aristocracy, accusing it of conspiring with Sparta to establish a tyrannical regime in Athens. They also sought to disarm the peasantry, confiscate their lands, fragment property ownership, and attack the political elite as a first step in the democratic struggle.
Another primary objective of the new Athenian power was the establishment of democracies across all Greek states, creating a revolutionary foreign policy aimed at emancipation. In practice, this meant installing Athens-friendly democracies in all Hellenic city-states, forming a pan-Hellenic alliance of democracies to dismantle traditional power structures.
Nevertheless, following the Ionian defeat, Athens became a strategic priority for Persia. Darius sent an embassy to Athens, reminding the democrats of their pledge of loyalty through Cleisthenes and demanding unconditional submission. Athens responded by fortifying its position against Persia and beginning to build a new fleet. In 492 BC, the Persian fleet, comprising Egyptian and Phoenician triremes, conquered Thrace and Macedon but was forced to retreat due to a storm that sank many vessels. Themistocles, leader of the Athenian democratic party, had been educated with connections to Delphi and influenced by Persian interests, and his family benefited from the fall of the ancient aristocracies (Kagan, 1987). Naturally, for the Persians, democracy was a means rather than an end, and thus ineffective for their plans if they could not control the populace at will.
The democrats relied on sailors and soldiers, benefiting them with agrarian reforms and stipends provided by the democratic party, as a result of which they supported the democrats out of economic self-interest, using the fleet as a power base to align Athens with the interests of Delphi and Persia. A striking example of this duplicity is the Battle of Marathon, which served as a strategically political triumph for the democratic faction. In the battle, a Persian army with 600 ships faced a combined force of Greek hoplites led by Athens and Plataea, with minimal Spartan involvement. Themistocles’ strategy, based on ambushing the Persian forces, resulted in the defeat of the Persian army, not the annihilation of the hoplites (Herodotus, 2003).
The military victory at Marathon provided Themistocles and the democrats with a political triumph, enabling them to seize control of Athens, where they implemented radical reforms that consolidated the democratic faction’s dominance and eliminated the ancient aristocracies. The victory at Marathon and the Persian occupation initiated a period of latent Persian dominance over Greece’s fate but also marked the beginning of Greek resistance. This resistance culminated in the Greek victory in the Persian Wars, with the battles of Salamis and Plataea standing out, leading to the definitive expulsion of Persian forces and the onset of the cultural and political flourishing of the classical Greek period. The Greeks took the initiative, forming the Delian League with Athens as the leading power and Sparta to liberate Ionia and Asia Minor and eliminate the Persian threat once and for all (Meiggs, 1972).
Again, between 457 and 445 BC, under Pericles’ leadership, Athens saw its freedom and prosperity threatened. It is worth noting that, despite the mythologization of the figure, Pericles eroded the city-state’s progress by dismantling its traditional leadership and transforming the Delian League, originally a defensive alliance against Persia, into an instrument of Athenian expansionism (Meiggs, 1972). This deteriorated relations with allies and consequently provoked confrontation with Sparta. Pericles also increased the tributes of League members and transferred its treasury to Athens, merging it with the local treasury to finance ambitious projects, such as the reconstruction of the Acropolis (Kagan, 1987).
While significant in architectural terms, these efforts contributed to Athens’ economic and social decline. The city became filled with indebted peasants who abandoned the countryside, leading to agricultural collapse and growing dependence on food imports from the Black Sea. The Athenian economy was reduced to little more than pottery production and silver mining, with a significant decline in technical and commercial exchange in favor of imperial extractivism (Meiggs, 1972). Pericles also sponsored the Sophist movement, which had profoundly negative consequences for Athenian morality and knowledge. Under his aegis, a rhetorical and sophistic education was promoted, teaching how to present weak arguments as strong and disparaging the value of mathematics and natural science. Sophists like Gorgias, Thrasymachus, and Protagoras advanced a relativistic view of morality, asserting that right and wrong were merely matters of convention, convenience, and circumstance (Kerferd, 1981).
