Back to History and Evolution
Archives.
History and Evolution:
By William E. Steinman:
Part 23, Plato's Philosophy:
August 25, 2003:
In developing his philosophy Plato followed the ideas begun by Socrates toward establishing objective truths and knowledge. He was in accord with Socrates thoughts on absolute concepts or forms as ultimate objects of the mind. He rejected the relativism of the sophists and insisted that there was universally valid knowledge. He wanted to prove theoretically the principle of objective knowledge. He believed that absolute knowledge of universals is attainable.
He rejected the notion that knowledge is perception. He believed that true knowledge of sensible objects is not attainable. They are always in a state of flux. They are not permanent. By implication then, true knowledge must be knowledge of universals such as horse, man, or truth. The concept horse is not a particular horse, but the universal concept of horse. A particular horse is a type of sense object, always becoming.
He portrays Socrates as a player or spokesman in some of his writings of dialogs. He has Socrates speaking to and questioning others. That is how he carries out a progression of thought toward establishing some universal truth. For example, using Socrates' voice in a dialog, Plato makes a case for an immortal soul divided into three parts. This concept is quite vague in what I have read. He argues that the soul is separate from the body. Though the two interact, it properly rules the body. Whether Socrates really said these things or not, how can we know? We will always have the problem of wondering what was Socrates and what was Plato.
Plato's ethic is about seeking man's highest good. This is a balance of certain kinds of pleasure and an intellectual understanding or knowledge of truth. Happiness he believed must be attained by the pursuit of virtue. This means becoming as God like as is possible for man. I find my own philosophy reflects this ancient idea. For Plato man's good is primarily a condition of the soul. In accord with the idea of forms, goodness is not relative. It refers to something absolute and unchanging. It is only the truly virtuous man who is a truly good man and a truly happy man. In Plato, virtue is identified with knowledge. Knowledge means philosophical knowledge. In this he agrees with Socrates.
On communities, Plato says men join together into communities for economic reasons. Therefor society is not a necessary evil, but a natural institution of man. The good life is only possible through society. The state exists in order to serve the wants of men. Logically then, morality and justice must be the same for the state as for the individual. The state is not above the law. There is an absolute morality with which the state must comply. In community, men will develop specialized skills to support the community. Even so, the community still exists for men, not the converse.
In defining his ideal state Plato divided his society into three classes with artisans being the lowest class. Above that were the soldiers whom he called guardians. Finally the highest class of rulers would be chosen from among the guardians. Plato wanted to teach music and gymnastics to everyone, including women, but the ultimate goal of education for the leaders of the society is to learn philosophy or truth and become philosophers. Plato defines a long rather difficult path of education whereby a person would ascend to leadership of the state.
Democracy, oligarchy and tyranny are all bad because their rule will favor a certain class. Thoughtful rule will be that which is for the good of the whole people. In that, everyone will lead the good life, that being the life of virtue. This state of the state can only be attained when the leadership comes from the best of the best, the virtuous philosopher.
In his perfect state Plato would exclude certain kinds of art. He would be, in fact, a censor for his society. For example, he would exclude Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. He would also exclude works by Sophocles. His position is, some things are immoral and the leaders have a right and duty to protect the society from immoral ideas. For sure, I believe Plato's notion of censorship is a bit off base. If the twentieth century proved anything we proved that censorship cannot work. It will eventually bring ruin to those who try it. Even in a closed society, leaks will develop.
It is not just in censorship, Plato defines a pretty tight state all around. His rules about how birth is controlled and who rules and who does not are quite rigid and oppressive. It is a social structure cast system in spades, with three casts. Marriage in the upper two casts, the warriors and rulers, is controlled by the state as is reproduction. His solution for illegal children is right out of Draco. They are to be disposed of. The motive for all of this is to improve the race. We will recall that Hitler tried to implement a similar idea in recent history. He called it the super race.
Foreign travel would be forbidden except with permission from the state. Foreign visitors would be kept out or controlled by the state. There would be no open communication between th citizens and the visitors. Slaves were slaves and were to be so treated. They could never aspire to citizenship, nor could their offsprings. Familiarity with slaves was forbidden. Plato accepted slavery as a fact, as did Jefferson after him. While we may see some excuse for Plato's position, we cannot give the same excuse to the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence. Only by considering slaves to be not human, but some form of animal, could he have rationalized that.
I think Plato got way off course with his ideal state. His plan sounds like a combination of Orwell's 1984 and Hitler's super race. It would be abhorrent to any American. We would find his ideal state seriously restrictive. He completely ignores the inherent behavioral characteristics of his fellow men. A rigid system like this could not be imposed on a human community without a great deal of force. Even with force, it could not last.
To be fair, we must consider the bitter life experiences that produced these ideas. Plato's philosophy is deeply influenced by his disappointment with both aristocratic oligarchy and democracy. He saw first hand the corruption of the terrible thirty. Then the democracy of the rabble managed what the terrible thirty failed to do. They murdered his teacher and associate, Socrates. Considering all of that, his ideas on the organization of the state make some sense. They were to some extent remedies for outrages he had personally experience.
Plato considers the democratic principles of government to be ridiculous. If possible, he would put the state in the hands of a philosopher king. This king would be chosen from the best of the best. He would have to understand the ethics and truths which come out of Socrates' ideas of forms. He would shape the state according to these principles.
In essay 21 we outlined Socrates' doctrine of forms. In this, certain definitive terms such as good, animal, wealth, or sweet are really the names of mental or thought objects. He calls them ideas or forms. So, the thing we designate as good is not the reality of the form, but a secondary reflection of the fixed or permanent reality. This is a key distinction which keeps us from confusing the idea with the thing we apply it to.
We see from his writing that Plato is an elitist and so am I. However, the problem is still one we know all too well. The rabble would never knowingly put the ship of state into the hands of a thoughtful philosopher or follow his lead in any regard. Thus, the philosopher must be clever enough to trick the rabble into thinking he is a demagog. Then he must be fast enough on his feet to make the rabble think they are being appeased while he looks after their long term best interests.
The philosopher must lead, not rule. He must lead the rabble
into doing what is best for their children's future. Since the
rabble will in general eschew thinking, the philosopher must guide
them mostly with simple ideas and symbols. That calls for much
more good sense and virtue than any of our recent leaders have
demonstrated. Plato faced the same problem. Even the best of his
thinking had little effect on the majority of Athenian society.
Back to History and Evolution
Archives.
|
|
|
|