Here I finish
Plato's Republic(book IV) as window to the Republican mind. First off, I`d like to underline the context I stated in the first diary. I read The Republic for teaching a Philosophy of Education course. So I'm not reading it as a philosopher or historian, but with an educator's eye. Though the form of the dialogues is kind of interesting, I'm not reading for form, and I don't see much true dialogue. To me, the dialogues read like an elaborate game of verbal king-of-the-hill where Socrates is always on top. (please no Greek jokes) The challenges that his students present are there so that Socrates can repeat and extend his point until it prevails. So yes, my take on the Republic is applied or prescriptive. I really do think The Republic reaches conclusions about how to run a society and its not just a talkfest. If that's not your bag, now you know its mine. Because this diary is going to be even more prescriptive, wrapping the whole thing up in a neat package to show how to stomp the Republicans in November. But first a little mopping up before we get to the new stuff:
The first diary had so many posts with such well-articulated ideas that it deserves some follow-up. If you didn't read the first diary or aren't interested in the mop-up, scroll down to the title in bold.
I tried to keep up with all the brilliance flying around the room and then the next morning I got hit by a swarm of bald-headed hornets, swelled up, passed out went to the ER with anaphylactic shock. And then on top of that I get home after they hold me 8 hours (they'd lost someone to bee stings just recently) I discover the diary had been rescued (thanks kraant, SusanG, and Patriot Daily)! So there was a whole round of discussions that I missed and I'd like to pick up the thread
Context and Selectivity: Okay the two major criticisms I got were lack of context and selectivity in quote selection. SO let me state clearly at the outset that I had been previously apprised of the fact that Plato lived in a different time and place than 21st America. Again I am reading Plato as an educator trying to find out what he has to say about running a society. I think it's a valid approach and I don't think I'm the first person to approach The Republic this way.
Next because Plato is such the Idealist, he states his ideas as universally applicable. Our earthly goal is to retain some of the static perfect existence we lost at birth. So I think its quite fair to take Plato at his word and look at his ideas independent of his historical context, as his whole "absolute truth" framework denies historical context. I know I know, you think Im talking about the Republicans again.
The Republicans like to say that our cultural freedom platform leads to relativity and condoning wrongs like women's treatment in Islamic countries. The cultural moralists of the right like Bill Bennett, ED Hirch, Alan Bloom all push the "timeless Truths". And that's why they defend the Western canon so strenuously. Because it is a huge ideological loss to have Toni Morrison replace Plato. There's reasons they teach this stuff in their elite universities. In order to even comprehend the Republic, a reader needs to make a ton of presumptions that I would argue underpin our society. Theres the contextual link up between Plato and the Republicans forwards and backwards in time. Plato was speaking universally, and and the Republicans look back on Plato for these "timeless Truths."
And in regards to selectivity, yes I did choose quotes out of Book IV Of Plato's Republic to make an argument. I for one am happy that the human brain has an instinct for selecting and synthesizing information, otherwise I would be typing "paint chip on desk, A's blanket, tweezers, engine sound, dog bark, blinking green light" and that's not that interesting.
There a whole case to be made that the essay is by definition decontextualized selection. Sarah Michaels has done a lot of great work studying the dismantling of Narrative, arguing that learning to be successful academic writer in school is learning to move from a episodic to thematic focus. Once the narrative thread is broken, the information needs reordering. If you want the original, read the original
Plato the NeoCon: I was fascinated by the thread that discussed the "noble lie', the Leo Strauss, Allan Bloom stuff with IF Stone was really rich. When guys like that show up you know youve got a party. But I was actually having the opposite issue when considering Plato the Republican. I was feeling "Rebublican" was too narrow a term, but "cultural conservative' didnt fit that good in atitle. I struggled with different terms--something broader than "Republican" because these ideas and values are deeply ingrained in our society, as Democrats like Joementum and Tipper Gore have gone down the cultural control path and there is a way that media criticism on the left is about cultural control as well. Also someone noted wisely the middle class ideal--a population that is neither rich nor poor has broad appeal across the political spectrum, and Democrats probably believe it more than Republicans.
So I was not trying to malign Plato. Its just "Republican" fit best to describe this mentality. Im sure theres a better term like "Western conservative elite" but that's a mouthful. We have no way of knowing how progressive many of his writings were given their ancient context. The thread about Aristotle vs. Plato was getting at some of this. The kids find Plato more palatable than Aristotle because his Idealist framework has great appeal to the starry-eyed college freshman.
And I'm just getting started.
The new stuff: Justice, Courage, and Beating the Republicans
Plato's Socrates introduces the four virtues:
Well, then, I hope to make the discovery in this way: I mean to begin with the assumption that our State, if rightly ordered, is perfect.
That is most certain.
And being perfect, is therefore wise and valiant and temperate and just.
Wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. The four virtues. The one he explains last is justice. So this is going to be some pretty idealistic stuff, Platos definition of justice, right? Sorry, instead it dovetails with his earlier idea about not regulating the economy. Plato's definition of justice?: Mind your own business:
I mean to say that in reality for a long time past we have been talking of justice, and have failed to recognise her.
