Philosophers Against Philosophizing -Will Brady
Alright, so while writing this blog my brain railroaded in no fewer than six different directions, and the end I reached was most definitely not the end I had in mind when I started writing, nor even the same subject. I love and hate this book, it's pulling my brain in too many directions at once.
Ah, Book VIII. The part where Socrates basically says that if the perfect city begins to decompose, people will look around and say "The Republic? THIS. IS. SPARTAAAAAAA!" Because yes, according to Socrates' hierarchy of just governments, The Republic will devolve directly into Sparta. Then into an oligarchy. Then into... Athens? Alright, so Athens wasn't a "real" democracy (neither is America, by the way; that's going to be a tempting comparison, but America is a Constitutional Democratic Republic with three branches of government, including an elected bicameral legislature and a lone man as a chief executive authority--it's a bit more complicated), but it still falls somewhere in this area as the third-most-unjust form of society. Given that Athens gave rise to Socrates, his followers, and philosophy as the world knows it, I find that to be an interesting stance.
Good old Athens was the center of higher learning in Greece--granted, it still killed Socrates for trying to teach men more than they wanted to know, but that's nothing compared with how Sparta treated its youth. Hyper-militaristic training programs from childhood onward saw children excel or get beaten for not living up to standards. The weak are left to die off. Yet people still cling to their given positions in life, so this government is the second-most-just despite its cruel treatment of its own people. On the other hand is democracy. The problem here? Too much wealth and freedom. Life is too easy, according to Socrates, and that breeds laziness. It might give rise to anarchy and, on page 249, Socrates mentions its horrible crime of "granting equality to equal and unequals alike." But is anarchy any less harsh than Spartan militarism or the Republic's aborting and euthanizing?
The main difference between the three here is that the barbarisms of Sparta and the Republic are state-dictated, whereas democracy devolving into anarchy is not. This is an extraordinarily bad path to be treading; following this reasoning, it holds that justice lies with a strong government acting in what is deemed the best interests of the people. This is the government dictating morality altogether. "Murder is bad... unless we say otherwise." This goes hand-in-hand with his remark about "giving equality to equals and unequals alike"; it's only okay when the government decides the worth of individual lives, not the people themselves. Is this any worse than anarchy? Well, no, mob rule does the same. But is it any better? No, because mob rule does the same. Kill and destroy as you see fit, and everyone left will be happy in the end.
The more time Socrates spends comparing his "perfect" government to other governments, the worse it becomes in my mind. When it comes right down to it, Socrates becomes the one trying to keep people from philosophizing of their own accord; only the people who see things the way he does are the "real" philosophers, and that goes against philosophy itself.
P.S. I commented on Zelda and Kayla's posts.
Ah, Book VIII. The part where Socrates basically says that if the perfect city begins to decompose, people will look around and say "The Republic? THIS. IS. SPARTAAAAAAA!" Because yes, according to Socrates' hierarchy of just governments, The Republic will devolve directly into Sparta. Then into an oligarchy. Then into... Athens? Alright, so Athens wasn't a "real" democracy (neither is America, by the way; that's going to be a tempting comparison, but America is a Constitutional Democratic Republic with three branches of government, including an elected bicameral legislature and a lone man as a chief executive authority--it's a bit more complicated), but it still falls somewhere in this area as the third-most-unjust form of society. Given that Athens gave rise to Socrates, his followers, and philosophy as the world knows it, I find that to be an interesting stance.
Good old Athens was the center of higher learning in Greece--granted, it still killed Socrates for trying to teach men more than they wanted to know, but that's nothing compared with how Sparta treated its youth. Hyper-militaristic training programs from childhood onward saw children excel or get beaten for not living up to standards. The weak are left to die off. Yet people still cling to their given positions in life, so this government is the second-most-just despite its cruel treatment of its own people. On the other hand is democracy. The problem here? Too much wealth and freedom. Life is too easy, according to Socrates, and that breeds laziness. It might give rise to anarchy and, on page 249, Socrates mentions its horrible crime of "granting equality to equal and unequals alike." But is anarchy any less harsh than Spartan militarism or the Republic's aborting and euthanizing?
The main difference between the three here is that the barbarisms of Sparta and the Republic are state-dictated, whereas democracy devolving into anarchy is not. This is an extraordinarily bad path to be treading; following this reasoning, it holds that justice lies with a strong government acting in what is deemed the best interests of the people. This is the government dictating morality altogether. "Murder is bad... unless we say otherwise." This goes hand-in-hand with his remark about "giving equality to equals and unequals alike"; it's only okay when the government decides the worth of individual lives, not the people themselves. Is this any worse than anarchy? Well, no, mob rule does the same. But is it any better? No, because mob rule does the same. Kill and destroy as you see fit, and everyone left will be happy in the end.
The more time Socrates spends comparing his "perfect" government to other governments, the worse it becomes in my mind. When it comes right down to it, Socrates becomes the one trying to keep people from philosophizing of their own accord; only the people who see things the way he does are the "real" philosophers, and that goes against philosophy itself.
P.S. I commented on Zelda and Kayla's posts.
I also found Socrates' stance on Athens to be really interesting. Did he really take their loss in the Peloponnesian War that personally? Personally, I feel that he wouldn't be so convinced of Sparta's greatness if he was living in it and experiencing its harshness firsthand. The more he talks, the less I like what he's saying, and I can't say that I was ever on board with it in the first place.
ReplyDeleteYour closing, where you say that Socrates is against others who do not think identical him made some sense. Socrates is very charismatic and well-thought as a philosopher, but it does tread a very fragile line -- how far can you go in trying to convince others of why your argument is correct before you become narrow minded. They basic premise of holding an opinion is believing you are right and that someone else's opinion is wrong while still holding to the possibility of being changed. Socrates, on the other hand, seems to take his ideas and opinions as facts, which is a direct opposite of philosophical arguments. So while his opinions of Sparta and Athens and the governments are well-thought, they are also unable to be changed in the face of common sense or because of the ideas you presented, because Socrates seems to be incapable of listening to other people.
ReplyDeleteSocrates does set himself up as the proverbial gad fly though. He is setting up opinions that are very unpopular with his companions. I don't necessarily think he fully thinks what he says is true. I think he just wants to provoke thought. That, after all is the purpose of philosophy.
ReplyDelete