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

Notes on "A History of Political Theory" -- Episode 3

For episode 2 see here.

 Theory of the City-State

III.Plato: The Republic
 A. Elaborated from Socrates the belief that there is a discoverable, objective
      good life for the individual and the polis
 B. Political philosophy is the effort to discover this 'good life'
 C. Plato's version primarily found in The Republic, Statesman and Laws (written
      in that order)
 D. The Republic concerns the good man and the good life and the means for
      knowing what these are and how to attain them
       1.Political theory of The Republic an over simplified version of the later
        presentation. Plato's fundamental focus was the soul (psych, the inner polis]
       2. The good is objectively real, will is secondary
       3. Man with knowledge of the good ought to have decisive power in the polis
       4. Association of man with man in society depends on reciprocal needs and
          resulting exchange of goods and services.
       5. Philosopher attends to his share of the work, three classes are all
         necessary
       6. Class-based specialization of function depends on natural aptitude and
         training (whereby the given is made better) 
       7. Two parts of the theory:
           i. government ought to be art (techne) depending on exact knowledge 
           ii. society is mutual satisfaction of needs by persons whose capacities
              supplement each other
 E. The public is the great sophist
       1. Man has a split nature, higher and lower
       2. Politicians, especially in a democracy, are ignorant and  incompetent
       3. The incompetence of popular opinion ought to be countered through
        education -- the coupling of questioning and training
 F. Factional conflict arises from class, property owners vs the poor
 G. The Republic presented the 'ideal city' because it was important for the
      statesman -- the 'physician' of the state  -- to know the healthy city
       1. Plato wanted to establish the art of politics
       2. The ideal city modeled along the lines of geometry and ideal types
 H. Conceived society as a system of services in which every member both gives
      and receives
       1. Men have many wants
       2. No man is self-sufficient
       3. The state seeks to arrange the most adequate satisfaction of needs and
        most harmonious interchange of services
 I. Man receives freedom not for exercise of free will as much as for the practice
    of his calling (given by nature)
       1. Exchange implies division of labor
       2. Man has natural aptitudes which become skills when men apply them-
        selves to what they are given, as they work at it.
       3. Philosopher rules because his knowledge is at once his right and duty to
        do so
       4. Assumes that properly educated, man is not anti- or unsocial and can live
        in harmony.
           i. Man and the state have underlying structure
           ii. These structures are parallel, what is good for one is prevented from
             being different from what is good for the other (the polis is the individual
             "writ large)
 J. The division of labor necessitates division into three classes
       1. Workers and Guardians (divided into soldiers and rulers) 
       2. Rulers were source of sound knowledge of the good leaving the others as
         political onlookers
 K. Justice is the bond holding society together
       1. All should fill the station to which he is entitled
       2. "giving to every man his due"
           i. Man should be due treatment as what he is, in light of his capacity
             and training
           ii. Due from him is an honest performance of tasks which place accorded
             him requires
       3. What is due is based on services performed not power or "rights"
  L. The task becomes reaching perfect balance between human beings and
      possibilities of significant employment that the state affords 
       1. Achieved by removing hindrances to good citizenship; and
       2. Creating positive conditions of good citizenship through education
 M.  Achieved for rulers through 'communism'
       1. Prohibited from holding private property
       2. Abolition of permanent monogamous sexual relations
       3. Controlled breeding
       4. Wealth equalized to remove disturbing influence on government, along
          with abolition of family (affection)
 N. Education is the positive means to direct human nature
       1. Main reliance placed here
       2. State would control compulsory education
       3. Elementary till age 20, gymnastics and "music" as training, direct or
          indirect, for the mind
 O. The Republic has been eternally the voice of the scholar, as such overly
      simplified, leaving out human dignity and the person
 P. Omits law and influence of public opinion 

Next week: Plato: The Statesman and The Laws
   

 
       
      

Notes on "A History of Political Theory" by George Holland Sabine -- Episode 2

For episode 1 see here.

