Greek philosophers

Philosopher Kings:

A brief word on Plato's political thinking:

Plato accepted the world of the phenomena as a mere shadow of the real world of the ideas. When we observe a horse, we recognize what it is because our soul remembers the idea of the horse from the time before our birth. In Plato's political philosophy, only wise men who understand the dual nature of reality are fit to rule the country.

I thought of this today while reading Dalrymple's article on Ceausescu art:

There were two still lifes — both of the President’s desk. Books by Ceausescu, the so-called ‘Danube of Thought’, are prominently displayed on his desk, the implication being that the President had only to return to his own writings to obtain further inspiration. One of the still lifes was entitled ‘One Country — One Masterpiece’, as if an entire nation were but raw material to be fashioned into a work of art by its supreme genius. To emphasise this point, an architect’s drawing was draped over the desk.

One of the standing criticisms of the Right in America has been that it is anti-intellectual. I've often argued that this is incorrect -- that the intellectualism that the Right practices and respects is simply not directed at traditional academics, but instead at military and religious achievements.

The Department of Defense contains any number of serious "academic workers," from DARPA to the National War College, to the various schools attended by officers both commissioned and non- throughout their careers. Similarly, there is a whole industry devoted to Biblical scholarship, from the study of Aramaic through examinations of the Bible through the methodology of history or archaeology. This seems to occupy a lot of intellectual energy, but it is largely contained outside of the academy for one of several reasons that are obvious after a moment's reflection.

There is, however, a certain truth contained in the criticism. I think that the Right is more likely to be suspicious of claims to intellectual achievement that aren't backed up by anything other than academic achievement. An intellectual whose ideas have proven out in the real world -- a Theodore Roosevelt, who writes vigorously, and applies those ideas successfully -- is greatly admired. But an academic who writes works that are great only by the acclamation of his fellow intellectuals is regarded as suspect. An academic whose philosophy leads to bad results in the real world -- a Ceausescu or a Kim -- is regarded with baleful eyes.

He is the great teacher who teaches them what the true life is.... The General is the mental pillar and the eternal sun to the Korean people. As they are in harmonious whole with him, they are enjoying a true life based on pure conscience and obligation. They are upholding him as their great father and teacher, united around him in ideology, morality and obligation.

Why this need to portray these Communists, masters of their society, as great intellectual lights? Why was Mao so lauded as a thinker, when it appears that he gave little consideration to the consequences of his words? "Let a hundred flowers bloom," he said, and was horrified to see that people believed he had meant it; let us have "a Great Leap Forward" by boosting steel production, even if millions starve. When he wrote of what he knew -- guerrilla warfare -- he was a solid mind. But why must he have also written 'the little Red book,' that so many carried around as a talisman of thought?

Perhaps the most famous intellectual light of the Communist period was Lenin, who is still regarded by some as a plain genius who simply couldn't make his beautiful ideas work in the real world. There are two serious objections to the notion that he was a genius.

First, he was a dishonest debater:

Note that the context in which Lenin wrote is often crucial to understanding the point of much of his work... It is possible to attribute just about any political position to Lenin by quoting him out of context. This is not to say that any one interpretation is as good as any other. Only that in reading Lenin it is always important to know something about who he was debating and why.

Far from being an intellectual heavyweight, Lenin took the easiest road to victory in any challenge. His principles were not firm things that he could stand upon against all comers, but things he asserted or abandoned based on the needs of the moment. He was not interested in truth, but in winning arguments. He would adopt or abandon any position as it was momentarily useful. Once he came to power, he won simply by exiling or killing intellectuals who disagreed with him, and thereby intimidating the rest -- intellectuals, indeed, suffered greatly from Lenin's attention. This is not the mark of a great mind.

Second, he was noted for "borrowing" from other writers. There were a great number of intellectuals involved in Communist thought from the 1840s until Lenin's time. Much of Lenin's writings were culled from the work of these others, so that little heavy lifting was necessary -- just a lot of reading, followed by the simple exercise of updating the examples. Where the original author cited some outrage of 1852, you find a similiar outrage of 1911, substitute it, and it's a new work. If there are two such authors -- Hilferding and Bukharin are usually cited as the source of Lenin's thinking on imperialism -- you find the middle ground between them, and assert that.

Now, there's nothing wrong with doing that if you've got eternal principles that actually work. Indeed, it's a good way to educate people generally: make them familiar with older writings that express these principles, and then have them perform the exercise of finding modern-day examples of where the principle could be applied. But this is the point: any schoolchild can do it. In and of itself, it isn't that impressive. What impresses is what you do with what you've learned.

We have seen what they have done. It is, in its way, impressive. It should not convince anyone that they were geniuses who understood the truth of the world.

Yet, still today there are people who set out to portray them and their modern analogues as Philosopher Kings. These things are meant to justify their rule over "common" men: their education, their wisdom, their ability to think great thoughts. This is meant to set them apart from us, to convince us that we ought to submit to their reason. They are the experts.

The West is deeply indebted to Plato for preserving for us, in his early writings, the example of Socrates. His political thoughts, however, have been a disaster. Only those who understand the nature of reality should rule? Well, if that's what we're after, show me the man who can make his ideals work in the world. I'll follow his example, even if the ideals are mystical and their internal logic unclear.

Better that, than to follow a bright and beautiful notion that leads to ruin and cruelty. It may be that the truth isn't readily understandable. I've always suspected that might just be the case. Logic may be good at getting you from where you are to where you want to be, but it probably isn't any good for figuring out where you ought to want to be.

For that, you need something better. You need faith, in ideals that sound good and feel good but may not make a lot of sense when you try to think them through. You need to look around for the men that you naturally admire, and follow them. And you need to look at yourself honestly, and be straight about where you're not measuring up.