In a previous post we discussed how relevant Aristotle's Politics were today. In the following video on Plato's idea of the tyrant, I feel again that the professor is describing the US today to a striking degree.
The presenter is Daniel Bonevac, professor of philosophy at UT Austin.
I haven't been endorsing anyone's answers. I've just been surprised at how well Aristotle and Plato described today's tyrants.
That said, it is surprising to me that he could see tyranny as a problem and yet propose the worst of tyrannies as a solution. Were these his philosopher kings? I guess being philosophers meant they had everyone's best interests at heart, so it was okay for them to have total power. He wouldn't have seen that as tyranny, I guess.
I say this with the greatest respect, but I think that Grim is misreading Plato. Mr. Doubting gets at the problem when he notes, "it is surprising to me that he [Plato] could see tyranny as a problem and yet propose the worst of tyrannies as a solution."
That Is a contradiction; and as any good student of logic can tell you, a contradiction is [i]disproof[/i] of the proposition.
It may seem like Plato is advocating tyranny, but he does it in a way that renders the argument absurd. The clear-eyed reader should come away with a healthy distrust for [u]any[/u] argument that one man should rule another.
Feel free to call me Tom. I usually post as Thomas Doubting and comment as Tom, but forgot in the above comment.
I've heard there's some debate about whether Plato's conclusion here was intended to be absurd. I don't have an opinion on it because I've only read selections from most of his works, so I'm not in a position to know.
On the side that Plato was not arguing ad absurdum, he wouldn't have seen philosopher kings with total power as tyranny because they would be ruling in the best interests of the people. So, it wouldn't have been contradictory to him.
Why do you think he was using reductio ad absurdum? What clues you in to that?
It isn't only in the Republic, though, that he comes to this conclusion. He does so in the Laws as well, calling for a 'nocturnal council' that will have the power to inquire into everyone's faithfulness to the correct philosophy, and to put to death anyone who does not.
Perhaps this is meant as an absurdity, as you say. But it was the last thing he wrote on political philosophy after a lifetime of considering it. If he has a better answer, he never gave it elsewhere.
One of my professors suggested this interpretation. I recall not liking it very much at the time because I preferred the simpler approach of reading Plato as straightforward treatises where Socrates is directly expressing Plato's own beliefs.
However, two things kept me from dismissing it (and eventually led me to preferring this interpretation).
First, we don't have all of Plato's writings, so we don't have a complete picture of his thinking.
Second, I find it impossible to dismiss the internal contradictions found in the dialogues. Either they are logical flaws (in which case no one should waste time on Plato), or Plato intended them and the reader is meant to draw the conclusion that these arrangements are also unworkable.
1. I took my philosophy courses over 25 years ago, and my recollection of some things is less sharp than it used to be.
2. I see, after a few minutes of searching, that scholars believe that we do in fact have the complete body of Plato's writings. My recollection of this differs, but I would have learned about this is long enough ago that I cannot swear that I'm remembering correctly. I thought there were missing platonic works, but that may not be the case.
3. Scholars disagree on how much weight to give the evidence, but there is some suggestion that Plato believed that some knowledge was not suitable for written transmission; and that there was therefore a body of Plato's thought that was only passed on to his students verbally. There are good arguments for and against this, but I don't know enough about it to say whether I think there's anything to it.
"...there is some suggestion that Plato believed that some knowledge was not suitable..."
This is the Straussian school, named for Leo Strauss. Coming out of the experience of having been a Jew in Germany in the early 20th century, he argued that many philosophers might have hidden their real views behind a degree of irony (just as Jews hid their faith in Germany). He pointed out that especially in Athens after the war (with the Spartans), similar stressors might have been present for philosophers, especially Plato who had seen his mento put to death. My major professor in grad school was a devotee of his.
I think that there are good arguments for that position in some philosophers, less in others; I'm not especially inclined to read Kant, for example, in Straussian terms. Aristotle fled Athens to avoid his own doom, though; Plato didn't, somehow. Perhaps there's something to the idea.
