An informative pic for /lit/Plato advocated for more centralized system and unitary ideals; Aristotle advocated for political pluralism and a partnership of clans (which is the basis for a partnership of states in decentralized models).
>>24783826Maximum occupancy in Plato's system, under ideal conditions of civic unity, was 5040 people.
>>24783826Western understandings of decentralization comes from the institutional weakness and pluralism of the Dark and Middle Ages. Something which emerged organically, out of folk cultures rooted in the earth and context, not constructed by some philosophers from a different civilization from a thousand years ago that westerners didn’t even know about until we got their texts them from the Byzantines and Muslims. And when we finally got ahold of their works it was mostly academic monks that cared about them and whoever was in the universities of the high Middle Ages for a while until it spread outside of those confines during the early modern era. It wasn’t even until basically the last hundred years that a lay person in the west could read the works of these two.
>>24783881This is about the discussion -- not as an accident of history -- but its lineages as a debate.
>>24783826I wouldn't opposed Plato and Aristotle as opposites; they have much in common.Neither would support a Rawlsian or Nozickian liberal democracy. I think it's the nature/supernature divide in the early modern period that led us on that path. With that, all spiritual goods become an isolated sector governed by grace (particularly in Protestantism, but in the post-Reformation Roman Church as well). Election comes to be understood individually. The state then is not there to fulfill the good (telos) of man, the rational animal, but to help manage the allocation of finite goods that diminish when shared (as opposed to spiritual goods that increase when shared). Ethics becomes framed in terms of the desires/needs of the individual as over and against the community, rather than the pursuit of "becoming like onto God," which assumes that the Good is always diffusive and that virtue communicates itself outward by nature (think Plotinus taking in orphans).That's what gets you a state whose primary purpose is enabling the individual to be an individual, either by being a minimalist referee in the marketplace (conservative liberalism) or else by enabling the individual to become more individual and sever all links with custom and community they do not assent to (progressive liberalism).Both Plato and Aristotle, by contrast, ground their politics in a strong notion of man's telos and the polis as fulfilling that telos. That means there *isn't* an irresolavable pluralism. When Aristotle celebrates the "commonwealth" he is celebrating the self-determining, self-governing coalescence of the citizenry around a common good, not a pluralism where individuals chase their own privatized conception of the good in such a way as to support each other's individual pursuits (or at least avoid conflict). Recall that for Aristotle democracy is the most degenerate form of government, rule by the many for the good of the many. The modern ideal, even Fukuyama's moderated version, is still his degenerate "rule of many for the selfish pursuits of each," as opposed to the ideal "rule of the many for the good of the one (the polis itself)."
>>24784058Plato's system has no lineage beyond two corner cases. You can be a time capsule kept in vitro, like North Sentinel, or get designated as a cult and eradicated by a version of the FBI if you try to live that way within some larger political system.
>>24784288Aristotle opposes Plato's unitary model to a partnership of clans, that is a difference.Then there's Aristotle's denial that political and economical have the same science, that's a difference.Aristotle denies the rule of a wise man with his food argument, that's a difference as well.
Aristotle's water argument makes many less corruptable to few and one, meaning peer review is better.Food argument denies the philosopher king of Plato, which has for the most part set the foundation for democratic input.Aristotle also seems to prefer convention of these estates on the customs and laws rather than the need for arbiters.These are differences I think people should be keen to acknowledge.
By political pluralism, I don't necessarily mean individualism*
>>24784401It is not about historical lineage of events of and persons, but of ideas and debates.
Let me give an example:Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf -- I believe in his criticism of parliamentarianism, that Hitler is criticizing Aristotle.>Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual personality?- HitlerWhen Hitler says >Does anyone honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain of the majorityIt seems like he's taking a knock at Aristotle's food argument: because the food argument suggests that human progress does come from the concord of many and their progressive communication as an assembly of hosts.I think a good example of seeing human progress in the composite brain of the majority apart from Aristotle's food argument, but perfectly illustrates how it leads to democratic thinking:The Ancap example of the Free Market.The rule of the Free Market is thinking along Aristotle's food argument: many contributors bring more food to the table, advancing and laying the foundation of their communication and friendship enables more advantages and discoveries. --That seems like a very Aristotelian bent to me. ...The stress on Decentralization itself... is IMHO another Aristotelian attitude taken to, stressing plurality of states and hosts rather than a more unitary method...
