Chapter 16 CHAPTER XIII. THE SOURCES OF PLATO'S OPINIONS

Plato and Aristotle are the most influential of all philosophers, ancient, mediaeval, and modern; and of the two it is Plato who has exercised the greatest influence on posterity.I say this for two reasons: first, Aristotle himself was a child of Plato; second, Christian theology and philosophy, at least until the thirteenth century, were more Platonic than Ariel Stotterian.It would therefore be necessary in a history of philosophical thought to treat Plato, and to a lesser extent Aristotle, in greater detail than any of their predecessors or successors. The most important things in Plato's philosophy: first, his Utopia, the first of a long line of utopias; second, his theory of ideas, which was to solve the hitherto unresolved problem of universals The third is his argument for the immortality of the soul; the fourth is his theory of the origin of the universe; the fifth is his view of knowledge as memory rather than perception.Before proceeding to these subjects, however, I should say a few words about the circumstances of his life and the influences which determined his political and philosophical views.

Plato was born in 428-7 BC, the earliest years of the Peloponnesian War.He was a well-to-do nobleman, connected with many of the characters involved in the reign of the Thirty Tyrants.He was a youth when Athens was defeated; he blamed the defeat on democracy, which his social position and his family ties easily led him to despise.He was a student of Socrates, and he had a deep respect and love for Socrates; and Socrates was sentenced to death by democracy.It is not surprising, therefore, that he turned to Sparta for shadows of his Utopia.Plato had a knack for embellishing those narrow arguments so that they could deceive posterity; posterity praised his "Nation", but never realized what he actually contained in his arguments.To praise Plato - but not to understand Plato - is always right.This is the common fate of great men.My goal is just the opposite.I want to understand him, but pay him as little respect as if he were a modern-day Englishman or American preaching totalitarianism.The purely philosophical influences on Plato were bound to favor Sparta as well.These influences, roughly speaking, are: Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus, and Socrates.

From Pythagoras (whether through Socrates or not) Plato derived the Orphic elements of his philosophy, the religious tendencies, the belief in the immortality of the soul, the spirit of the otherworldly, the ecclesiastical sentiments. And all the ideas contained in his metaphor of the cave, and his respect for mathematics and his intimate interweaving of reason and mysticism. From Parmenides he derived the belief that reality is eternal and timeless; and that all change must be illusory on logical grounds. From Heraclitus he got that negative doctrine that nothing in the world of sense is permanent.This, combined with the teaching of Parmenides, leads to the conclusion that knowledge is not acquired by the senses, but only by the intellect.This in turn fits closely with Pythagoreanism.

From Socrates he probably learned his primary concern with ethical questions and his attempt to find a teleological rather than a mechanistic explanation of the world. "Goodness" dominated his thinking far more than "goodness" dominated the thinking of Socrates' predecessors, and this fact is hard not to attribute to Socrates' influence. How does all this relate to political authoritarianism? First: both "good" and "reality" are timeless, and the best state is that which, by virtue of the least degree of change and the greatest degree of static perfection, is the most imitative of the celestial model , and its ruler should be the one who can best understand the eternal "good".

Next: Plato, like all mystics, had in his beliefs a core of certainty which is essentially incommunicable except by means of a way of life.The Pythagoreans had tried to lay down a rule for the novice, which in the final analysis was exactly what Plato wanted.If one is to be a good statesman, one must know "the good"; and this can only be done if one combines intellectual training with moral training.If men without this training are allowed to take part in government, they will inevitably corrupt politics. Third: To create a good ruler according to Plato's principles requires a lot of education.It seems unwise to us to insist on teaching geometry to the Syracusan tyrant Dionysius the Younger in order to make him a good king; but from Plato's point of view, This is the most essential thing.He was a complete Pythagorean in that no true wisdom was possible without mathematics.This view implies oligarchy.

Fourth: Plato, like most of the Greek philosophers, held leisure to be the chief condition of wisdom; therefore wisdom cannot be sought from those who are obliged to work in order to live, but only from those who enjoy Individuals with independent means of subsistence, or those whose livelihood is borne by the state so that they do not have to worry about their livelihood.This view is aristocratic in nature. When comparing Plato with modern thought, two general questions arise. The first is: Is there such a thing as "wisdom"?The second is: Suppose there is such a thing, can a constitution be contrived to give it political power?

"Wisdom" in this sense would not be any particular skill, such as that possessed by a shoemaker, or a doctor, or a military strategist.It must be something more general than these skills, for this mastery of wisdom is supposed to enable a man to govern wisely.I thought Plato would say that wisdom consists in the knowledge of the "good"; and he would supplement this definition with Socrates' teaching that no one sins knowingly, and therefore whoever knows what is good will do the right thing.Such a view seems to us to be far from reality.It would be more natural to say that there are divergent interests, and that statesmen should strive for the most practicable compromises.Members of a class or a nation may have a common interest, but it often conflicts with the interests of other classes or nations.There are, no doubt, some unanimous interests of mankind, but these interests are not sufficient to determine political action.Perhaps they will someday be so, but as long as there are sovereign states, they will never be so.And even then, the most difficult part of pursuing the general interest will be how to find a compromise among competing special interests.

But even if we suppose that there is such a thing as "wisdom," is there any form of constitution that places government in the hands of wise men?It is obvious that majorities (e.g., plenary meetings, etc.) can make mistakes, and in fact do make mistakes.Aristocracy is not always wise, and princes always foolish; the Pope, in spite of his infallibility, has made many grave mistakes.Does anyone advocate leaving government to college graduates, or even to Doctors of Divinity?Or to those who were born poor, but made a fortune?It is quite evident that in practice no single citizen of legal choice can be wiser than the people as a whole.It might be suggested that political wisdom can be acquired by proper training.But then the question arises: what is proper training?And that, in the final analysis, is a partisan issue.

The problem of finding a group of "wise" men and entrusting government to them is therefore an insoluble problem.This is the ultimate reason for supporting democracy.