I was suprised, albeit not unpleasantly so, at the chronological leap made in the last few minutes of class in which Plato's notions of a just social system were compared to the existentialist concept of being, in which the individual must manufacture his own value and purpose without any predetermined nature dictating his state of "order" or "happiness", to use the Platonic terminology. I'm not certain, however, that the existentialist viewpoint is so diametrically opposed to the concept of Justice in The Republic as was suggested. Rather on this subject, at least, the two philosophies concern themselves with different objects. Certainly existentalists such as Sartre posit a more elastic notion of self than Socrates' notion of an ordered soul would seem to permit, but overall Plato seems more concerned about Justice as a social virtue rather than its relationship in the abstract to the individual. Regardless, even the most ardent existentialist would not argue that the self is infinitely malleable, as in the case of a joke I once heard:
"Want to hear an existentialist joke? Two cows are grazing in a field. One says to the other, 'Have you heard about this mad cow disease that's going around?' The other says ,'Why should I care? I'm a helicopter.'"
Speaking of chronological leaps, I couldn't help but feel that the point of view of Thrasymachus (thra-'sym-a-chus) was in some sense ahead of its time. While Plato may have merely intended Thrasymachus as another sophist to serve as Socrates' rhetorical punching bag, the view of Justice that he presents seems entirely compatible with the postmodernism of recent years. He esentially denies any abstract or universal notion of Justice in favor of the proposition that the meaning of Justice is merely determined by those with the power to enforce their own self-interested notions of the concept. This argument is consistent with the postmodern idea of multiple versions of reality or truth, in which the dominant ideology is that of the powerful. As a final nod to modern parallels, one wonders whether Aldous Huxley ever took notice of Plato's "noble lie" of the inherent class distinction between the Bronze, Silver, and Gold individuals(Huxley's Alphas, Betas, and Gammas also correspond in a literal alphabetic sense to the Aleph, Beth, and Gimmel markings mentioned by Borges, but one supposes that that is neither here nore there).
Even if Thrasymachus seemed to be on the the way justice existed at that point in time, or even, coincidentally, how justice is now understood, that perhaps is part of the problem. The question of what is just, especially while referring to Plato and/or Socrates, must require some higher notion (or form) of justice. It cannot and should not be reduced to mere examples or ideas, but held to some higher notion. The form of justice, cannot be what is in the interest of the stronger. The rulers, if they are truly rulers, should concern themselves only with the ruled. Perhaps that is why the noble lie could be thought of as just. I actually hesitate to go that far, but perhaps there is some truth in the stronger's interest lying in the hands of the weaker. The strongest still depend on the weak to not band together, to not gain valuable knowledge, but also to keep them happy. And in keeping the weaker happy, one must appease and act to justify actions of the stronger. In other words, in acting in the interest of the strongest, one must consider the weak, for they are the foundation of the strong. Thus, justice is serving the interest of the weaker.
ReplyDeleteReally, justice can be melded out of thousands of quirky metaphors, but the real question is what should we consider justice to be?
I agree with Patrick’s point about Thrasymachus being ahead of his time. Thrasymachus offers an interesting perspective
ReplyDeleteHe does not appear to be arguing about what justice is. Instead he questions the very notion of justice. Perhaps justice is an ideal that the weak cling to in times of desperation. They appeal to a supposed higher power; a set of values that govern all of humanity and directly affect the health of the “soul.” In reality, justice is whatever the powerful say it is.
Plato did not appropriately respond to this point, in my opinion.
Since they cannot even agree on what justice is (or if it even exists), the argument can go no further. Without that basic, foundational step, very little can be proven (much less agreed upon)
Therefore, arguing about the honorable intentions of "true rulers" is a moot point.
"...the two philosophies concern themselves with different objects."
ReplyDeleteI think that the quote at the top of the blog ("Justice in the life and conduct of the state is possible only as it resides in the hearts and souls of the citizens.") speaks to the idea that these two objects are inherently tied together. Plato focuses on the idea of justice as a social virtue as a means to approach the topic of justice in the individual. The city in speech that he puts together is a metaphor for the individual.
In order for this city of his to work, the "Noble Lie" must be put into place. It seems to me that the existentialist ideas we approached in class are those that would resist this concept of lying to one's self about a type of fixed objective/job in life in order to achieve a certain level of happiness.