Athens and Sparta had already fought a war in the 460s–445 BC, limited to skirmishes in their colonies and concluding with a peace treaty before escalating. However, in 431 BC, the leaders of both factions, emulating Pericles, felt no responsibility to avert a new conflict. The new demagogues based their appeal to voters on suppressing the traditions of cooperation between Athens and Sparta, and none of the politicians were willing to open negotiations for fear of harming their careers. The Athenians were ultimately saved from Spartan invasion thanks to Persian financial aid. Artaxerxes’ policy towards Athens and Sparta was straightforward: keep the embers of war alive. As Persia now funded both contenders, it had the power to prolong or end the conflict at will. The war, in fact, continued for another decade. In 404 BC, Sparta negotiated a secret treaty with Persia and launched an invasion of Athens’ Black Sea colonies, the source of Athens’ food supplies. This invasion ended the war and Athens’ hegemony over Greece.
At this juncture, it is essential to introduce the figure of Socrates, closely tied to Plato’s family circle and whose enduring influence is indispensable for a proper understanding of Platonic thought. Plato’s character was significantly shaped under the aegis of the philosophical discussions Socrates held in the house of his stepfather, Pyrilampes, frequented by politicians, sophists, and philosophers (Annas, 1981). However, Socrates was of humble origins; his mother was a midwife, his father a sculptor, and he himself trained in this trade before abandoning it for philosophy. What Socrates taught was that true apprehension of reality is achieved through the formulation, examination, and discussion of problems, emphasizing that the authority of knowledge must derive from the student’s own mental processes, not from doctrines imposed by the teacher (Vlastos, 1991). Thus, rather than guiding young men from influential families towards public office, Socrates sought to make them question their fitness to govern, promoting critical reflection on the exercise of power.
In 406 BC, during the Peloponnesian War, Socrates, as prytanis of the Athenian assembly, blocked an accusation against the Athenian general staff for failing to rescue soldiers after the Battle of Arginusae, considering it a violation of Athenian laws (Xenophon, 2002). However, the democratic party condemned the generals to death, facilitating the Spartan victory. After the war, the Athenian faction represented by Socrates opposed Spartan domination, leading to a democratic restoration in 403 BC under Thrasybulus and Conon. However, factions supporting Sparta formed a democratic front under Critias, resulting in another cycle of civil war and the accusation against Socrates of corrupting the youth (Xenophon, 2002).
Yet, nothing in Plato’s dialogues, written during his stay in Megara, suggests such a charge regarding Socrates. On the contrary, as noted, Socrates sought to educate future dignitaries based on the principles of Socratic reason (Vlastos, 1991). In the Apology, Socrates appears criticizing Athenian democracy from a perspective of universal law, arguing that the elimination of universal authority by democratic institutions leads to the incompetent use of traditions by those in power, legitimizing legal sophistries (Plato, 2002). It hardly seems likely that these theses would be viewed favorably by collaborators of the Persian Empire within Athens, and consequently, it is not far-fetched to conjecture that Socrates’ position at the forefront of the anti-Persian faction was a decisive factor among those who condemned him to death.
According to Plato, Socrates introduced a new conception of truth. Unlike the Sophists and some of Aristotle’s followers, who sought to professionalize philosophy for spurious ends, Socrates devoted himself to questioning and challenging his interlocutors maieutically, establishing a moral approach as the foundation of methodical knowledge (Vlastos, 1991). It may further be argued that Plato, as Socrates’ epigone, became the first scientist of politics.
Following Socrates’ death, his circle reorganized in Megara, an ally of Sparta, and persisted in resisting the Persian Empire (Annas, 1981). Shortly thereafter, Plato traveled to Egypt, a territory under Persian control since Cambyses’ conquest in 525 BC. However, Egypt harbored an anti-oligarchic elite linked to the priesthood of Amun, which maintained contacts with the Greek faction opposed to Persia (Lloyd, 1975). During his possible stay of a few years in Egypt, around 390–388 BC, Plato engaged in political activities against Persian oligarchs, emerging as a leader in the international struggle against Persian domination (Lloyd, 1975). During this period, Persia had subdued Sparta and Athens, using these city-states to implement its power policies in the Mediterranean. In Sparta, Lysander, an agent of Artaxerxes, had deposed the legitimate Spartan heir, replacing him with Agesilaus, a manipulable monarch who depended on Lysander (Cartledge, 1987). Although Agesilaus was a veteran soldier, he exhibited competent but not exceptional leadership skills.