9 comments:
Bear in mind that Plato settled on totalitarianism as a solution.
I haven't been endorsing anyone's answers. I've just been surprised at how well Aristotle and Plato described today's tyrants.
That said, it is surprising to me that he could see tyranny as a problem and yet propose the worst of tyrannies as a solution. Were these his philosopher kings? I guess being philosophers meant they had everyone's best interests at heart, so it was okay for them to have total power. He wouldn't have seen that as tyranny, I guess.
I say this with the greatest respect, but I think that Grim is misreading Plato. Mr. Doubting gets at the problem when he notes, "it is surprising to me that he [Plato] could see tyranny as a problem and yet propose the worst of tyrannies as a solution."
That Is a contradiction; and as any good student of logic can tell you, a contradiction is [i]disproof[/i] of the proposition.
It may seem like Plato is advocating tyranny, but he does it in a way that renders the argument absurd. The clear-eyed reader should come away with a healthy distrust for [u]any[/u] argument that one man should rule another.
Feel free to call me Tom. I usually post as Thomas Doubting and comment as Tom, but forgot in the above comment.
I've heard there's some debate about whether Plato's conclusion here was intended to be absurd. I don't have an opinion on it because I've only read selections from most of his works, so I'm not in a position to know.
On the side that Plato was not arguing ad absurdum, he wouldn't have seen philosopher kings with total power as tyranny because they would be ruling in the best interests of the people. So, it wouldn't have been contradictory to him.
Why do you think he was using reductio ad absurdum? What clues you in to that?
It isn't only in the Republic, though, that he comes to this conclusion. He does so in the Laws as well, calling for a 'nocturnal council' that will have the power to inquire into everyone's faithfulness to the correct philosophy, and to put to death anyone who does not.
https://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2021/02/platos-laws-x-6.html
https://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2021/02/platos-laws-xii-end.html
Perhaps this is meant as an absurdity, as you say. But it was the last thing he wrote on political philosophy after a lifetime of considering it. If he has a better answer, he never gave it elsewhere.
One of my professors suggested this interpretation. I recall not liking it very much at the time because I preferred the simpler approach of reading Plato as straightforward treatises where Socrates is directly expressing Plato's own beliefs.
However, two things kept me from dismissing it (and eventually led me to preferring this interpretation).
First, we don't have all of Plato's writings, so we don't have a complete picture of his thinking.
Second, I find it impossible to dismiss the internal contradictions found in the dialogues. Either they are logical flaws (in which case no one should waste time on Plato), or Plato intended them and the reader is meant to draw the conclusion that these arrangements are also unworkable.
Interesting. Thanks, Thos.
OK, now I find I need to add some caveats:
1. I took my philosophy courses over 25 years ago, and my recollection of some things is less sharp than it used to be.
2. I see, after a few minutes of searching, that scholars believe that we do in fact have the complete body of Plato's writings. My recollection of this differs, but I would have learned about this is long enough ago that I cannot swear that I'm remembering correctly. I thought there were missing platonic works, but that may not be the case.
3. Scholars disagree on how much weight to give the evidence, but there is some suggestion that Plato believed that some knowledge was not suitable for written transmission; and that there was therefore a body of Plato's thought that was only passed on to his students verbally. There are good arguments for and against this, but I don't know enough about it to say whether I think there's anything to it.
"...there is some suggestion that Plato believed that some knowledge was not suitable..."
This is the Straussian school, named for Leo Strauss. Coming out of the experience of having been a Jew in Germany in the early 20th century, he argued that many philosophers might have hidden their real views behind a degree of irony (just as Jews hid their faith in Germany). He pointed out that especially in Athens after the war (with the Spartans), similar stressors might have been present for philosophers, especially Plato who had seen his mento put to death. My major professor in grad school was a devotee of his.
I think that there are good arguments for that position in some philosophers, less in others; I'm not especially inclined to read Kant, for example, in Straussian terms. Aristotle fled Athens to avoid his own doom, though; Plato didn't, somehow. Perhaps there's something to the idea.
Post a Comment