Plato

Leo Strauss’s first personal entry (out of several) in History of Political Philosophy deals with one of the, if not the single most important figure in the development of political philosophy in the West. A.N. Whitehead famously remarked that “all of Western philosophy is but a footnote on Plato,” and Strauss’s essay demonstrates that sentiment, as it is far longer than any other chapter in the book. The essay begins with Strauss making a simple, but important point, namely that strictly speaking there is no “Platonic teaching”, but rather the teachings of his characters. This is important as it raises several questions as to if the conversations in question happened at all, to what extent Plato faithfully recorded them, as well as what exactly was Plato’s position on the issues being debated, though the majority of scholars have tended to view Plato’s personal views as being most closely aligned with Socrates. Strauss then divided the essay up into three parts, each part discussing one of the three major works on political philosophy: The Republic, Statesman, and The Laws.

In the part on The Republic, Strauss deals with what is the central them of the book, what justice is. For Strauss, this is important for several reasons, but one of the major ones is that it sets up a universal discussion within the settings of a particular, which sets the foundation of political philosophy to discuss such issues as the best type of government within the settings of a particular area the people discussing this question live in, or even the particular time period they live in. One of the ways Socrates, who is among the chief players in Plato’s book, goes about doing this is to first show what justice is not, and one of those things justice is not is property. While Strauss does admit that this does set up the foundations for some type of early communism, he quickly reminds us, contra Karl Popper, that it is incorrect to see Socrates or Plato as communists in the Marxist sense (which would have been the type of communism people in the early 1950’s would have been the most familiar with) or as a fascist. Justice is however connected with friendship as Socrates makes it clear that the guardians of the city should be on good relations with the rest of the population in the city. Socrates also does not see justice as being equated to legality as he feels this position is unable to properly deal with what happens when leaders are in error. In the introduction, Strauss and Cropsey state that while modern political philosophy sets up a strong distinction between society and the state as well as the individual and the community, ancient political philosophy did not do this. Strauss and Cropsey’s observation becomes very clear in The Republic as Socrates sets up a parallel between the individual and the city, which places the individual far more in tune of the city than modern liberal political philosophy does.

In The Republic, there are three stages to the foundation of a good city. They are as follows: 1) the healthy city/ the city of pigs, 2) the purified city/ the city of the armed camp, and 3) the city of beauty/ the city ruled by philosophers. In the healthy city, biological needs dominate and there are no class distinctions, violence, or a disconnect between what is good for the individual and what is good for the community. The healthy city cannot last though as people cannot maintain their innocence, which leads to its eventual decay. After the healthy city has finally decayed, the purified city can emerge. Unlike its predecessor, the purified city is characterized by hierarchy and violence and needs a special warrior class in order to protect itself or go to war with others. It is also in the purified city that we see the worker and ruler classes emerge.

One of the more interesting aspects of Socrates’ theory is that while communism is seen as the ideal state, it is really only for the ruling class as the guardians of the city practice communism while the lower classed are decidedly non-communistic. The upper classes even share women and children as this supposedly will make them more united, in which the city can become more like the human body. One thing that is important to remember here though is that the just communistic city is to be only seen as an ideal, not something that could ever be brought into reality, much like while it is possible for a perfect human body to exist in the world of art, such a being could never exist in actuality. To further complicate matters of bringing the just city into reality, Socrates notes that while the people have been tricked by false philosophy, they still recognize that only a radical change of both philosopher and the city can bring them into harmony. Furthermore, Socrates sees the philosophers as not desiring to rule, and therefore must be convinced to rule by the non-philosophers, but because the non-philosophers do not trust the philosophers to rule, it is unlikely the just city, ruled by philosophers can ever come into being.

Socrates then describes the five basic types of government which he believes are as follows: 1) aristocracy (rule by the best), 2) timocracy (rule by the lovers of honor), 3) oligarchy (rule by the most highly esteemed), 4) democracy (rule by the freemen), and 5) tyranny (rule by the unjust). Even a cursory look will reveal that Socrates used these terms differently than we use them today with the exception of “tyranny” and to a lesser extent “democracy.” What’s really important though, is that for Socrates, the major failing of democracy is its lack of restraint. What’s even more interesting is that for Socrates, tyranny and democracy are both seen as giving into desires. Such a statement comes across as odd for those in 1^st world counties, where tyranny and democracy are seen as opposites, but for Socrates, the two concepts are closely connected. One thing that does remain true for Socrates is that no matter what the regime is, the light of philosophy is needed in order for justice to take root.

While the section on The Republic takes up the majority of Strauss’s essay, two other major works from Plato Statesman and The Laws are also discussed. In the section on The Statesman, Strauss points out that it is more scientific than The Republic as it more closely relates to what Plato understands to be the highest form of knowledge- the dialectic. This is an important point as the dialectic is found in conversation, and as conversation is an art, Plato ends up providing us with a deep connection between art, knowledge, and science. In addition, one of the themes of The Republic is made explicit, namely that the perfect regime described in that book cannot be brought into reality, and it is seen as a grave error to try and bring such a city into actuality.

Statesman also expands upon a theme first explored in The Republic concerning the types of regimes. In Statesman, three types of regimes are discussed, the rule by the one, the rule by the few, and the rule by the many. Each of these types of regimes has two parts, one just and one unjust. Depending upon if a regime is just or unjust determines what regime is the best to live under as the just rule of the many is inferior to the just rule of the one or rule by the many, but the unjust rule by the many is superior to the unjust rule of the one or rule of the few. The theme of the just regime being a parallel to the human body is also noted as a good king is described as being able to weave together the various parts of human nature into a harmonious and just whole.

The last section of Strauss’s essay deals with The Laws. The task of The Laws is to put forward the best possible order and in a way is the only political work by Plato as it is the most concerned with practical ways in which to govern. In this work, moderation in the sense of shame or reverence is the central theme while the end of the political life is seen as the service of education and virtue. Furthermore, Plato’s description of a static universe is seen here as change is seen as a result of imperfection, an idea which has had a profound impact on the development of political philosophy in the West. The Laws deals explicitly with how best to govern as in it, just rules are instructed to strike a balance between wisdom and freedom, while laws and governance are designed to avoid the excesses of tyranny and democracy. Furthermore, communism is completely rejected as an unattainable ideal. The Laws also displays a heavy dose of Burkean conservatism as the book suggests a constant order, and as such laws should only be changed with extreme caution.