Those who are only perfunctorily acquainted with Plato and have not read his Dialogues with attention and sufficient comprehension may have developed an impression that the main focus of his political philosophy is the Philosopher-King, that is, the enlightened make-believe ruler of the make-believe realm of his wishful thinking. In fact, Plato’s political ideas are by no means naïve and childish. The centerpiece of his political philosophy is not the Philosopher-King, but the all-powerful State, drawing its strength from its enthusiastic majority supporters (all for one and one for all!) and “democratically” suppressed opposition. Whereas the Philosopher-King is a distinctly authoritarian concept, the State is the consummate totalitarian concept, and those who do not understand, or do not want to acknowledge this basic distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism (and the combined number of the confused and their confusers is shockingly great!) must not be allowed as legitimate debaters in any serious discussion of the concept of totalitarianism.
It is exactly because of his insistence on the supremacy of the State that I see Plato as the first great theorist of totalitarianism. Remarkably, his successor as king of philosophy Aristotle follows in his footsteps, but he goes even further.
Plato was the first to suggest that, in the absence of the philosopher-king, the rule of law is preferable to the rule of the monarch’s whim. Aristotle developed this idea in his precise scientific manner, highlighting the fact that even the best of men is still an animal (be that the best of animals!), and therefore, the rule of law is better than the rule of any man. Let us now try to put these things in some order, starting with his probably best-known quotation, from Politics:
“Man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but when separated from law and justice he is the worst of all since armed injustice is the most dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with the arms of intelligence and wit, moral qualities which he may use for the worst ends…”
Here is Aristotle’s argument in favor of the rule of law over the rule of man:
“The rule of law is preferable to that of a single citizen for he who bids law rule may be deemed to bid God and reason alone rule, but he who bids men rule adds the element of the beast; for desire is a wild beast, and passion perverts the minds of rulers, even if they are the best of men.”
Thus dismissing even “the best of men” as just “the best of animals,” Aristotle, like Plato, elevates the role of the State, but goes an extra mile rationalizing its supremacy. Although the State is historically posterior to the family, it is philosophically anterior to it, as the whole is anterior to its parts. The imagery here is of a living organism (the hand is no longer a hand, Aristotle argues, if the body is destroyed), foreshadowing Hobbes, whose opprobrium of “Aristotelity” does not prevent him from borrowing the same “Aristotelian” imagery in the opening cannonade of his Leviathan.
No man can fulfill his destiny, to Aristotle, unless he is part of the State, which is properly moralized: “The end of the State is a good life.” Because the State embodies the Law, the rule of Law, Aristotle’s imperative desideratum, can be identified with the rule of the State, and now we have our second totalitarian in a row!
...Plato and Aristotle… Kakïye Imená!!! Why doesn’t everyone wish to join them in becoming totalitarians?
But, joking aside, how about answering the last question on philosophical, rather than emotional grounds? It will be not enough to dismiss the great Greeks’ totalitarian predilection just on the grounds of two millennia plus between us. Unlike, say, slavery, which was a dated “resident evil” of epochs gone by, the phenomenon of the State is very much with us and will apparently stay with us till the end of time, and so will the debate about the parameters of the State’s role in human society. Therefore everything said on this perennial matter by the greatest minds of antiquity is still relevant today, and, paradoxically, comes across far more elaborate and sophisticated than any such discussion in modern times, overshadowed and shackled by the ever-vigilant watchdogs of political correctness.
It is exactly because of his insistence on the supremacy of the State that I see Plato as the first great theorist of totalitarianism. Remarkably, his successor as king of philosophy Aristotle follows in his footsteps, but he goes even further.
Plato was the first to suggest that, in the absence of the philosopher-king, the rule of law is preferable to the rule of the monarch’s whim. Aristotle developed this idea in his precise scientific manner, highlighting the fact that even the best of men is still an animal (be that the best of animals!), and therefore, the rule of law is better than the rule of any man. Let us now try to put these things in some order, starting with his probably best-known quotation, from Politics:
“Man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but when separated from law and justice he is the worst of all since armed injustice is the most dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with the arms of intelligence and wit, moral qualities which he may use for the worst ends…”
Here is Aristotle’s argument in favor of the rule of law over the rule of man:
“The rule of law is preferable to that of a single citizen for he who bids law rule may be deemed to bid God and reason alone rule, but he who bids men rule adds the element of the beast; for desire is a wild beast, and passion perverts the minds of rulers, even if they are the best of men.”
Thus dismissing even “the best of men” as just “the best of animals,” Aristotle, like Plato, elevates the role of the State, but goes an extra mile rationalizing its supremacy. Although the State is historically posterior to the family, it is philosophically anterior to it, as the whole is anterior to its parts. The imagery here is of a living organism (the hand is no longer a hand, Aristotle argues, if the body is destroyed), foreshadowing Hobbes, whose opprobrium of “Aristotelity” does not prevent him from borrowing the same “Aristotelian” imagery in the opening cannonade of his Leviathan.
No man can fulfill his destiny, to Aristotle, unless he is part of the State, which is properly moralized: “The end of the State is a good life.” Because the State embodies the Law, the rule of Law, Aristotle’s imperative desideratum, can be identified with the rule of the State, and now we have our second totalitarian in a row!
...Plato and Aristotle… Kakïye Imená!!! Why doesn’t everyone wish to join them in becoming totalitarians?
But, joking aside, how about answering the last question on philosophical, rather than emotional grounds? It will be not enough to dismiss the great Greeks’ totalitarian predilection just on the grounds of two millennia plus between us. Unlike, say, slavery, which was a dated “resident evil” of epochs gone by, the phenomenon of the State is very much with us and will apparently stay with us till the end of time, and so will the debate about the parameters of the State’s role in human society. Therefore everything said on this perennial matter by the greatest minds of antiquity is still relevant today, and, paradoxically, comes across far more elaborate and sophisticated than any such discussion in modern times, overshadowed and shackled by the ever-vigilant watchdogs of political correctness.
No comments:
Post a Comment