The Laws is one of the longest things Plato wrote, and the last, and the only one that doesn't feature Socrates. Instead, the three characters are old men -- one from Athens, one from Crete, and one from Sparta -- who are taking a long walk together and decide to discuss political philosophy. The Athenian, more philosophical given his national character, quickly takes the lead.
The Cretan opens by confirming that 2/3rds of the constitutions of their states are supposedly divinely given, but likewise affirms the wisdom of the founding men involved. In especial, what impresses him is that his government was set up with the understanding that all other states in the world were at least potentially at war with them: that even in peacetime, one had to keep up preparations to repel invasions or conquests. As a result, their island nation had regular public feasts -- not only to build national friendship, but also to maintain the infrastructure necessary to feed the public if it needed to muster as an army. Martial training of the militia was kept up as well.
The Spartan naturally approves of this approach.
The Athenian begins questioning them in what is a very Socratic way, attempting at first to get them to declare whether they agree that what is true for the nation should also be true for the family; and when they do, whether they also think it should be true for the individual. This is a rapid reprise of the move Socrates makes in the Republic, in which he convinces everyone to go along with what is usually called "The Fallacy of Composition."
This move allows Plato to explore political philosophy by analogy to self-control in a good individual. However, there is good reason to doubt that a nation should be run like a family, or that an individual is a good analogy for a group of people. There are crucial differences that make this unlikely, and call the value of the whole dialogue -- both of them -- into question.
Nevertheless, both of the interlocutors agree to the proposition. Just as a nation should be ordered to be prepared to resist conquest from abroad, so families should be ordered to ensure that they are disciplined against bad influences or tyranny from the outside. The individual, meanwhile, should run himself so that he is not conquered either from outside or, more importantly, by his own base desires.
Now the Athenian asks if there isn't a third approach, which is translated as "mediation." It's not a mediation in our sense of the term, though, because the mediator has access to capital punishment: the Athenian wants to know if the best mediator would kill bad people to prevent them from corrupting the whole, or control them while not killing them if not necessary, or if he would instead construct the whole society so that the good and the bad live in harmony without the need for violence or coercion. The two other old men agree that the last option is best.
If you've read the Republic, you know that Plato has just laid out the basic argument in a few paragraphs so that he can take another run at what such a just society would look like. The Laws is much longer, and goes into much greater detail about particular laws the elder Plato thinks are just and worthy.
Ultimately there is a lot to object to in the setup itself; and thus I will stop here, to see if any of you want to discuss that.
12 comments:
That'll go on my list. In the meantime, by "family" did Plato mean something more like a clan, or did he mean a small unit, as is our common usage?
At least an extended family. Aristotle, who was Plato’s student, uses it for the largest unit of natural authority.
The natural authority is of human nature.
That is to say, the unit of natural authority is the one in which the child obeys because the child only survives by being provided for by his kin. There is a natural authority because the child must obey in order to survive. Having grown up in this way, the child knows he or she ought to obey parents and providers. Otherwise, they didn’t make it.
So that might be as large as a clan, but not as small as our nuclear family.
In Iraq, clans voted according to what the patriarch decided. People in the West criticized this as undemocratic, but I thought it was quite democratic. Certainly more democratic in 2007 than the fake elections people were getting fed in the West.
In Iraq, you voted according to your clan because your family was one alliance, politically and even militarily.
In America, you vote based on what Dominion says you vote, because Demoncrats pay for welfare and your goodies, otherwise they starve you out or put people into concentration camps while using BLM/Antifa/Lawfare terrorism.
https://sbg-sword-store.sword-buyers-guide.com/product1023.html
https://sbg-sword-store.sword-buyers-guide.com/product814.html
https://sbg-sword-store.sword-buyers-guide.com/product1063.html
The Banshee by Hanwei with a blade lock, an Indonesian style blade I believe. The Kukri by Angus Trim of Apoc swords using an excellent molle compatible fiber like sheathe, contoured for fast unsheathing. The reproduction Gunto by Ryujin, with a true mechanical blade lock that fixes a lot of the sheathe problems in modern day. These are beautiful, functionally modern, blades.
The Hyporean Age will be back soon enough. I have figured out how spirits and gods dwell within swords. It is due to their crystaline, molecular, silicon arrangement. As well as the way metal can hold frequencies (tuning forks).
I have my first 50 USD blunt sword now as my athame. Works quite well now, since I have inputted a lot of work and sweat in over the years.
I was about to say that you were off-topic, but on reflection I suppose swords are always a fit subject here.
I'm curious why Plato uses this idea that the family and individual work like a nation. Do you know if this was a common analogy at the time?
I also wonder what exactly Plato's concept of "nation" was. Nation can be purely political in meaning, but often it also has racial meanings. I'm guessing Plato includes the racial meaning as well, that the people in a nation are of a common stock or type.
In any case, I do object to treating families and individuals like nations. There is some acceptable level of analogy, but they are very different things. However, I'm guessing that if we reject this up front, there's not much for us in the rest of the work.