I grow impatient at the length of your exordium.
Well then, tell me, I said, whether I am right or not: You remember the original principle which we were always laying down at the foundation of the State, that one man should practise one thing only, the thing to which his nature was best adapted;--now justice is this principle or a part of it.
Yes, we often said that one man should do one thing only.
Further, we affirmed that justice was doing one's own business, and not being a busybody; we said so again and again, and many others have said the same to us.
And when he reiterates the definition of justice, he draws a distinction between a cobbler doing a carpenter's business vs. a cobbler doing a warrior, legislator or Guardian's business:
Let us look at the question from another point of view: Are not the rulers in a State those to whom you would entrust the office of determining suits at law?
Certainly.
And are suits decided on any other ground but that a man may neither take what is another's, nor be deprived of what is his own?
Yes; that is their principle.
Which is a just principle?
Yes.
Then on this view also justice will be admitted to be the having and doing what is a man's own, and belongs to him?
Very true.
Think, now, and say whether you agree with me or not. Suppose a carpenter to be doing the business of a cobbler, or a cobbler of a carpenter; and suppose them to exchange their implements or their duties, or the same person to be doing the work of both, or whatever be the change; do you think that any great harm would result to the State?
Not much.
But when the cobbler or any other man whom nature designed to be a trader, having his heart lifted up by wealth or strength or the number of his followers, or any like advantage, attempts to force his way into the class of warriors, or a warrior into that of legislators and guardians, for which he is unfitted, and either to take the implements or the duties of the other; or when one man is trader, legislator, and warrior all in one, then I think you will agree with me in saying that this interchange and this meddling of one with another is the ruin of the State.
Most true.
Seeing then, I said, that there are three distinct classes, any meddling of one with another, or the change of one into another, is the greatest harm to the State, and may be most justly termed evil-doing?
Precisely.
And the greatest degree of evil-doing to one's own city would be termed by you injustice?
Certainly.
This then is injustice; and on the other hand when the trader, the auxiliary, and the guardian each do their own business, that is justice, and will make the city just.
I agree with you.
We will not, I said, be over-positive as yet; but if, on trial, this conception of justice be verified in the individual as well as in the State, there will be no longer any room for doubt; if it be not verified, we must have a fresh enquiry. First let us complete the old investigation, which we began, as you remember, under the impression that, if we could previously examine justice on the larger scale, there would be less difficulty in discerning her in the individual. That larger example appeared to be the State, and accordingly we constructed as good a one as we could, knowing well that in the good State justice would be found. Let the discovery which we made be now applied to the individual--if they agree, we shall be satisfied; or, if there be a difference in the individual, we will come back to the State and have another trial of the theory. The friction of the two when rubbed together may possibly strike a light in which justice will shine forth, and the vision which is then revealed we will fix in our souls.
Injustice is any of the three classes meddling in the affairs of another. It's a locked-in hierarchy, especially when it comes to the tradespeople entering positions of power. MYOB Also, here precisely is the whole argument "well who better to regulate the oil industry than an oil man" MYOB Here also is the root of all of the hostility heaped on the blogosphere by the professional propagandists. We are encroaching on their territory. MYOB It's the whole "those meddling kids" riff. MYOB It's why the trolls especially like to show up in threads where it looks like people are getting organized for action. MYOB. There's your justice.
So .. that was fun, how about a definition of courage? No problem right here. He starts out with a conventional "warrior" definition of courage for the warrior class.
Again, I said, there is no difficulty in seeing the nature of courage; and in what part that quality resides which gives the name of courageous to the State.
How do you mean?
Why, I said, every one who calls any State courageous or cowardly, will be thinking of the part which fights and goes out to war on the State's behalf.
No one, he replied, would ever think of any other.
Certainly not.
The rest of the citizens may be courageous or may be cowardly but their courage or cowardice will not, as I conceive, have the effect of making the city either the one or the other.
The city will be courageous in virtue of a portion of herself which preserves under all circumstances that opinion about the nature of things to be feared and not to be feared in which our legislator educated them; and this is what you term courage.
Whoa, wait here a hold up a sec. For the rest of us, the definition of courage is fearing and not fearing that which the legislators educate us to fear. I should like to hear more:
I should like to hear what you are saying once more, for I do not think that I perfectly understand you.
I mean that courage is a kind of salvation.
Salvation of what?
Of the opinion respecting things to be feared, what they are and of what nature, which the law implants through education; and I mean by the words `under all circumstances' to intimate that in pleasure or in pain, or under the influence of desire or fear, a man preserves, and does not lose this opinion. Shall I give you an illustration?
Sure I could use an illustration. So youre saying the law implants fears through education. Yes please by all means an Illustration:
If you please.
You know, I said, that dyers, when they want to dye wool for making the true sea-purple, begin by selecting their white colour first; this they prepare and dress with much care and pains, in order that the white ground may take the purple hue in full perfection. The dyeing then proceeds; and whatever is dyed in this manner becomes a fast colour, and no washing either with lyes or without them can take away the bloom. But, when the ground has not been duly prepared, you will have noticed how poor is the look either of purple or of any other colour.