De Jouvenel, who goes after his teacher Alexis de Tocqueville, is probably the perfect example of how covertly Aristotelian the advocates of decentralization are.Here's an example of how Aristotle's partnership of clans & Aristotle's difference of political & economical science plays into that:De Jouvenel / Monarchical vs Senatorial>According to which of these two hypotheses is adopted, the conclusion is reached that the "natural" government is either the monarchical or the senatorial. But from the time that Locke utterly smashed up Filmer's fragile structure, the earliest political authority was considere to be the senate composed of fathers of families, using the word "families" in the widest sense.>Society must, therefore, have presented two degrees of authority, which were quite different in kind. On the one hand is the head of the family, exercising the most imperious sway over all who were within the family circle. On the other are the heads of families in council, taking decisions in concert, tied to each other only by consent, submitting only to what has been determined in common, and assembling their retainers, who have outside themselves, neither law nor master, to execute their will.De Jouvenel's distinction of Monarchical vs Senatorial here is the clearest homage to Aristotle. The distinction De Jouvenel uses here is the same Aristotle uses.Aristotle:>The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head: >whereas constitutional rule is a government of freemen and equals.It follows through from Aristotle's reasoning, Whole comes prior to the part in his teleology -- that the political rule is distinct from economical rule -- that monarchy is economical unit (household unit) and political is for freemen and equals (the partnership of clans) -- political community is greater than the family or household, so monarchy is a lesser estate and only proper for economic utility, and among the freemen and equals must be "one among equals" -- a good example of this is how the Pope in Catholicism has preeminence over the Bishops, but in Orthodoxy the Pope is considered one among equals with no jurisdiction over them.
Rousseau, for instance, says royalist writers have always preferred Plato's view that political & economical have the same science over Aristotle's view that they differ.Why?You acknowledge they have the same science, then royal rule is justified far better because if a royal can govern himself and govern his estate, then that royal is well on his way to governing the state.But if you take Aristotle's outlook (the food argument) and acknowledge that political and economical have a different science -- then 1st if the royalty are going to have any know-how they are bound to democratic input, then also there's a concession that Monarchy is not really proper for political rule to begin with.Understanding that difference is a very big difference.
>>24783881Anyways, the common conventions about the Middle Ages and Decentralization are, in fact, Aristotle's political input in practice. A big promoter of this idea is Alexis de Tocqueville who appeals to the ancient constitution of Europe -- that constitution Tocqueville refers to is aligned to Aristotle's political ideas, the stress on decentralization is exactly that.De Jouvenel - Republic of Old>The republic of old had no state apparatus. It needed no machinery for imposing the public will on all the citizens, who would have had none of such a thing. The citizens, with their own wills and their own resources – these latter small at first but continuously growing – decide by adjusting their wills and execute by pooling their resources. >We do not find anywhere in the ancient republic a directing will so armed with its own weapons that it can use force. There were the consults, I may be told. But to start with there were two of them, and it was an essential feature of the office that they could block one another's activities. >Only those decisions were possible on which there was general agreement, and, in the absence of any state apparatus, their execution depended solely on the cooperation of the public. The army was but the people in arms, and the revenues were but the sums gifted by the citizens, which could not have been raised except by voluntary subscriptions. There was not, to come down to the essential point, an administrative corps.>In the city of old, no public office is found filled by a member of a permanent staff who holds his place from Power; the method of appointment is election for a short period, usually a year, and often by the drawing of lots, which was called by Aristotle the true democratic method.>It thus appears that the rulers do not form, as in our modern society, a coherent body which, from the minister of state down to the policeman, moves as one piece. On the contrary, the magistrates, great and small, discharge their duties in a way which verges on independence.>How was a regime of this kind able to function at all? Only be great moral cohesion and the inter-availability of private citizens for public office.Consider De Jouvenel's here:>It thus appears that the rulers do not form, as in our modern society, a coherent body which, from the minister of state down to the policeman, moves as one pieceHe's moreso complaining about modernity and Leviathan, but that is also contra Plato:It is Plato's ideal that society should form a coherent body which moves as one piece, that Plato expounds upon in Book 5 of Republic -- and which Aristotle is opposed to, by the examples De Jouvenel puts forward.If this difference isn't understood, I think a lot is being missed out if take Plato and Aristotle wholly from an Eclectic standpoint.
This theme of the Middle Ages and its laudable decentralization was first promoted by Alexis de Tocqueville -- De Tocqueville is mostly responsible for promoting that theme.And Tocqueville's big appeal is covertly that idea of Aristotle's partnership of clans: hence his stress on the Nobility most of all and opposition to centralization by Absolute Monarchy (which, like in Aristotle's constitutionalism, believes that monarchical rule is improper for political rule).
