Ancient Philosophy

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle

The Sources of Plato's Views

Plato and Aristotle stand as the most influential philosophers across ancient, medieval, and modern times, with Plato exerting the greatest impact on subsequent eras. This assertion stems from the fact that, firstly, Aristotle himself is rooted in Plato's thought, and secondly, Christian theology and philosophy—at least until the thirteenth century—were predominantly more Platonic than Aristotelian. Thus, a comprehensive study of philosophical thought must focus more extensively on Plato and somewhat less on Aristotle compared to their predecessors or successors.

Among the paramount issues in Plato's philosophy are, firstly, his Utopia, which was the earliest in a long line of utopian visions; secondly, his theory of Forms, representing the first attempt to grapple with the still unresolved problem of universals; thirdly, his arguments for the immortality of the soul; fourthly, his cosmogony; and fifthly, his conception of knowledge, which he viewed more as a process of recollection than mere perception. However, before delving into any of these matters, I must offer a few words about the circumstances of his life and the influences that shaped his political and philosophical views.

Plato was born in 428 or 427 BCE, during the early years of the Peloponnesian War. He hailed from a wealthy aristocratic family connected to various figures involved in the rule of the Thirty Tyrants. Plato was still young when Athens suffered defeat in the war, a loss he attributed to the democracy that, given his social standing and family ties, he seemingly despised. A devoted student of Socrates, he held profound love and respect for him, especially in light of Socrates' execution by the democratic regime. It is therefore unsurprising that Plato turned to Sparta as the archetype of his ideal state. He possessed a remarkable ability to disguise his illiberal counsel, misleading many in subsequent centuries who admired his dialogue "The Republic" without grasping the implications of his prescriptions. It has long been deemed acceptable to praise Plato without truly understanding him; this, indeed, is the common fate of all great figures. My task, however, is the opposite. I seek to understand Plato while addressing him with the same irreverence one might reserve for a contemporary English or American advocate of totalitarianism.

The purely philosophical influences that shaped Plato's thinking tended to align him with the Spartan model. Broadly speaking, he was influenced by Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus, and Socrates.

From Pythagoras (perhaps through Socrates), Plato absorbed the orphic elements present in his philosophy: a religious orientation, a belief in immortality and the afterlife, a priestly tone, as well as the symbolism of the allegory of the cave, coupled with a respect for mathematics and a complete blending of the intellectual and the mystical.

From Parmenides, Plato inherited the conviction that reality is eternal and unchanging, and that any change, logically considered, must be illusory.

From Heraclitus, he borrowed the negative theory asserting that there is nothing permanent in this sensory world. This doctrine, combined with Parmenides' concept, led to the conclusion that knowledge cannot be acquired through the senses; it can only be achieved through reason. This perspective, in turn, aligns seamlessly with Pythagoreanism.

Perhaps from Socrates, Plato inherited an interest in ethical issues and a tendency to seek teleological rather than mechanical explanations of the world. The idea of "the Good" in Plato's philosophy holds greater significance than in the thought of the pre-Socratics, a fact difficult to separate from Socratic influence.

How is all this connected to authoritarianism in politics?

Firstly, since the Good and Reality are timeless, the best state would be one closest to the divine model, exhibiting minimal change and maximum statistical perfection, governed by those who best comprehend the eternal Good.

Secondly, like all mystics, Plato possesses a firm conviction in the correctness of his beliefs, which can be imparted to others solely through the influence of his way of life. The Pythagoreans aspired to establish the rule of the initiated, which, in essence, is the same desire Plato holds. For one to be a good statesman, he must know the Good; this can only be achieved through a combination of intellectual and moral education. Allowing individuals without such training to participate in governance would inevitably corrupt it.

Thirdly, a serious education is essential to cultivate a good ruler based on Plato's principles. We may find Plato's insistence on educating the younger Dionysius, the tyrant of Syracuse, in geometry in order to make him a good king to be unreasonable, yet from Plato's perspective, this was necessary. He was sufficiently Pythagorean to believe that true wisdom cannot be attained without mathematics, a view that invites oligarchy.

Fourthly, like most Greek philosophers, Plato held that leisure is necessary for the attainment of wisdom, which is therefore not found among those who must labor for their livelihood, but rather among those with independent means or those freed by the state from concern about their sustenance. This perspective is, at its core, aristocratic.

In comparing Plato's philosophy with contemporary ideas, two overarching questions arise. The first question is: does wisdom exist? The second is: if it does exist, can a political system be established that grants it political power?

"Wisdom," in the assumed sense, is not any form of specialized skill—like that of a shoemaker, doctor, or military tactician. It must be something more generalized than such a skill, as possessing it is presumed to enable one to govern wisely. I believe Plato would assert that wisdom consists in the knowledge of the Good and would augment this definition with Socratic theory, claiming that no one knowingly commits injustice, from which it follows that anyone who knows what the Good is acts rightly. This perspective appears distant from our current understanding. It would seem more natural for us to assert that conflicting interests exist and that a statesman must, at best, arrive at a compromise. Members of any class or nation may share common interests, but these usually conflict with the interests of other classes or nations. There are, of course, certain interests shared by humanity as a whole, but they are insufficient to define political action. Perhaps such a resolution will occur in the future, but it will not happen while many sovereign states exist. Even then, the most daunting challenge in pursuing common interests will be achieving compromises between mutually hostile private interests.

But even if we assume that there exists such a thing as "wisdom," is there any form of government that would bestow authority upon the wise? It is evident that the majority, as seen in a general assembly, can err—and indeed does err. Aristocracy is not always wise; kings are often foolish; and popes, despite their claimed infallibility, have made significant mistakes. Would anyone advocate for entrusting governance to those with university degrees, or even to doctors of theology, or to individuals who, having been born poor, amassed substantial wealth? Clearly, no legally defined election of citizens would, in practice, be any more wise than an election by the entire society.

One might propose that individuals could acquire political wisdom through appropriate education. Yet, this raises the question: what constitutes appropriate education? This question, in turn, would devolve into a debate over allegiance to one party or another.

Thus, the problem of identifying a select group of "wise" individuals and granting them authority is, in essence, an insoluble dilemma. This serves as a compelling argument in favor of democracy.