 Theory of the City-State

II. Political Thought Before Plato (5th century BC)
 A. Political discussion was very widespread and popular
       1. Already three-fold classification of forms of government existed:
           monarchy, aristocracy, democracy. 
       2. Two centuries prior saw active party (class) struggle and rapid 
           constitutional change.
       3. Awareness of economic nature of conflict between democrats (favoring
           overseas commerce) vs landed aristocrats 
 B. Assumptions of pre-philosophy period affected later political thought
       1. Basic ideas of harmony and proportion applied both to physical ethical
           matters
       2. Sophists and Socrates reflected movement from concern with physical
           world to humanism.  [Note: Bruno Snell's The Discovery of the Mind: The
           Greek Origins of European Thought traced the emergence of reason and
           philosophy from the Homeric epics through the pre-classic lyric poets 
           (Sappho) and the tragedians (Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides).] 
       3. Protagoras:  "Man is the measure of all things, of what is that is and of 
           what is not that is not."
       4. Search for essential physical substance that underlies appearance
           became search for "law of nature" -- permanence amid change, unity 
           amid the manifold
       5. Issues became about defining 'the natural' and 'nature versus convention'
           (God vs man) 
       6. Sophist Antiphon saw law (justice) as convention and contrary to
           nature which was egoism 
       7. Contrary view saw justice and right inherent in human beings
 C. Socrates moved suggestive ideas into explicit philosophy
       1. Believed that virtue (arete) equaled knowledge
       2. Pursued precise definition
       3. His vision of rational science of politics picked up by Plato

Next week:  Plato: The Republic

Notes on "A History of Political Theory" by George Holland Sabine

For the next few months, I will be recording here notes made in grad school on A History of Political Theory by George Holland Sabine. 

Theory of the City-State

I. City State - Greek political theory
  A. Small territory dominated by single city (the polis) of up to 300 thousand
  B. Three politically & legally distinct classes
       1. Not great amount of leisure due to narrow economic margin
       2. Lower standard of consumption
       3. At the bottom, slaves
       4. Next resident foreigner (metic) and freemen, but neither citizens
       5. Citizens were members of the polis and entitled to take part in its political life
 C. Citizenship
       1. Membership -- some minimum share of participation in public business
       2. Extent of membership shared based on the degree of democracy that prevailed
 D. Political Problem "to discover what place each kind or class of men merited in a
      wholesome society so constituted that all the significant sorts of social work could go
      on."
 E. Political Institutions of Athens
       1. Assembly (Ecclesia) -- male citizens of 20 years, meeting 10+ times a year
       2. Magistrates -- boards of ten from ten tribes, not re-electable
       3. Body of citizens of cross-section from whole could act for all for short periods
       4. Courts of large popular juries
       5. Council of Fine Hundred -- executive/steering committee of the Assembly
       6. Demes (wards) -- units of local government, hereditary membership.  Presented
           candidates to fill bodies of the central government
       7. Filling of office from panel (by lot) elected by the demes in rough proportion to
           their size. (Important democratic feature as seen by Greeks as lot equalized chances
           to hold office.)
       8. Ten generals (strategoi) chosen by direct election, re-electable. (Also served as
           military governor when needed.)
 F. Assembly
       1. Council of 500 acted as executive
       2. The 500 divided into ten groups of 50 (based on tribe plus one each from the nine
           other tribes) which rotated actual business for 1/10 of term
       3. President (epistates) chosen by lot from the 50 for only one day (and only once in
           lifetime)
 G. Courts (the Heliaia)
       1. Judicial power in civil or criminal cases
       2. Chosen by lot from 6000 elected each year from demes
       3. Range in size from 201-501
       4. Not appealable since courts acted in name of the whole people
       5. Had authority over magistrates (chosen by lot) who performed administrative
           duties and were examined before taking office, subject to review and audited at
           end of term for use of public funds by the courts
       6. Court could judge a law & quash it as it was equal to the Assembly in both being
           identical to the people
 H. Political ideas/ideals (Athenian
       1. Polis was the highest interest to which men could devote themselves.
       2. Constitution was "mode of life" not a legal structure.
       3. All should, & most desired, to participate.
       4. All citizens should have equal opportunity to hold office.
       5. All should blend to achieve a harmonious common life, the highest goal & chief
           joy of every citizen.
       6. Rights belonged to his station, not attributes of the individual person.
       7. Obligations not forced by state but flow from need to realize his own potentialities.
       8. Freedom & respect for law were basic values.
       9. Belief in discussion as the best way to come to public decision.
       10. "The processes of government are the processes of impartial law which is binding
           because it is right."