Hobbes' Leviathan might be the very foundation for modern states -- it might not be an idea of statehood built on the Summum bonum or highest good, but arguably I'll point this out just to show the importance of understanding this difference.Hobbes Leviathan promotes a kind of State Corporatism (State as one individual) like Plato advocates.Plato Republic:>And the city whose state is most like that of an individual man.>The best governed state most nearly resembles such an organism.Check. Hobbes makes the State like that of an individual man.Plato Republic:>so the entire city may come to be not a multiplicity but a unity.That is also confirmed in Hobbes' Leviathan: for Hobbes his State is more than just a partnership of clans bonded by a common idea, like Orthodoxy is.In Hobbes words:>This is more than Consent, or Concord; it is a real Unity of them all, in one and the same PersonAnd>The error concerning mixed government has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men.Now consider also:Plato Laws:>That the man who receives the portion should still regard it as common property of the whole StateWhich is also found in Hobbes Leviathan:>Propriety of a subject excludes not the dominion of the Sovereign, but only of another subject.OrWhat about this community of pleasures and pains that Plato writes about in Republic? Where everyone feels mine and thine together.Plato Republic:>And there is unity where there is community of pleasures and pains–where all the citizens are glad or grieved on the same occasions of joy and sorrow?>And the chief cause of this is when the citizens do not utter in unison such words as ‘mine’ and ‘not mine,’Hobbes Leviathan reduces all wills, that is, all mines and thines, unto one will in unison:>that may reduce all their Wills, by plurality of voices, unto one Will:The measure of the State for Hobbes in a way is Plato's community of pleasures and pains.>But in a Common-wealth this measure is false: Not the Appetite of Private men, but the Law, which is the Will and Appetite of the State is the measure. So while it is true that De Jouvenel for instance is complaining about Modernity and Liberalism, De Jouvenel is also complaining about the true lineage of Plato's ideas in modernity in a way: that modernity is more centralized is in a way a fulfillment of Plato's ideas of more corporatist and unitary government.
Plato's Republic, Hobbes Leviathan, Italian Fascism, and North Korea Juche, they all advocate more unitary and corporatist politics.
>>24783826The thread is interesting, but I think you're both treating these things with too much haste and missing things for the sake of a thesis, and also too focused on today such you're applying a later conceptual apparatus on thinkers to whom they ill fit.>>24784288This anon gets it, and the response at >>24784468 misses the forest for the trees.
Another sample is from Plato's Laws.Plato agrees with Hobbes on the necessity of arbiters rather than a partnership of clans by mutual assent conducting laws and communicating that way.Plato Laws:>Athenian: And every man surely likes his own laws best, and the laws of others not so well.>Athenian: The next step will be that these persons who have met together, will select some arbiters, who will review the laws of all of them, and will publicly present such as they approve to the chiefs who lead the tribes, and who are in a manner their kings, allowing them to choose those which they think best. These persons will themselves be called legislators, and will appoint the magistrates, framing some sort of aristocracy, or perhaps monarchy, out of the dynasties or lordships, and in this altered state of the government they will live.Hobbes: The Sixteenth, Of Submission To Arbitrement; [OR, the NECESSITY of an arbitrary power]>And because, though men be never so willing to observe these Laws, there may nevertheless arise questions concerning a mans action; First, whether it were done, or not done; Secondly (if done) whether against the Law, or not against the Law; the former whereof, is called a question Of Fact; the later a question Of Right; therefore unless the parties to the question, Covenant mutually to stand to the sentence of another, they are as far from Peace as ever. This other, to whose Sentence they submit, is called an ARBITRATOR. And therefore it is of the Law of Nature, "That they that are at controversy, submit their Right to the judgement of an Arbitrator."
>>24784639Teleology, or defining things by their ends, is more Aristotelian in concept, though.Plato states from the beginnings and is more ontological than teleological.
>>24784639>you're applying a later conceptual apparatus on thinkers to whom they ill fit.De Jouvenel is using instances of Aristotle's Politics to criticize modern states.In ways which Plato wouldn't agree with: again, the idea of a state as one person is Plato's concept originally, later modernist people like Hobbes adapted to that, but that doesn't negate that Plato originally contrived this.
Consider, for instance:Karl Popper's Open SocietyHe says that Plato helped inspire many totalitarian regimes of the modern day.
>>24784651>>24784654Again, you're rushing past what's more essential. Re-read the anon at >>24784288:>When Aristotle celebrates the "commonwealth" he is celebrating the self-determining, self-governing coalescence of the citizenry around a common good, not a pluralism where individuals chase their own privatized conception of the good in such a way as to support each other's individual pursuits (or at least avoid conflict). Recall that for Aristotle democracy is the most degenerate form of government, rule by the many for the good of the many. The modern ideal, even Fukuyama's moderated version, is still his degenerate "rule of many for the selfish pursuits of each," as opposed to the ideal "rule of the many for the good of the one (the polis itself)."And there's absolutely teleology running all through Plato, especially in the Republic.
>>24784678I think the Catholic Church vs Orthodox Church in terms of hierarchy is a good example of this difference in centralization vs decentralization in terms of Plato and Aristotle.The Catholic Church is a more corporatist hierarchy with the Pope's jurisdiction on the top. It is more unitary like Plato advocates.But the Orthodox Church hierarchy is between bishops with no higher authority among the bishops. It is an autocephalous church.Let's go back to what you're referencing: >he is celebrating the self-determining, self-governing coalescence of the citizenry around a common good, not a pluralism where individualsOk, self-governing -- that is exactly like the Orthodox Church's hierarchy, it is pluralistic among the bishops, but it is not individualism, but a partnership of clans -- I don't mean individualism, but multi-party systems vs one-party systems.The Catholic Church is like a one-party system: it isn't a multi-party system where partnerships converge, but rather descends from the unity of the Pope.Catholic Church is more centralized as opposed to the Orthodox Church. It is also more unitary. Whereas the Orthodox Church seems to built on Aristotle's political ideals for its hierarchy.
