Esoteric Roman v. Greek Ranting (was Philosophers)

[Tichy]

Right: an earlier version of my post specified how Plato thought of the "best" but I yanked it to not go on too long. Best = morally and intellectually disciplined, motivated by the Good, undesirous of wealth and physical pleasure, and uncorruptible. Oh, and, to *not* want political power.

But Plato is maddeningly ambiguous about lying; in general he comes out utterly opposed to it, but then seems completely willing to have leaders tell followers things that aren't true as long as belief in those things will lead the people towards what is truly good.

If someone criticizes elitist or undemocratic elements in Plato's politics, they're not critiquing present-day political ideals -- according to you, they're just misreading Plato. That's been the nature of our debate. I think it's misreading Plato to take him as straightforwardly advocating modern democratic political ideals. There are things in his dialogues that strongly influence those ideals, but he also says things that seem to advocate top-down, undemocratic governance -- and have influenced thinkers who favor those types of governance.

If what you say is true about Popper, he shares one feature of Marx's view, but not the essential stuff about alienated labor, class conflict, and revolution. And to be fair, Marx considered the one-party 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to be a temporary waypoint on the road to freedom...it's just that no existing or extinct communist state ever seemed to get past it.

Going on too long my specialty...

[noname]

Not to mention that just about every communist state killed millions in purges, gulags, and artificially induced famines.
It's funny that we should be debating this... your location reads Moscow, but it isn't Russia; it's Idaho. Are you at the university there, Tichy?

[Tichy]

Yessir.

[Tichy]

And it's also funny we've gone full circle, from is Plato a "Platonist"? to is Marx a "Marxist"? (Or at least is Marx responsible for Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot? He certainly wouldn't have been happy to find out about them...)

[HoneyBadger]

If this quite fascinating debate ever does get thrown off this thread for being off-topic, you're more than welcome to move it over to my history of the multiverse thread.

My opinion on Socrates is that he simply envisioned the "best" government being one in which he would have a place he would most enjoy.

He was a teacher of morality. One either becomes a teacher of morality by believing that "God" has made you "right"-which was clearly not the case with Socrates, and has it's own set of problems attached to it, or you do by being driven to it by your consciousness because you're able to see the evil around you, compare it to the evil inside yourself, and come to a conclusion that, through reason, and reasonable men, there's got to be a better way.

He didn't want to lead society as a leader, he just wanted to teach the leaders of the society, and turn them into men "who know the good" so they could go forth and lead society in good directions, and make his own life less complicated in the process.

This national vision gave him a place of value and respect in a society where he'd be able to live a life he'd enjoy living, while at the same time, separating him from those aspects of leadership he found undesireable-namely, absolving him from taking the head spot and all the headaches, etc. that would go along with it.

Democracy was a path to the position he desired in the society-as opposed to strictly an end result-because, as a poor mason/soldier/laborer/whatever, he was limited by his position in an arbitrarily classed society, but less so if he were able to drive the vehicle of an established democracy-wherein, we must remember, military service was required-and which he already had done his time.

Socrates was building a nation around himself, to fit himself, in my opinion, thus invoking the old maxim that "everybody wants to rule the world."

(Keeping in mind that he just wanted to rule it in a more abstract way, as part of a greater, and less fallable, governing machine.)

He wanted what he wasn't ever really able to obtain-a comfortable life of less stress and more respect where he could just exist, occasionally advise, and seek happiness, rather than having to fight for ideals he was driven to fight for by both his intellect and reasonability, and his consciousness as a "man who knew the good".

Plato, in the end, was smart enough and perhaps disillusioned enough by the death-and manner of death-of Socrates to understand that, despite all of Socrates' hopes for himself and everyone, and for all his upstanding character and ideals, ultimately the world would not allow such a society to exist within Socrates' lifetime, if ever, thus we come to Plato's concept of a "Utopia".

[Tichy]

I think a lot of that is right, HoneyBadger, but what it leaves out is the dirty Athenian politics on both sides and the crisis facing Athens at the end of the Peloponnesian War -- and the role of Socrates being supposedly the teacher of Athens' greatest traitor, Alcibiades.

To oversimplify, there were two factions in Athens, the oligarchs and the democrats. From all appearances there are both honest men and hypocritical political gamers on both sides. The oligarchs perceive or present themselves as opposed to a democracy gone corrupt in terms like Plato's "Socrates" diagnoses sophistry. The best analogy he gives in the Republic is something like: "Athens is like a ship that has two kinds of people on it, people who know how to steer the ship and want to steer it well, and people who know how to personally profit by convincing people they know how to steer the ship. Guess who's steering the ship?"

But the democrats perceive themselves as opposing first of all turning Athens into a Spartan client-state -- the oligarchs came to admire the Spartan manner of government, hence Plato's claim in Republic that the second *best* style of government is rule by militarily-disciplined "guardians." Secondly they perceived themselves as opposing rule by a wealthy elite, which is what most of the oligarchic supporters were.

Alcibiades expertly played these two factions off of one another -- for a while -- first being one of Athens' greatest generals, then, either perceiving defeat looming, or more profit elsewhere, collaborated with the Spartans and corresponding with oligarchic elements in Athens. Later on, after he ticks off the Spartans for reasons I can't remember, he takes up camp with the Persians and tries to rehabilitate himself in Athens by convincing the Persian king to send aid. (While of course telling the Persian king to only send enough aid to *prolong* the already 20+ yr war instead of allow Athens to win it.)

Long story long, by the time the Athenians had finally restored the democracy and ousted the second oligarchy, the "thirty", anyone associated with the oligarchs, and especially with old Al, was in for it, unless they embarked on a lickety-split under the table rehabilitation with the new old regime. (Exactly the kind of thing Socrates wouldn't do. Which is why if you read the dialogues surrounding his death, his friends are constantly saying 'this doesn't need to happen, just let us, um, *talk* to some people for you...')

But also by this time both sides had committed political purges and all other manner of evil, so no one's hands were clean. Except *maybe* Socrates', if we take his defense in the Apology at its word and he scrupulously held himself above the fray.

This is one reason why Plato always draws a distinction between "teaching" and what Socrates did. Socrates didn't *teach* Alcibiades, he went around town asking prominent people questions that revealed their ignorance of things they really should know if they're going to run a government (and thus revealed their hypocrisy in claiming to know it)...is it his fault that young men of leisure enjoyed listening to these exchanges, and followed him around?

[HoneyBadger]

I find it very interesting that, considering the life he lived, he had so many friends around him.

In today's society, can you imagine a bunch of prominent citizens attending not only the funeral, but the suicide of a politically dissident, atheistic, out of favor troublemaker?

It says something about his personality, that not only were they all trying to stop him, but that he went along with it anyway.

There's maybe a distinction between what he did and teach, but if I were a teacher, I'd much rather 1: be teaching politically important individuals, and 2: I'd much rather give them reasons and opportunities to learn the answers to questions themselves, than force-feed them knowledge. It's a lot more efficient, and generally more effective.