Plato's Statesman

Plato's Statesman

Thesis statement Socrates makes use [of the metaphor] of the noble hound to explain that the guardians must be fierce or sharp with their enemies and gentle or orderly with their friends.

Introduction

Stanley Rosen's beautiful and intricate discussion of the Statesman, one of Plato's later discussions of politics, is as fascinating as it is terrifying. He shows us that Plato is not, at least in the late dialogues, some elevated metaphysician, lost in the clouds like Aristophanes' Socrates, but someone who wonders if 'celestial' theory can ever be transformed into earthly practice, and accepts the dire consequences that follow should it not. In this disturbing study, Rosen shows us how the later Plato turned away from his revered teacher, Socrates, doubting the “doctrine of the Ideas as the objects of philosophical Eros,” while turning, with an almost modern concern, to techne (technology), with man as the fabricated animal, or, rather, as the animal in need of fabrication to be complete—to be civilized.

Analysis

This is not to say that the later Plato denies that humans have a nature, as Rosen points out, “to be partially constructed is already to possess a nature.” Now, this partial construction is the reason humans have a history instead of an irrational brute existence, like deer or wolves. In order to live in the world, not as mere human animals, but as fully human beings, the rules of civilization need to be imposed. Whether those rules are imposed by a king or a people, we will need rules for constructing rules, or our ongoing construction, or, perhaps we should say creation, of civilization (civilized humans) will be flawed (www.online-literature.com). And here is the heart of the matter, Rosen will show us, through a close consideration of the speeches; perhaps we should say monologues, of the Eleatic Stranger, that, according to Plato, there is no foolproof technique, no adequate theory, to construct a civilization, given an unknown future. In other words, the people and their politicians, and perhaps even our philosophers, are faking it. In a world in which the rulers are guessing as much as the ruled, the question becomes who, in each instance, guesses best (Lutz, Mark J, 1996). So, who can be trusted with the fabrication of civilization?

Well, since each case will need to be judged on its own unique merits, each action, though grounded in tradition and/or theory, will be based, at best, on an informed guess. There is no science of politics because there is no science of the future. "Because prognosis rules without laws but by making a judgment that is unique in each case, or at least determined in each case by the particular circumstances that cannot be known in advance, it is impossible for the Stranger or anyone else to give a logos, in other words, a detailed description or account, of prognosis or its decisions (Stanley Rosen, 1995)." Or, in plain English, political knowledge (science) is impossible, which is why the Stranger doesn't bother entertaining questions ...