Orthodoxy is a good illustration of how Aristotle advocates a partnership of clans (political pluralism / multi-parties) united around a common good -- not as a unitary body -- but as a concordant kind of body.
I think this example of Orthodoxy shows exactly as Hobbes says, for instance, with regard to Aristotle:>The error concerning mixed government has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men.So this hierarchy is a concord among the Orthodox Churches like a partnership of clans -- its structure is more concordant than unitary, the only unifying element is the virtue that unites them, and that virtue is their friendship.But when you look at modern politics... and the idea of sovereignty... it is moreso the idea that unity comes first, and this unity is from the sovereignty, as Plato puts it, like the unity of the soul moves the body.>No otherwise than Theseus his ship, which although it were an hundred times changed by putting in of new planks, yet still retained the old name. But as a ship, if the keel (which strongly bears up the prow, the poup, the ribs, and tacklings) be taken away, is no longer a ship, but an ill favoured houp of wood; even so a Commonwealth, without a sovereignty of power, which unites in one body all members and families of the same is no more a Commonwealth, neither can by and means long endure. And not to depart from our similitude; as a ship may be quite broken up, or altogether consumed with fire; so may also the people into diverse places dispersed, or be utterly destroyed, the City or state yet standing whole; for it is neither the walls, neither the persons, that makes the city, but the union of the people under the same sovereignty of government.>For that as of unity depends the union of all numbers, which have no power but from it: so also is one sovereign prince in every Commonweale necessary, from the power of whom all others orderly dependAs Hobbes says here:>The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the CommonwealthWhich is a re-assertion also of what Plato would say, that the body doesn't necessarily depend upon the concord of the parts, but the soul to move the body.
>>24784657If your standard for understanding these things is what Popper says, then your understanding is getting distorted. Popper abstracts, as, for example, the pic in OP does. For there, when it cites Plato from book 5, it misses the whole import of the entire discussion, namely, that they're seeking to see whether such a city resembles an individual man *because they're seeking an account of what justice would be like in an individual man*. The elaboration on the city is for the sake of understanding the individual. And as a result of being led by Popper, who himself was led by the need to establish a thesis, you and Popper miss all of the passages in the Republic emphasizing that the city is being elaborated on for the sake of understanding justice in the individual. Far from advocating it, Plato goes out of his way to emphasize how extraordinarily improbable the actual foundation of the city would be, and that one in fact shouldn't be preoccupied with trying to found it at all, but only use it as a model for their own individual conduct (see the very last pages of book 9, though there's a long section in book 5 within 10 pages of the section quoted in the puc saying just that too).
>>24784711>The elaboration on the city is for the sake of understanding the individualHow does that debunk it?It the city could be understood for the justice of the individual, then that encapsulates it pretty well: what is understood for the individual applies for the city. In his book Laws, Plato says this. >No one will ever lay down another definition that is truer or better than conditions in point of super-excellence. In such a STate -- be it gods or sons of gods that dwell in it -- they dwell pleasantly, living such a life as this.>Wherefore one should not look elsewhere for a model constitution, but hold fast to this one, and with all one's power seek the constitution that is as like to it as possible. Even if Plato's Republic is a individual metaphor for the soul, that doesn't disqualify it as a means to better understand political organization or its influence over the development of later political ideas (esp. unitary political ideologies that also seek to make people act as it were like one man).
This very instance we're debating might even be an example where Plato and Aristotle differ again:Aristotle denies that a good citizen and a good man are interlinked:But I am not so sure that is the same for Plato. That Plato uses the citizen to illustrate what a good man could be might suggest contrary to Aristotle.
Unpopular opinion:I'd have to agree with Karl Popper, at least in this regard:To say there's no Political Sapience in Plato's Republic ignores a lot. Pic related: That is Plato's community of pleasures and pains, and you obviously see it in use under totalitarian regimes. So clearly there is some political sapience there and even practice of some of these ideas in political contexts.
Race politics from /pol/ is another good example of a dilemma in Plato's Republic raised in contemporary times:/pol/ says multiculturalism doesn't have a community of pleasures and pains.That the problem is people don't say "mine" and "thine" in unison in terms of race -- not just in private property, but in properties of persons -- and the solution is to bring people into one property of person (i.e. one race).That is an example of what Plato says in Republic having political sapience in contemporary politics, so I disagree with the assertion that there's nothing to be learned politically from Plato's Republic, but only individually for your own soul.
