Plato believed that public policy should be the purview of a small group of wise leaders; in his view, ordinary citizens couldn’t possibly be well informed enough to arrive at the decisions that would best align with the common good. Jean-Jacques Rousseau disagreed, countering that normal people, voting for their opinions en masse, could indeed arrive at the ‘general will’. The French philosopher Nicolas de Condorcet (1743-94) went even further than his contemporary Rousseau, proposing that, not only could the wisdom of the crowd be trusted to reach the most beneficial conclusions, but that it was mathematically provable that this was the case. This animated explainer from Wireless Philosophy (or Wi-Phi) details the logic of Condorcet’s so-called ‘jury theorem’, while also identifying weaknesses in the perhaps overly optimistic assumptions embedded in his logic.
Video by Wireless Philosophy
videoThinkers and theories
The prison abolitionist who dares to envision a world without ‘unfreedoms’
16 minutes
videoEconomics
A tour of New York’s gaudiest neighbourhood with the Marxist geographer David Harvey
13 minutes
videoPhilosophy of mind
‘Am I not at least something?’ A surreal dive into Descartes’s Meditations
3 minutes
videoMeaning and the good life
Why Orwell urged his readers to celebrate the spring, cynics be damned
11 minutes
videoEthics
Plato saw little value in privacy. How do his ideas hold up in the information age?
5 minutes
videoVirtues and vices
Why Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Adam Smith were divided on the virtues of vanity
5 minutes
videoPolitical philosophy
The radical activist couple who fought for social change in the courtroom
21 minutes
videoPolitical philosophy
Beyond the veil – what rules would govern John Rawls’s ‘realistic Utopia’?
6 minutes
videoThinkers and theories
A rare female scholar of the Roman Empire, Hypatia lived and died as a secular voice
5 minutes