The Sources of Plato Opinions

The Sources of Plato Opinions Plato and Aristotle were the most important of all philosophers, ancient, medieval, or contemporary; and of the two, it was Plato who had the greatest impact upon following periods. I argue this for two reasons: first, because Aristotle himself is a result of Plato; second, that Christian theology and philosophy, at any rate until the thirteenth century, was considerably more Platonic than Aristotelian. It is important, therefore, in a history of philosophic thinking, to treat Plato, and to a lesser degree Aristotle, more extensively than any of their predecessors or successors. The most important matters in Plato’s philosophy are: first, his Utopia, which was the earliest of a long series; second, his theory of ideas, which was a pioneer attempt to deal with the still unsolved problem of universals; third, his arguments in favour of immortality; fourth, his cosmogony; fifth, his conception of knowledge as reminiscence rather than perception. But before dealing with any of these themes, I shall say a few words about the conditions of his life and the forces which formed his political and philosophical ideas. Plato was born in 428-7 B.C., in the early years of the Peloponnesian War. He was a well-to-do nobleman, related to many persons who were concerned in the tyranny of the Thirty Tyrants. He was a young man when Athens was conquered, and he could ascribe the defeat to democracy, which his social standing and his family ties were likely to make him dislike. He was a disciple of Socrates, for whom he had a strong liking and admiration; and Socrates was condemned to death by the democracy. It is not, then, strange that he should look to Sparta for an adumbration of his ideal commonwealth. Plato possessed the talent to dress up illiberal recommendations in such a way that they misled subsequent eras, who praised the Republic without ever being aware of what was entailed in its proposals. It has always been proper to admire Plato, but not to comprehend him. This is the common destiny of brilliant men. My object is the reverse. I seek to understand him, but to approach him with as little regard as if he were a current English or American enthusiast of tyranny. The purely intellectual effects on Plato were likewise such as to prejudice him in support of Sparta. These influences, speaking roughly, were: Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus, and Socrates. From Pythagoras (whether by way of Socrates or not) Plato derived the Orphic elements in his philosophy: the religious trend, the belief in immortality, the other-worldliness, the priestly tone, and all that is involved in the simile of the cave; also his respect for mathematics, and his intimate intermingling of intellect and mysticism. From Parmenides he acquired the view that reality is eternal and timeless, and that, on logical reasons, all change must be illusory. From Heraclitus he derived the negative concept that there is nothing lasting in the sensory world. This, together with the theory of Parmenides, led to the conclusion that knowledge is not to be obtained via the senses, but is only to be achieved by the mind. This, in turn blended quite well with Pythagoreanism. From Socrates he presumably inherited his focus with ethical dilemmas, and his predisposition to seek teleological rather than mechanistic explanations of the universe. “The Good” dominated his thought more than that of the pre-Socratics, and it is difficult not to credit this fact to the influence of Socrates. How is all this related with authoritarianism in politics? In the first place: Goodness and Reality being timeless, the finest state will be the one which most nearly mimics the heavenly model, by having a minimum of change and a maximum of static perfection, and its rulers should be those who best grasp the everlasting Good. In the second place: Plato, like other mystics, has, in his views, a core of conviction which is basically incommunicable unless via a manner of living. The Pythagoreans had sought to put up a rule of the initiate, and this is, at bottom, what Plato seeks. If a man is to be a good politician, he must know the Good; this he can only achieve by a mix of intellectual and moral discipline. If individuals who have not gone through this discipline are granted a share in the government, they will surely corrupt it. In the third place: much knowledge is needed to build a competent ruler on Plato’s beliefs. It appears to us stupid to have insisted on teaching geometry to the younger Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse, in order to make him a decent ruler, yet from Plato’s point of view it was important. He was enough Pythagorean to suppose that without mathematics no genuine wisdom is attainable. This idea indicates an oligarchy. In the fourth place: Plato, in common with most Greek philosophers, took the view that leisure is essential to wisdom, which will therefore not be found among those who have to work for their living, but only among those who have independent means, or who are relieved by the state from anxieties as to their subsistence. This perspective of view is inherently aristocratic. Two general issues arise in confronting Plato with current thinking. The first is: Is there such a thing as “wisdom”? The second is: Granted that there is such an entity, can any constitution be designed that will give it political power? “Wisdom,” in the meaning supposed, would not be any form of specialized talent, such as is possessed by the shoemaker or the surgeon or the military strategist. It must be something more universal than this, since its possession is meant to make a man capable of ruling intelligently. I suppose Plato would have argued that it consists in knowledge of the good, and would have reinforced this definition with the Socratic notion that no one sins wittingly, from which it follows that whomever understands what is good does what is right. To us, such a vision looks removed from reality. We should more naturally remark that there are opposing interests, and that the statesman should arrive at the best attainable compromise. The members of a class or a nation may share a common interest, but it will typically conflict with the interests of other groups or other nations. There are, no doubt, certain interests of mankind as a whole, but they do not sufficient to drive political activity. Perhaps they will do so at some future period, but certainly not so long as there are numerous independent States. And even then the most difficult element of the pursuit of the public interest would consist in arriving at agreements among mutually opposed particular interests. But even if we accept that there is such a thing as “wisdom,” is there any sort of constitution which will entrust the administration to the wise? It is apparent that majorities, like general councils, may wrong, and in fact have erred. Aristocracies are not always clever; kings are often ignorant; Popes, in spite of infallibility, have committed severe blunders. Would anybody support entrusting the government to university graduates, or even to doctors of divinity? Or to men who, having been born poor, have achieved huge fortunes? It is apparent that no legally delimited group of people is likely to be wiser, in reality, than the full body. It may be proposed that persons could be taught political insight by a sufficient schooling. But the issue would arise: what is a suitable training? And this would turn out to be a party question. The challenge of selecting a gathering of “wise” persons and leaving the administration to them is thus an unsolvable one. That is the fundamental reason for democracy.