>>24784722>How does that debunk it?>It the city could be understood for the justice of the individual, then that encapsulates it pretty well: what is understood for the individual applies for the city.Because you're treating the book in question as a set of political proposals, when Plato's project in the Republic is in shedding light primarily upon our yearning for and hopes concerning justice *as individuals living among others who may be unjust*. How one understands the discussions on political regimes will thereby be affected, since Plato isn't focused on what's good and bad about freedom, or good and bad about security, but only on what's good and bad about justice. Consider that in the Statesman, a much briefer but similar discussion focuses on two kinds of cities that have as their principles, not justice, but courage or moderation. So, on the whole, looking at the Republic requires being mindful of *why* a city is being discussed with unity as a concern, and how that's related to the moral opinions the work is investigating.>In his book Laws, Plato says this...See, even this is being misunderstood. That "first-best" city is said to be impossible, that's what it means for its inhabitants to be "presumaby" "gods or children of gods." Plato's estimate is, "if it were possible, it would be good to try to found it, *but it's not possible*, so it would not be good to try to found it." And in fact, this is borne out by Plato's discussion of his limited political activity in Syracuse in the Seventh Letter, where his aims were by intention lower, though he was situated close to the tyrant of Syracuse, for he was under no illusion that the most just or virtuous regime was in any way likely. But back to the Laws, right after that passage, they go on to discuss a lesser but more possible regime, and immediately the communism of the first-best is carved out of it. But there's other things being missed here, such as how the philosopher-king is missing from the summary of the "first-best," which distinguishes in a very significant way the summary here from the Republic, and how that part of the discussion is immediately qualified by the statement "let's state what regime is first *as regards virtue*," among other features.
>>24784809Plato in Laws is saying to follow it as much as is possible -- which means you can still look up to it and still try to get there. That can be said even disregarding that the 1st constitution Plato brings up isn't very practical. >Because you're treating the book in question as a set of political proposals, when Plato's project in the Republic is in shedding light primarily upon our yearning for and hopes concerning justiceConcerning justice, who's to say that it isn't to do with the politics laid out? Again, in Laws, he says it is a most true definition.>on the whole, looking at the Republic requires being mindful of *why* a city is being discussed with unity as a concern, and how that's related to the moral opinions the work is investigating.If we should be mindful about why a city is being discussed, we should also be mindful about why a city to begin with. He could have used any other metaphor, but Plato chose to discuss justice in the individual with justice in a city. You probably just disagree with the politics in question and how it could be derived from Plato's Republic, and that's why you don't want to associate the work with any importance relating to politics.
>>24784781>>24784800>>24784806See, this comes across to me as though you're not interested in what drives either author's work. Neither Aristotle nor Plato are being understood on their own terms, but rather from a desire to only discuss them as politically relevant to today. Hence, you're speaking about "political sapience," but you're not interested in the role of prudence in either author. And when you assert that Plato and Aristotle differ on whether the good citizen and the simply good man are the same, you're making a leap to defend a thesis without having thought more carefully about it, for both of them agree on that very point, and Plato makes that clear when he has Socrates say that the justice of the city is a phantom of the true justice of the individual's soul.You're obviously not unlearned by any means, but you're looking at them from a lens that distorts them, and that distortion will simultaneously distort your understanding of the debate you're trying to make sense of. Plato isn't interested in a "centralized system," he's interested in "a just regime"; and Aristotle isn't interested in a "partnership of families and clans," that's his definition of *every* city, including defective ones with regimes he rejects as bad.
>>24784848>Plato isn't interested in a "centralized system," he's interested in "a just regime"But he does lay down a centralized system in describing a just regime.Plato Republic:>For factions… are the outcome of injustice, and hatreds and internecine conflicts, but justice brings oneness of mind and love.>and Aristotle isn't interested in a "partnership of families and clans," that's his definition of *every* city, including defective ones with regimes he rejects as bad.That has everything to do with it.Aristotle thinks a city run, not like a partnership of clans, but like one estate is a tyrannical city, and Aristotle disapproves of the idea of many in one, whereas Plato does advocate many in one for a more just regime and says that organizing a just regime is just like running an estate and just like being a good individual.So now my point is whether Plato's Republic has any real world relevance on account of politics -- or whether it should be taken entirely metaphorically and we should disregard its politics -- I'm saying it does have real world politics we can learn from.I bet you'd even agree with Plato, like many do, that the best rulers are those who are most disinterested, and the worst rulers are those who are most ambitious: I never see anyone call that out as unrealistic, but a maxim they truly look at politics by.If that is the case, why take this maxim for its political quality but disregard that? I'd say Plato's Republic can be read for prudence with regard to politics.