I'm curious why Plato uses this idea that the family and individual work like a nation. Do you know if this was a common analogy at the time?
Aristotle makes a clean distinction between family and politics, although he also begins with the family as the first social organization. The Greeks had developed constitutions or kingship traditions, some aristocracies, but they were close enough that all of them had a sense of where they started. As Aristotle points out, in general the way it happened was that a group of families came together under single head, who became a king instead of a clan-chief. So there's a sensible reason for the linkage.
It was at this point that politics begins because you need a system of justice so that people will accept being ruled by those who aren't in positions of natural authority. This is treated in my book of political philosophical essays, most of which you can read free online if you are not interested in buying a book.
I also wonder what exactly Plato's concept of "nation" was. Nation can be purely political in meaning, but often it also has racial meanings. I'm guessing Plato includes the racial meaning as well, that the people in a nation are of a common stock or type.
As the above answer probably makes clear, it's less like a race and more like a collection of families. There is definitely a sense of being "Greek," i.e., being a part of the group of human beings whose language is Greek. There is a sense that Greeks are better than barbarians (a word, by the way, that is derived from the Greek sense of what Semitic languages sound like: "bar-bar-bar"). But a nation is properly a polis and its dependent territory; Athens is a nation, distinct in its culture and heritage from Sparta or Crete.
In any case, I do object to treating families and individuals like nations. There is some acceptable level of analogy, but...
What Plato has actually got going on here is a more complete argument that all forms of human organization are ultimately going to need to be the same: not just the family as the state, but the internal organization of the individual as well. This part you know from the Republic: the rational part of the soul should rule the spirited part, which should together train the animalistic parts. Thus, by analogy, the city should be ruled by the rationally virtuous, who should govern those who are more drawn to spirited virtues like courage, who should together guide and shape the more beastly farmers and workers. In that way, the best kind of society will come about because the rational will order everything to the human good.
" or if he would instead construct the whole society so that the good and the bad live in harmony without the need for violence or coercion."
If there are bad people, is it even possible for them to live in harmony with the good people? If they do, are they actually "bad"?
Also, we tend to want to avoid violence in society (naturally as there are risks in it), but then what keeps order among men who have the capacity for both good or evil?
In Iraq, you voted according to your clan because your family was one alliance, politically and even militarily.
I think this was also the founders ideal, at least regarding the nuclear family and the lack of franchise for women - inconceivable that a family would vote in opposition to each other.
‘... is it even possible for them to live in harmony with the good people? If they do, are they actually "bad"?‘
Aristotle says in the ethics that the lawful role of justice is to make people behave as if they were virtuous. Plato seems to have something like that idea here. The courageous man does not flee before the enemy, but stands in the face of the enemy. Thus, the law should require everyone to do that, and punish those who fail harshly enough to encourage obedience.
You can still see the bright distinction between the man who obeys the laws out of fear, and the virtuous one who does it because it is right. It is still important to train the virtues, but if you can at least force virtuous behavior, you’re better off than otherwise.
Daniel:
Good point. Iraq was helpful to us in understanding the Greeks. They are closer to the family-based point of origin. It’s important in many ways that may not have been written down because they seemed so basic as not to need to be.
"What Plato has actually got going on here is a more complete argument that all forms of human organization are ultimately going to need to be the same: not just the family as the state, but the internal organization of the individual as well."
Well, I'm skeptical, but I'll listen to what he has to say.
"This part you know from the Republic: the rational part of the soul should rule the spirited part, which should together train the animalistic parts. Thus, by analogy, the city should be ruled by the rationally virtuous, who should govern those who are more drawn to spirited virtues like courage, who should together guide and shape the more beastly farmers and workers."
As you point out, this is a fallacy if it's taken literally. One key difference that comes immediately to mind is that an individual has one rational part, but every individual in a city has his or her own rational part. It would be as if every cell in the body had part of the brain and there was no brain organ.
There are more differences, such as an individual can pretty immediately survey his / her own body, but the leaders of a city cannot. It runs into the problem of controlled markets vs free markets.
Well, I'm skeptical, but I'll listen to what he has to say.
Feel free to reject it; in fact, you give a very good argument for rejecting the idea right here. As I was saying to Mike, one of the great things about Plato is the way in which he's inviting you to do philosophy with him. These are dialogues, and many of the best ones end in aporia. They lay out their best arguments, find the problems with them, and resolve to come back and try again another day. That is to say that the dialogues invite you to understand the arguments, and try to find better answers.
The first dialogue I encountered was the Laches, when I was about 17. It was the perfect age for it for me. I felt like I could get to know these people, and grapple with them problems that seemed like they ought to have answers. Their answers weren't good enough; wasn't that asking me to see if I couldn't come up with something?
So this series isn't meant to tell you what Plato said, as much as to show where problems lie. The Athenian is more confident than Socrates, and less likely to admit doubt. In part that may because Plato was a lot older when he wrote this, and may have come to a condition of certainty. But there still are problems. Lots of them. And that means there's still work for us to do, too.
Post a Comment