Next week:  Political Thought before Plato

A Conclusion to a Still Unwritten Book: The End?

I previously have suggested that the universe seems to have been designed and that this therefore implies a designer. Following this supposition further leads to two fundamental questions: where did the designer come from and why might it have designed and launched the universe we inhabit. Subsidiary questions might include what materials and tools did the designer use and what can be said of the designer? We might also wonder if the designer watches or cares for us or has any of the other attributes humans have often associated with their gods such as being infinitely powerful, wise, kind, all knowing, loving, good etc?

Before taking a stab at these questions, it is worth noting that physicists and cosmologists are also trying to peer behind the curtain of creation. String theorists are still seeking – despite a lack of any experimental evidence offered by current high energy physics – to reconcile relativity and quantum physics and thereby explain the menagerie of observed elementary particles and forces. Recently, they have found a set of one quadrillion possible solutions to string equations within a ten-dimensional spacetime that have “the same set of matter particles as exists in our universe.” But there remains no experimental evidence or process for deciding which of these quadrillion, if any, may be applicable to the observed reality.

Also, for the past decade or so, cosmologists have been looking at alternatives to the inflationary scenario of the post-Big Bang universe. Inflation explains features of the cosmic background radiation. However, it does not explain from where the Big Bang itself arose beyond the suggestion that it came from some quantum fluctuation within a primordial singularity. An attractive alternative to having to explain any sort of a beginning is to assume that the Big Bang was simply our side of a “bounce” or “collision” between universes.

All these efforts to explain what might otherwise appear to be an amazing Goldilocks universe – in which all the elemental particles and forces seem to lead to the evolution of complexity and the seeming inevitability of life – must in the end still suppose something unexplained and just given: a multidimensional universe beyond ours, a singularity just sitting there at the beginning of time or a series of bouncing universes just following one another. (This latter leaves aside the issue of dark energy’s apparent speeding up of the expansion of our universe so that it never reverses into a big crunch. Instead, it seems that eventually – in some enormous 10 to the 100th years – matter will have broken down and even black holes will be warmer than space and radiate away with a final pop.)

It might also be worth pausing to wonder why the universe would have to be designed rather than simply “wished” into being as befitting an all-powerful “god.” Put another way, why would a creator need to design a universe using materials and processes that we would find understandable as laws of physics? Was the designer constrained in some way – perhaps by some preexisting Platonic Forms – to act through means such as singularities and Higgs fields?

Occam’s Razor suggests to me that we simply acknowledge that our universe seems to have a design discoverable by science and wonder about the designer. Following this line of inquiry, I return to considering where might have the designer come from and why might it have designed and launched the universe we inhabit?

It seems to me that there is no way to answer the where question. One must either posit that there never was an original moment of creation or accept that there was such a moment and recognize it as an uncaused first cause. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Either the designer was caused – by what, from where? – or was itself the First Cause. This seems to me the unanswerable question behind all others and thus the essential mystery at the bottom of all science, religion and philosophy.

The why question may be somewhat more amenable. Consider that the universe does appear to have been designed and put into action according to the physical laws thereby built into it. Could it be a grand simulation to test theories of good and evil, a complex and especially vivid dream or simply a work of art? Might it be a majestic theater on which a countless number of actors play our parts and then disappear off stage thus making the designer a cosmic Shakespeare? Or might it have been set in motion for the consciousness behind the design to dump itself into to avoid an endless eternity of loneliness and thereby undergo an almost endless series of experiences acted through everyone and everything? I myself drift toward the last suggestion and to the possibility of a universe in which consciousness is primordial and attaches to everything with mass (a kind of panpsychism). Life would offer the most interesting existence. So perhaps the designer looks out through the being of everything, in a sense making us all “children of god?”

One last question, does love come into it at all. Does the designer love its creation or any part of it, such as us? If the cosmic consciousness is in everything, then it may be essentially a matter of self-love, even when we “love” one another. I believe we exist as individuals and we love as such. Our capability – indeed need – to love suggests it is somehow built into the design.