>>24784825>Plato in Laws is saying to follow it as much as is possible -- which means you can still look up to it and still try to get there. That can be said even disregarding that the 1st constitution Plato brings up isn't very practical.Except, again, the regime they then spend the rest of the Laws elaborating differs immediately in very strong ways, *which means that the very different regime is as close as you'll get*.>Concerning justice, who's to say that it isn't to do with the politics laid out?No one's contesting that the discussions of politics aren't related, but, again, Plato has Socrates say that political virtue is a *phantom* of true virtue, where virtue is *only* in the soul. And again, Plato emphasizes multiple times that the best we have available to us from the political discussions in the Republic is to *internalize* it to modify our individual conduct.>Again, in Laws, he says it is a most true definitionI hate to tell ya, but the translation you're using isn't good, it says, much more literally, "no one will ever set down a more correct or better definition than this of what constitutes the extreme *as regards virtue*.">If we should be mindful about why a city is being discussed, we should also be mindful about why a city to begin with.>He could have used any other metaphor, but Plato chose to discuss justice in the individual with justice in a city.They don't start with a city. Book 1 is all about common opinions about justice, and half of book 2 is two ambitious young men sharing their doubts about the goodness of being a just man to Socrates, and asking if he can prove that justice is good and not harmful for the man who is just. *Then* Socrates introduces the city, and he's very clear that he's doing so because justice is preminently *the* political virtue, and, if it's unclear what it is in an individual, it might be more clear by analogy with a city.>You probably just disagree with the politics in question and how it could be derived from Plato's Republic, and that's why you don't want to associate the work with any importance relating to politics.Here's a quote from it of the sort you're not considering:>"Then, what about this? *Weren't we, as we assert, also making a pattern in speech of a good city?"*>"Certainly.">"Do you suppose that what we say is any less good *on account of our not being able to prove that it is possible to found a city* the same as the one in speech?">"Surely not," he said.>"Well, then, *that's the truth of it*," I said.
>>24784557Another example up here, but I never see people call out De Jouvenel for using Aristotle's Politics -- to describe politics and make criticisms....So why is it okay for Aristotle's Politics to do that, but whenever someone looks to Plato's Republic for any political knowledge and criteria, we must only look at it metaphorically and not for real world application?
>>24784875>Plato has Socrates say that political virtue is a *phantom* of true virtue, where virtue is *only* in the soulIt being a phantom of true virtue doesn't deny that it isn't virtuous for the city: just that it is less practical for a city.I imagine, because as Plato says in Statesmen, that this kind of integrity of virtue is hard to find in many people, but taken politically it can have the virtue of one man like Plato set down as he uses it as a mirror more than a phantasm. There is a saying, that the king is like a mirror unto his people: that must be what Plato is getting at since the virtue found from a person can lead to virtue in a city.But that I wouldn't say is synonymous with what Aristotle advocates: Aristotle says that the whole comes prior to the part, and he doesn't understand it by the virtue of an individual soul and its ontology, but by his own teleology which is more about what it is becoming rather than its sense of being. Besides, I'm also disagreeing with the Eclecticism that tries to merge Aristotle and Plato rather than compare and contrast: the other anon is saying Aristotle and Plato are more alike than different, but I'm pointing out differences. ...And there are many differences to consider apart from Plato's Republic: even Plato's Statesmen has differences, like I just pointed out, the idea that political & economical institutions have the same science -- Aristotle disagrees with that in Politics.
>>24784867>But he does lay down a centralized system in describing a just regime.You're missing the whole point. You're using anachronistic modern academic terminology to describe Plato's aims and understanding, but it doesn't match. Again, you're using a set of technical terms, "centralyzed system," whereas Plato's talking about what a just regime might look like. The result is that you're not seeing why the peculiar unity of the city in the Republic is being used as a measure of political health. And likewise, again, with Aristotle, you're misunderstanding him, because *even a tyrannical city* is an association of families and clans. You're not looking at his actual discussions of what he rejects about tyrannies, oligarchies, and democracies, and you're overlooking his appreciation for monarchies and aristocracies.>I bet you'd even agree with Plato, like many do, that the best rulers are those who are most disinterested, and the worst rulers are those who are most ambitious: I never see anyone call that out as unrealistic, but a maxim they truly look at politics by.Sure, but Plato's not telling us to actually raise people through a 40 year education to breed disinterested political rulers.>If that is the case, why take this maxim for its political quality but disregard that? I'd say Plato's Republic can be read for prudence with regard to politics.The issue, as I see it, is that Plato is absolutely offering a way of *understanding* politics. So, *if* our political aims were to found a perfectly just civic life, then the extreme unity, strict caste system, communism among the ruling classes, and censorship of art would be necessary. But, he's not offering this as practical or prudent advice, he's showing us why we should *aim lower* and settle for what's in our power to live justly without worryinh so much about the unjust, since we'll always have unjust people around us.
>>24784622It's interesting to see these similarities, as Hobbes proscribes a unity of will via the Sovereign Leviathan and its covenant with its subjects that is not dissimilar to the unity of the whole that pervades the metaphysics and politics of Plato. However, ever the nominalist, Hobbes metaphysics is entirely different, and its Leo Strauss's contention that Hobbes swaps metaphysics out with a geometric-mathematical epistemology, and swaps virtue-oriented telos with the overwhelming fear of death as the fundamental end to be provided by political order.Carl Schmitt however still pins Hobbes down as a Christian political theologian, and that Hobbes is still working towards giving man the social room to personally reach his divine destiny via salvation. There is no room for virtue and salvation be strived for in the savage state of nature for Hobbes after all. So I am curious where the truth lies here and what of these secondary interpretations get right and wrong and what we can gleam from the conflict here for ourselves. I think Strauss is correct on the metaphysical differences and onto the truth with fear of violent death and through it self-preservation being the new telos of political order for Hobbes, but it's wrong to ignore his clear political theology elsewhere and to reduce him into being an Epicureanian atheist as he does in Natural Right and History (pgs. 169-171). The tension lies on the fault within the true purpose of the state, and whether Hobbes is striving for Summum bonum still or if Strauss is correct in that Hobbes follows Machiavelli in the deliberate lowering of ultimate political goals for the obtainment of the achievable and obtainable efficient political state.Apologies if this is more or less totally tangential to the initial analysis of >>24784622, I just got done from a day long writing session on Hobbes that ended with this tension coming to the fore without resolution.