Okay you lost me there. No actually you lost me a lot earlier. But thanks for the frank assessment of the Bush Administrations terror threat level system. That's why we have to resist the "Islamofascist" label (great diaries BTW). It is Branding of the highest order. It is the definition of what they want us to fear. The other part of defining what to fear is defining what not to fear. So fear islamofascists, illegal immigrants, oh yeah and let's not forget the queers. What not to fear: you don't want to waste your time fearing executive overreach, reinstatement of the draft, global warming. Fear what we want you to fear. Now that's a platonic definition of courage!
So theres some deep cultural underpinnings of Western Civilization. Plato's Republic Book IV it's the republican bible. How in the world do we defeat somethings so entrenched? And I'm not saying I want to defeat Western Civilizition I'm saying lets wire this thing right so we can move towards progressive political success. So secret all hidden away for all these millennia is the secret to defeating the Republicans for the rest of this century. Really-- '06 and beyond.
Here's how the Republicans have been wiring the system. Their whole cultural control laissez faire economics platform, which in many ways is a poor match for the American Character, is framed like this. "The democrats want to tell you how to run your business And have you raise your kids in a cesspool culture" That's how they get to claim both freedom (no economic regulation) and anti-elitism (damn hollywood, intellectuals and the liberal media). There's a lot here to support the "Whats the matter with Kansas? " thesis. Yeah its puzzling how the party of authoritarian oligarchs could claim freedom and anti-elitism, but thats how they do it.
So we need to reclaim freedom and anti-elitism. Its got to be "the republicans want to tell you what you can watch, what you can do in your bedroom, who you can marrying, how you can express yourself, basically how you can live, but they don't want to make big business play by the rules" The secret recipe: cultural freedom, economic justice. The cultural becomes freedom and the economic becomes anti-elitism. Instead of the republican formula which makes the cultural about anti-elitism and the economic about freedom. Its an easy rewiring job, lets just stay on point.
All these hot buttons that Republicans push-- abortion, Terry Schiavo, gay marriage, flag burning, pledge of alegiance, God in the public square-- are all essentially cultural issues. Most people ask why the federal government is even getting involved cultural issues like these, let alone doctoring the Constitution and neutering our judiciary over these private matters.
But you know we really have to do this for sake of the country. Because if we don't get this thing rewired right, some demon from the right is going to come up with a way to appeal to a large swath of the population by pushing for cultural control and tighter economic regulation. Watch out for when these Pat Buchanans and Gary Bauers start preaching "little guy" economics. If that combination ever catches hold, things will get real ugly.
In terms of justice, we've got to answer MYOB with "I am my brother's keeper." Have Jesus take down Plato in the smackdown of the century. Its that easy so, I'll move on to "courage". Ned Lamont just reminded us again--explain how theyre trying to manipulate us, describe the fears that legislators have educated us on. Americans have a very different definition of courage than "fear what the state tells you to fear". Democratic politicians that do expose demagoguery succeed and that's why they're targeted. Speak to peoples real economic woes (the things we're told not to fear) and expose the manufacutured and manipulated fears of terrorists and foreigners. Economic fears then become aspirations (Back to my brother's keeper too) and the manipulated fears are deshrouded and we get political discourse going that treats people like consultants on foreign policy. Actually talking to people like adults and giving them an open government that explains what it knows and takes responsibility.
And why not have our cultural freedom platform defined as critical of corporate media consolidation. That's not cultural freedom, auctioning the bandwidths and having these conglomerates dump cultural garbage on us. Anti-elitism. Call for more democratic cultural production and distribution--celebrate the internet's impact on our culture , defend net neutrality, support public access TV and community radio. Promote local culture. Follow through on a commitment to what cultural freedom can achieve. Promote local culture. We then win a lot of the Hollywood haters on the right who can be astute media critics. Focus on who's producing and how theyre distributing the garbage and talk about decentralization as the solution to all this corporate propaganda disguised as news and entertainment. Get these people thinking less about censorship and more about censuring corporate consolidation.
This final piece ties in the cultural and economic--because our culture is a commercial enterprise like no other in history. This issue of cultural/economic overlap came up in seminar, and it complicates the argument, but I dont mind closing with a complication; it doesnt need to be a neat little package.
Republicans "Control the culture, don't control the economy" by maximizing the commercial aspects of the culture to forward a laissez faire ideology. Giant culture industries create a huge overlap between the cultural and economic in ways that Plato couldnt imagine. Populists on the right focus on the prurient content (because y'know the puritan and pornographer are one) and we need to define cultural freedom in terms of democratic cultural production and distribution. As the internet shows, decentralization is great for the economy.
To Summarise
Plato's prescription for running a society: Control the Culture
Dont Regulate the economy
Justice is mind your own business
Courage is fearing what the state tells you to fear
I mean seriously does this sounding familiar to anyone?