Notes on "A History of Political Theory" -- Episode 4

For episode 3 see here.

 Theory of the City-State

IV.Plato: The Statesman and The Laws
 A. Written much later than The Republic
 B. Resemblance between the two
       1. Marked difference from The Republic
       2. Plato's final reflections on the city-state
 C. Of greater influence on political thought after Plato, departure point for
     Aristotle
 D.The Laws sketches a government in which law is supreme
       1. Was a change from government of philosopher-kings of The Republic
       2.  Plato did not fully recognize these changes in his theory
       3. Law-based government is still only the second best and not logically
          compatible with it 
       4. The Republic presumed opposition between intelligence and perception
       5. Law was seen by the Greeks as on the side of perception and experience
         (i.e., convention)
       6. Even now, law can be seen as irrational obstacle to intelligent chance or
          action
       7. For Plato, the good ruler, one who rules through knowledge and reason
          should not be bound by law as that is meant to govern the average man
       8. In The Laws, law become a surrogate for reason
 E. The Statesman puts off The Republic as an ideal model not usually attainable
       1. Has six-fold classification of governments, three good and three bad that
          Aristotle later used
       2. Sees democracy more favorably 
 F.  The state in The Laws constructed with temperance as its chief virtue 
       1. Seeks to achieve harmony through a spirit of obedience to law
       2. This meant a mixed state as the mode of political organization
 G. The mixed state --  harmony through balance of forces or tendencies
       1. Mixed monarchic principle of wisdom with democratic principle of
          freedom
       2. Saw original 'state of nature' as the life of peaceful herdsmen. With
          agriculture comes civilization.
       3. Urges study of politics attached to history of civilization (causes and
          changes in political stability)
 H. In The Laws, still favors communism but concedes private property and
       private family life, due to human frailty, but regulates both
       1. Land inherited but not to be divided or alienated
       2. Produce goes to common (public) mess
       3. Property to be equal except for limited personal items allowed
       4. Citizens not to engage in industry or trade; what is necessary to be done
          by resident aliens
       5. Use of property regulated, only token currency, no loans with interest
 I. Government belongs to the citizens, those who can afford to leave private
      business of earning a living to slaves (on farms) and aliens. This was not
      Periclean democracy. 
       1. State still to be weighted in favor of richer through four-fold division on
          basis of private property
       2. Education and religion remain roughly the same as in The Republic except
          education becomes institutionalized
       3. Religious persecution and the Nocturnal Council out of line with the rest
 J. Government in the [ideal city]* of The Republic follows the rule of the father
      over children, while The Laws more in line with government of and by 
      responsible citizens through law.

*Note:  Sabine's reading of The Republic, Laws and Statesman follows traditional lines.  He takes them literally, especially The Republic.  But if one reads Plato's Socratic dialogues closely, it should be noticed that he actually is focused on justice, virtue (arete) of the individual.  The Republic presents the model for the healthy soul balanced between its three parts with reason guiding desire and will.  Socrates presents the outer polis to better see the inner one.  As Plato understood the 'ideal city' of The Republic to be difficult to achieve in reality, he offered in The Laws a model for a city guided by reason embodied in law.  (Even here he did not trust any particular system so added the Nocturnal Council, a group to be guided by philosophy to meet at night and review that was done during the day.)  In The Statesman, he offers a model for rule by an individual guided by knowledge.  But such a person would also be hard to find achieving or holding power.


Next week: Aristotle: Political Ideals

Freud and Plato - The Politics of the Soul (Pt 1)

Freud -- with Marx, Darwin and Einstein -- ranks among the intellectual fathers of the 20th Century.  The core concepts of Freudian psychoanalysis still pervade Western society.  We talk about the meaning of dreams, make "Freudian" slips, appreciate the power of unconscious desires and accept the influence of childhood experiences on the adult.  However, Freud’s relevance for the 21st Century lies more in his call for a renovation of human consciousness.  Freud's concern with the health of the soul and the support he sought to give to reason and intellect places him in a dialogue with Plato and gives psychoanalysis roots deep in Western culture.  Both Freud and Plato practiced statecraft of the soul, reforming the “inner city” that determines individual and collective character.  Both attempted to help the individual gain control over desire through establishing proper order among the parts of the soul.

As we move through these first years of the new millennium, it sometimes appears that the world has become too large, too complex and more dangerous and inhospitable every day.  We seem beset by nightmares: terrorism, fanaticism, fascism, communism, tribalism, nationalism, racism and the other -isms that have prevented us, as individuals and as societies, from thinking clearly and acting with humanity.  We paid dearly for these nightmares in the 20th century and the end is nowhere in sight.  We feel increasingly challenged to preserve a minimum sense of security and well being in the midst of the planet-wide struggle of billions of others to do the same.  In this struggle, our political systems -- the governments that oversee our domestic and foreign affairs and the organizations that connect us internationally -- often seem overwhelmed by the effort to stave off ever-threatening crises and disasters of one kind or the other.  No place, no one, no system appears immune to difficulty.  At a time when the major ideological and systemic competitors to Western liberal-democracy and free-market capitalism have collapsed, neither democracy nor the market appear to offer, by themselves, the answers we need to our many problems.

We in the West have been especially blessed by history.  But with an abundance of natural and human resources, a long and secure tradition of democracy and individual rights, and the strongest and richest mass economies the world has ever seen, we nevertheless remain afflicted by poverty, prejudice, racial injustice, declining living standards and political system mired in parochialism and shortsighted partisanship.  We have proved incapable of preventing the death of innocent men, women and children from terror, war, famine and disease -- which are, after all, largely the result of human action or inaction.  And although the world has providentially taken a step back from nuclear Armageddon, we are still poisoning our environment and degrading its capability to feed, care and comfort us.  To be fair, it is not that we are at a loss for ways to resolve many of these problems.  One can imagine solutions to most of them that could succeed if we were determined enough, worked hard enough and sacrificed enough.  Yet, when we are not dreaming, it seems naive to believe that we could ever achieve such outcomes in the "real" world.  So, our feet firmly planted on the ground, we hope for the best while fearing, more and more, the worst.

In all, it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that we have reached a point in global history that demands finding new ways to live, individually and collectively.  We have lost our faith in ourselves and in our ability to reason our way forward.  After the terrors of the 20th Century, the Enlightenment and its faith in the ability of human intellect to help us perfect our world have come to seem like a bad joke.  The nightmares have entered our very souls and made us doubt our ability to think, reason, discuss and decide with our fellow human beings the many problems that we face.  Some believe that the only response is to trust instinct, listen to our blood, and fight to protect what we have while seizing the high ground before others do so.  Reason must be rescued if we are to find a better way. 

Freud can yet help us begin.  His conception of the human soul and the conflict within us reconnects our problems with the similar concerns of Plato and Aristotle.  Freud's work recalls Socrates' invitation, in the Republic, to establish within ourselves the rule of reason without which we cannot have just and well-ordered societies.  2300 years later, this solution remains difficult to achieve.  But after all this time, we have even more cause to believe that "knowing thyself" may be the only way to leave the nightmares behind.