Yet, in a surprising political maneuver, Agesilaus, once on the throne, announced his intention to personally lead the Ten Thousand in Ionia against Persia. This decision sidelined Lysander and mobilized Spartan military power against the Persian Empire (Cartledge, 1987). Upon assuming command of the Spartan army, Agesilaus replaced Lysander and marched to Ionia with his troops. In 395 BC, Agesilaus, leading the Ten Thousand, inflicted a decisive defeat on Artaxerxes’ Persian army, clearing the path to Sardis, the administrative capital of Persian-controlled Asia Minor (Cartledge, 1987). However, the Persians orchestrated maneuvers to counter the Spartan advance. Lysander manipulated the cult of Apollo at Delphi to promote prophecies suggesting the abdication of Spartan kings and the election of a new king, aiming to place himself on the throne (Parke & Wormell, 1956). Simultaneously, the Athenian admiral Conon prepared a naval offensive in Ionia to cut off Agesilaus’ communication with Greece.
Meanwhile, Plato, in Egypt, played a leading role in aiding Sparta. The Egyptian king Nepherites I supplied materials for shipbuilding and provisions, strengthening the Spartan fleet against Conon (Lloyd, 1975). Additionally, the Egyptian priests of Amun denounced Lysander and the Temple of Apollo as conspirators, forcing their expulsion and neutralizing their influence in Sparta (Parke & Wormell, 1956).
Plato’s participation and collaboration with the mathematician Eudoxus of Cnidus were pivotal in preparing for the final campaign against Persia. Eudoxus, an expert in empirical science and astronomy, and Plato, with his knowledge of political and philosophical strategy, played decisive roles in war preparations (Lasserre, 1966). In 387 BC, the Athenian fleet under Conon achieved a decisive victory over Lysander’s Spartan squadron and its Persian allies (Kagan, 1987). Despite Agesilaus’ victories in Asia Minor, Persian naval and diplomatic maneuvers in Greece had nullified his achievements, weakening Sparta’s position and leading to a peace treaty. This treaty, known as the Peace of Antalcidas, met the immediate needs of the Persian Empire but weakened the Greek city-states and facilitated Persian expansion. Despite Persian hegemony, the legacy of Socrates and Plato continued to inspire Greek resistance, paving the way for future conflicts and the emergence of new powers. The Persian defeat resulted from Agesilaus’ leadership, Plato’s influence in Egypt, and tenacious Greek resistance. During the subsequent Greek expansion, the city of Tarentum was founded in Magna Graecia. Under Archytas’ leadership, Tarentum established the Tarentine League, a confederation of Greek cities functioning almost as a nation-state. Archytas promoted advances in industry, commerce, construction, and prosperity while maintaining close ties with ancient Greek and Egyptian traditions (Huffman, 2005).
Plato and Archytas collaborated in Tarentum to plan a renewed offensive against the Persian oligarchy. They considered Syracuse in Sicily as the ideal base for this campaign, given Tarentum’s insufficient influence and tensions with other Greek cities that viewed the association with the Pythagoreans as subversive (Huffman, 2005). Plato continued this campaign until his final days, as partially known through his correspondence. Syracuse, under the tyrant Dionysius I, had achieved great wealth and prestige, standing out as the richest city in Greece. Although affected by wars and rebellions, it had secured a precarious peace with Carthage and maintained an anti-Persian stance, supporting the objectives of Agesilaus’ campaign (Finley, 1979).
Plato and Archytas saw Syracuse as the last Greek power capable of leading a new grand alliance against Persia. However, they did not wish to launch a mere military expedition that could be undermined by Persian insurgency. Syracuse’s wealth and military strength were necessary but insufficient on their own; previous efforts against Persia had failed due to bribes and subversion (Finley, 1979). Between 388 and 385 BC, Plato and Archytas sought to elevate the Greek populace to the level necessary to confront Persia, proposing Dionysius I of Syracuse as a philosopher-king. Dionysius, a tyrant known for his penchant for luxury and power, aspired to be a patron of the arts and sciences. However, his dealings with Plato were unfavorable; Dionysius perceived him as an intruder meddling in Syracuse’s customs (Finley, 1979). Consequently, Plato abandoned Syracuse, returning to Athens determined to pursue his philosophical work.