>>24784891>It being a phantom of true virtue doesn't deny that it isn't virtuous for the city: just that it is less practical for a city.He doesn't say it's a phantom virtue, he says it's a phantom of the real thing. It's false justice, it's not real. This is an important point Plato wants to make. Political justice isn't the real thing, and no one will ever see it in their lifetimes, so focus on yourself. From Book 9:>"Rather, he looks fixedly at the regime *within* him," I said, "and guards against upsetting anything in it by the possession of too much or too little substance. In this way, insofar as possible, *he governs his additions to, and expenditure of, his substance*.">"That's quite certain," he said.>"And, further, with honors too, he looks to the same thing; he will willingly partake of and taste those that he believes will make him better, while those that would overturn his established habit he will flee, in private and in public.">"Then," he said, "if it's that he cares about, *he won't be willing to mind the political things*.">"Yes, by the dog," I said, "he will *in his own city*, very much so. However, perhaps *he won't in his fatherland* unless some divine chance coincidentally comes to pass.">"I understand," he said. "*You mean he will in the city whose foundation we have now gone through*, the one that has its place in speeches, since I don't suppose it exists anywhere on earth.">"But in heaven," I said, "perhaps, a pattern is laid up for the man who wants *to see and found a city within himself* on the basis of what he sees. *It doesn't make any difference whether it is or will be somewhere*. For he would mind the things of *this city* alone, and of no other."
>>24784897>Again, you're using a set of technical terms, "centralyzed system," whereas Plato's talking about what a just regime might look like.Now you're saying that the term "centralized" is inadequate because it is a modern, technical term.A centralized system is a unitary and corporatist system exactly like Plato is describing here. I think the term "centralized" in the context that it is used aptly describes what Plato is saying in Republic about the State being like an individual and operating as one man and having a community of pleasures and pains.If you consider centralized systems, that is exactly what they do: they spread the policy out so it can be felt alike in all members, exactly like Plato suggests.Whereas take Aristotle's partnership of clans as a view for more federal or confederate systems: how does this idea of a partnership of clans not adequately describe something like a confederation system where they're fully self-governing and simply united by their friendship and love of virtue in the same ideas? Or like the Orthodox Church is -- for all accounts, that really is what the Orthodox Church structure is like, and that is the basis of their church hierarchy really: and the difference between this corporate system that Plato describes with the State under a jurisdiction like unto one person describes that seen in Catholicism, jurisdiction reaches unto every diocese while for Orthodoxy it is like a partnership of clans....What is a centralized system if not exactly the way Plato is describing here: a system where it tries to act as one personhood, and where it is not a partnership of clans.This seems like real world application and spelling out how this difference pointed out in OP is actually persistent in understanding not only real world politics (like Central Systems vs Decentralized Systems) -- but even Church Hierarchy.And again: a lot of people praise the Holy Roman Empire for decentralization: the real idea deep down they're praising is Aristotle's notion of a partnership of clans (the many noble houses working together and electing an emperor by their mutual consent and love of virtue) whereas they hate modern systems that are more like Plato's unitary policy, like De Jouvenel describes, it acting as one entity rather than a bunch of self-govenring clans associated by their friendship and love of virtue...
>>24784929>Because *even a tyrannical city* is an association of families and clansLet me clarify it: a tyrannical city for aristotle is not even a city, but a great estate like his 5th form of kingship.>and you're overlooking his appreciation for monarchies and aristocracies.I do doubt Aristotle's appreciation for monarchies, but not for aristocracies.I think many people praise the Holy Roman Empire because it is like Aristotle's City -- it is Aristotle's Politics on a map.It's a partnership of clans electing their emperor (in the way Aristotle prescribes) whereas they hate modern states for being more like Plato suggests in some regards, for being unitary entities rather than being a partnership of clans united by virtue.
>>24784916>obtainment of the achievable and obtainable efficient political state.Meant just "the achievable and efficient political state,"* tunnel vision tripped me up in review.