Another Interlude: Sunlight and People Passing by a Bus Stop

On a recent late winter morning, I found myself standing at my bus stop with time to spare. A sunny day, despite the chill, led me to feel and see the sunlight for what it appears to be. For it originates from our local star some 93 million miles away. That distant star – 93 million miles is so far away that is takes that light nine minutes to reach us – shines so brightly that it brings our daytime existence into fully luminous reality stronger than any light source produced by man or earth-bound nature. That we have this eternal and free source of light seemed freshly amazing to me at that moment. Now, one can argue, quite rightly, that the light of the sun appears bright and sufficient for our purposes because after several hundred million years eyes have evolved in response to what was available. But it also illuminates Mars and even Pluto is a way that allows us – via our cameras – to see what they look like on their surface. I’m just saying….

Under that light, I watched people going by on their own business. And, again, not a novel thought, but I saw each of them as the center of a universe as real as the one I see myself in the center of. All of us self-contained, full blown individual realities rushing past each other.  In the day-to-day crush of people and events in the 21^st Century, the tendency to solipsism may not be just my sin.

A Conclusion to a Still Unwritten Book: An Interlude

What are we and what were we made for? For some, this question may be neither important nor interesting. That we exist is its own reality and sufficient explanation. The universe exists because it has always existed, no need to consider any creation story. One such person, a good friend, suggested after reading my previous post that I read Why Does the World Exist by Jim Holt. I had that on my bookshelf and reread it along with some Roger Penrose. These led me down some rabbit holes and thus this interlude, which I hope will eventually connect to the rest of my “conclusion.”

So, what about the Big Bang, doesn’t that seem to be a beginning requiring explanation? How can a grand explosion that became our universe be squared with an eternal universe that always existed? Well, our Big Bang might be just the most recent of a series without beginning or end, maybe one of a multi-verse of such. Perhaps “chaotic inflation” out of some “quantum fluctuation” created our universe from a tiny burp in the vacuum that “arose spontaneously from sheer nothingness.”

Or why assume, as I did in my previous, that “nothing is the more natural state because it would need no explanation.” Perhaps the universe exists because it has always existed and because nothing is itself not possible. The universe exists so why posit nothing as more natural? In any case, before the Big Bang, there was not nothing because there was no time, therefore no past. The singularity assumed to have exploded in the Big Bang was matter and energy infinitely compressed (just as it is in a black hole). Infinite compression of mass and energy means spacetime doesn’t exist so before the Big Bang there was nothing and no time. Therefore, the Big Bang requires no history.

Or perhaps the universe came into being through being observed by us. In other words, because we are here, it had to be.

None of these possibilities account for why they might have been the case. They do not explain why they should be true or what was their First Cause. But one could argue that any explanation of existence that leaves itself unexplained simply means that the ultimate wall has been reached and not that it is wrong. All explanations must end in such a explanatory wall. Just accept the one you choose.

Holt notes one rejoinder to this (Arthur Lovejoy, 1933) that if the universe existed as an accidental – it’s just-there – world – “uncertainty would infect the whole; anything...might exist and anything might happen, and no one thing would be in itself even more probable than another.” Indeed, the simplest alternative to Nothing is Everything, i.e., all possible worlds. In a multiverse of all possibilities, why not an entire universe – even ours – simple turning into chocolate cake?

Much more can be said about these conflicting positions. But as Holt notes, one way to escape the ultimate inability to provide a First Cause simply is to assume a self-explanatory something that would have to exist in order to explain everything else. That something would have to be eternal, infinite, powerful and – since the universe is ordered and includes intelligence – intelligent. In my last post, I suggested that such a thing is “what might be called God.” I should make clear that I would not suggest using that term as it carries a load of baggage that seems to me beside the point (more on that next time). I prefer to talk simply of a design and a designer.

For myself, I find the bare acceptance of a universe without explanation to be an ultimate abandonment of reason and intellect. We are capable of considering the infinite even if we cannot understand it. And I reject the notion that the effort to follow St. Thomas’ finger – science and reason – to consideration of a fundamental design and a designer is just an expression of a religious impulse. Man has long sought the answer to his Being. Religion did grow out of that but so has science and philosophy.