There, he founded the Academy, dedicating himself to teaching, writing philosophical dialogues, and engaging in diplomatic missions (Annas, 1981). Likely due to this diplomatic work, and despite the failure of his plans for Syracuse, Dionysius I, convinced that Plato was conspiring against him, had him imprisoned and sold into slavery (Finley, 1979). Despite these setbacks, Plato had planned to educate Dionysius and guide him towards reforms that would prepare Syracuse for a prolonged struggle against Persia. Part of the plan involved attacking the oracle of Apollo at Delphi to weaken the Theban alliance against Sparta and enable Sparta, backed by a Syracusan fleet and Delphi’s gold, to continue the fight against Persian power networks (Parke & Wormell, 1956).
In 385 BC, Dionysius I undertook a colonization project in the Adriatic to control the passage between Italy and Greece and establish a base for an invasion of Epirus, the details of which are uncertain. It appears that the clergy of Apollo at Delphi uncovered the plans and thwarted their execution, possibly with the assistance of Philistus, then a trusted confidant of Dionysius (Finley, 1979). Nevertheless, Dion, Dionysius’ brother-in-law, rescued Plato from slavery and returned him to Athens. There, Plato founded the Academy (joined by Eudoxus) using funds provided by Dion’s intermediaries (Annas, 1981). It was during this period that Plato wrote the Republic, a work in which he synthesizes his experiences and reflections on his failed attempts in Syracuse. Throughout this work, Plato examines the leadership necessary to liberate and govern the world, introducing the concept of the philosopher-king and an educational program based on the Trivium (grammar, music, and geometry). This program aimed to train individuals capable of understanding the laws of the mind and guiding their societies towards a just and productive life (Plato, 2004).
Plato presents his educational program through Socrates, and indeed, his book should be understood as an organizational proposal rather than a manifesto for political action or a totalitarian manual, as Popper contends (Annas, 1981). Contrary to the Austrian-born philosopher’s theses, the Republic must be interpreted as a contextualized illustration of the philosopher-king concept and the Platonic method.
From 367 BC, following Dionysius I’s death and the ascension of his successor, Dionysius the Younger, Plato undertook strategic efforts in the Mediterranean to advance the struggle against Persian despotism. The disintegration of the Persian alliance among Thebes, Athens, and Argos allowed the formation of a new alliance between Athens and Sparta, supported by the Academy. Plato and his allies’ intervention was crucial, as in 369 BC, Athenian soldiers encamped on the Academy’s grounds joined Spartan forces in an attack against Thebes. Plato and the Academy’s direct participation concluded in 360 BC with the withdrawal of Persian leaders and the end of open diplomacy. The Academy’s military intervention ended Persian hegemony in the Mediterranean, ushering in a period of civil war in the region, with the agonism between Platonic policies and pro-Persian factions as the prevailing dynamic until the rise of Alexander the Great (committed to political Platonism and opposed to the Persian model) and the invention of Hellenism, whose rise set the conditions for the crystallization of apostolic Christianity across the Mediterranean (Tarn, 1951).
To sum up, Plato, having witnessed democracy condemn Socrates, developed a profound philosophical skepticism toward Athenian democracy—not out of aristocratic elitism, as Popper claims, but because of its tendency to foster a tyranny of the soul (pleonexia). He witnessed how demagoguery and popular prejudice could destroy noble men and good governance alike. In response, Plato’s dialogues imagine rulers—philosopher-kings—governing not by ambition or majority will, but through knowledge of the good (Politeia, 473d–480a).
Though the Republic includes censorship, hierarchy, and fixed social roles, these are philosophical devices—not practical legislation. The Kallipolis is a conceptual myth to explore justice in soul and city, often ironic and dramatic. Popper errs by reading Plato’s critique of flawed democracy and his philosophical models as blueprints for despotism. Plato sought to take people out of the cave, to free them from ignorance, sophistry, and inner passions, intertwining political philosophy with the ascent towards ethical aims (psychagogia), where politics is a sacrificial act, bridging the highest truth and the flawed world.