>>24784916>and whether Hobbes is striving for Summum bonum still or if Strauss is correct in that Hobbes follows Machiavelli in the deliberate lowering of ultimate political goals for the obtainment of the achievable and obtainable efficient political state.I think Hobbes is more for a community of pleasures and pains like Plato describes than a Summum bonum, but if you consider it like what Plato describes in a community of pleasures and pains -- for Hobbes, what is good is just the appetite and what is bad is the aversion or dislike of something.But you could say his Leviathan is like that community of pleasures and pains being described, where the pleasures and pains of all the individuals is reduced and made law unto them all by the Sovereign. IN that way, Hobbes does achieve something Plato tries to prescribe, IMHO.Hobbes:>And though in the charters of subordinate corporations, a corporation be declared to be one person in law, yet the same hath not been taken notice of in the body of a commonwealth or city, nor have any of those innumerable writers of politics observed any such union.I disagree with HObbes here, becuase like I said, Plato does conceive of a State like one individual or many in one -- Aristotle does too and he condemns it.Plato:>And the city whose state is most like that of an individual man.>“The same,” he said, “and, to return to your question, the best governed state most nearly resembles such an organism.”>>And in him consisteth the Essence of the Common-wealth; which (to define it,) is "One Person, of whose Acts a great Multitude, by mutuall Covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the Author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their Peace and Common Defence.”
>>24784966But Hobbes says "Yet the same hath not been taken notice of in a body of a commonwealth or a city, nor those innumerable writers of politics observed any such union.So Plato observed it and agreed that his State in Republic should be like an individual....Aristotle also saw it and condemned it:Aristotle Politics / Anti-State Corporatism / Anti-Absolute Monarchy>For the people becomes a monarch, and is many in one; and the many have the power in their hands, not as individuals, but collectively. Homer says that ‘it is not good to have a rule of many,’ but whether he means this corporate rule, or the rule of many individuals, is uncertain. At all events this sort of democracy, which is now a monarch and no longer under the control of law, seeks to exercise monarchical sway, and grows into a despot; the flatterer is held in honor; this sort of democracy being relatively to other democracies what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy. The spirit of both is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic rule over the better citizens.So yes, verily I say, Plato is pro-State Corporatism, and Aristotle is against that idea. -- even if, like this discussion says, Plato might not think it is practical to have a state like one individual, still he holds it as an ideal whereas Aristotle discredits this ideal.
Aristotle / Since the nature of a State is to be a plurality>Further, as a means to the end which he ascribes to the State, the scheme, taken literally is impracticable, and how we are to interpret it is nowhere precisely stated. I am speaking of the premise from which the argument of Socrates proceeds, "That the greater the unity of the State the better." Is it not obvious that a state at length attain such a degree of unity as to be no longer a State? since the nature of a State is to be plurality, and in tending to greater unity, from being a State, it becomes a Family, and from being a Family, an Individual; for the Family may be said to be more than the State, and the Individual than the family. So that we ought not to attain this greatest unity even if we could, for it would be the destruction of the State. Again, a State is not made up only of so many men, but of different kinds of men....Aristotle even criticizes Plato for atomization / individualism by trying to attain too much unity:>since the nature of a State is to be plurality, and in tending to greater unity, from being a State, it becomes a Family, and from being a Family, an Individual; for the Family may be said to be more than the State, and the Individual than the family.
>>24784929>Now you're saying that the term "centralized" is inadequate because it is a modern, technical term.It's inadequate because you're using a technical sounding term in order to apparently shed light, while shedding no light. You're missing the actual political understanding, and I think that's because you're abstracting from ends in favor of formal features. But without regard to the content or reasoning, the formal features are getting mixed up with modern semblances.Again, when you say, >how does this idea of a partnership of clans not adequately describe something like a confederation system where they're fully self-governing and simply united by their friendship and love of virtue in the same ideas?You've effectively misunderstood Aristotle and confused his account of the *origins* of political life with what he thinks the best political regimes are. Again, "association of families and clans" *is true of tyrannies* for Aristotle.
>>24784980>Again, "association of families and clans" *is true of tyrannies* for Aristotle.I don't think so, because Aristotle says that a tyrannical estate governs a multitude like a master over his servants.He doesn't really consider a monarchy to be a political state but economical estate.That isn't an association of families and clans or a constitution of freemen and equals.And Aristotle considers the 5th form of monarchy to be a big estate.
The way I see it -- sure, Aristotle could say that all cities are associations of families and a partnership of clans -- but another person could say that all states are more unitary bodies rather than pluralistic ones.
>"It is an essential requirement of a working-class party to ensure the unity of ideology and leadership. This is effected by establishing the Party's monolithic ideological system. Only when this is done can the whole Party be armed with the Leader's intention and become a living organism, breathing and acting in conformity with his idea and will.">"It is important in establishing the Party's monolithic ideological system to pervade the whole Party with the Leader's idea.">"The Leader is the embodiment of the organizational will of the whole Party and his idea is explicitly the guiding ideology of the Party. The ideological unity of the Party is brought about only on the basis of the Leader's idea."- Kim Jong IlIf you look at other State Corporatist regimes like North Korea -- where the whole people act as One Person through the Workers' Party of Korea -- that is very much like what Plato was saying.Here is a State Corporatism in North Korea:>Only when this is done can the whole Party be armed with the Leader's intention and became a living organism
