Now that Plato is gone…
Plato has had the bump from my title bar, his position there being in part to my perverse sense of humor.
Something that didn’t get discussed on this blog however was Plato’s disposition towards democracy and indeed his mentor Socrates. It was argued by Popper in his Open Society and its Enemies, that in Plato’s Republic, Socrates was miscast as antithetical to Athenian democracy, and that it was rather Plato himself that was the totalitarian leaning of the two.
Popper criticises those who have (to his mind) been uncritical of Plato, enthralled by his historical status overlooking his treatment of his preceding generation and his apparently naked ambition for philosophical authority (to the detriment of his mentor).
I’m just curious. What assumptions do you have about Plato? Democrat, tyrant or somewhere in between? Or for that matter, Socrates?
~ Bruce
Filed under: Democracy, Philosophy
It’s been a long time since I read anything by/about Plato, but my overall recollection is I considered him a rational elitist.
Rational in the sense he had reasons for his elitism, that is.
I think Popper was far too much the moral crusader when it came to Plato, Hegel, Marx, et. al.
If we are able to speak meaningfully of Plato in political terms at all, then I’d probably place Plato along with the other propagandists of faux democracy, such as Leo Strauss and his troupe of neocons, sputing the ‘noble lie’ whenever never necessary.
What assumptions do I have about Plato? Not being very knowledgeable about him, just this one: his concept of Forms constitutes probably the greatest blind alley in the history of Western philosophy, and has been an absolute boon to magical/dogmatic thinking for millennia.
(OT: don’t get me started on the assumptions I have about PLATO!)
I’ll more a fan of Aristotle’s analysis of political systems than Plato, but just looking at "Republic" isn’t enough. We must also consider his relationship to the 500 puppets of Sparta (was it merely a blood connection, full-hearted agreement, or faint-hearted acquiescence) and "The Laws" which I see as proposal meant to be more practical, while "Republic" may just have been a thought experiment.
Oh, and to get a real understanding of Athenian political thought, you need to read Aristophanes: in particular "Congresswomen" where the women take control and create a communist state, with not only your private property becoming state property, but also your private parts! (Look for the scene near the beginning that the Monty Python team ripped off for the "and a bag of gravel for the boy" section of "Life of Brian".
Dave, interesting.
I might give it a read.
John,
Rational in the sense he had reasons for his elitism, that is.
I agree, although I think his reasons wrong.
Hap,
I think Popper was far too much the moral crusader when it came to Plato, Hegel, Marx, et. al.
I think so with Plato, not that I’m dismissive. With Hegel I think him overzealous and inaccurate, and with Marx, a tad too acerbic, but otherwise making a valuable (if often misrepresented by neo-cons, neo-liberals, classical liberals and libertarians) contribution.
If we are able to speak meaningfully of Plato in political terms at all, then I’d probably place Plato along with the other propagandists of faux democracy, such as Leo Strauss and his troupe of neocons, sputing the ‘noble lie’ whenever never necessary.
“Instrumentalist sophist”?
OT: don’t get me started on the assumptions I have about PLATO!
Perhaps a counterstrike in the culture war is required. Capped of with a blog entitled “Now that PLATO is gone the way of Howard…”?
Dave,
Nice call. Will try to fit it in next time I go over Plato in detail (which may be a while - I’ve got Faucault to look over some more).
“Now that PLATO is gone the way of Howard…”
From what I hear, PLATO have been far more successful, and curricula are again being re-written in WA. (Though the credit should probably go to the Worst Australian, which has campaigned against the Curriculum Framework for years.)
But I digress.
I prefer Karl Pilkington’s version of the death of Plato: “It wouldn’t have happened if he hadn’t have been on holiday.”
Karl thinks he was killed when he was on a beach, and a bird dropped its egg to “let the kids out” on Plato’s head, the reason being that the bird thought Plato’s bald head was a rock. Karl seems to have confused Plato with the Greek playwright Aeschylus, who according to legend was killed when an eagle, mistaking his bald head for a rock, dropped a turtle on him.
(I heard this on the Gervais podcast an paraphrased it from wiki quotes)
To rely on Popper’s account of Plato is not the most political analysis of Plato one can have. In this respect I find Allan Bloom’s essay on The Republic incredibly insightful. Under that view, The Republic is not intended as a blueprint for the foundation of society, but rather attempts to show the very limitations of the political life itself. The limitation can be seen by taking up the question of justice as the central concern of the city. In this sense, Plato is quite capable of seeing the limitations of both tyranny and democracy, but is absolutely certain that philosophy as a way of life is much more likely to occur within a democracy than in a tyranny.
But to have a real account of Socrates one must look not only at Plato but also take up Xenophon and Aristophanes. By looking at the three surviving accounts of what Socrates stood for, one can have a better perspective on Socrates’ relation to Athens’ citizens. In this respect it is astonishing that Xenophon, a general, saw it fit to defend Socrates all his life. This is where Popper surely goes amiss.
Hope this basic ideas help.
Andrés