My latest philosophy paper, based on Book VII of Plato's Republic. Enjoy.
Statement:
Socrates argues that we should force the guardians who have seen the
realm of the forms (outside the cave) to go back and rule even if
they do not want to do so.
Thesis:
It is morally corrupting to both a person and the state to force a
participant to engage in an activity against their freewill when the
cost to benefit ratio of that activity has not been
clearly established.
In
Plato's Republic Socrates
examines what it means for a philosopher, long trapped in the world
of the physical, to attain passage into the realm of the forms.
Socrates paints a picture of civilization taking place in a cave
where all one can see are the shadows on the wall until they are
elevated above the mundane and are allowed to glimpse this spiritual
realm of the forms. Yet upon this attainment of true knowledge they
are to be forced back into the cave, back into the darkness to
enlighten and to rule those they had previously left behind.
According to Socrates they would force both themselves and each other
back into the darkness because they would be spending the majority of
their time in the world of the forms anyway. Their journey back into
the darkness would be for the mutual good of everyone but most of all
for the state. They would facilitate the state and through the state
the increase in general 'good'.
There
are problems that arise however when Plato speaks of forcing people
into the cave after being able to behold the world of the forms. This
could lead to emotional and physical violence amongst those privy to
the actual forms. There is also a problem with facilitating 'good'.
If you are bring good to the people who have not seen the world of
the forms then what were they experiencing prior to a philosophers
return to govern them? It seems that the de facto answer would be a
form of 'bad'. However, if all the forms are under the 'umbrella
form', so to speak, of good, then bad would not exist negating the
need for the philosophers who new of the realm of the forms to return
to the physical world to rule others. In addition to this there is a
problem with any person witnessing a physical ascent into a
metaphysical realm. Where would this person 'be'? If he were speaking
of the realm of the forms as a purely mental state then the
philosopher who is aware of the forms would live in a dichotomy. On
the one hand they would see themselves as the souls they truly were
but on the other hand they would still need to partake of the
physical realm to attend to the physical necessities of living.
Otherwise they would waste away until they died. In addition to these
rather large problems there is also the problem of who would decide
that someone had actually visited the realm of the forms. In the
event of someone claiming to have attained the knowledge of the forms
but not, and them being made the ruler of the city would have drastic
consequences both for the state as a whole but also for the
individual citizens of the city be they economic, physically
injurious, of mentally harmful consequences.
While
these are serious problems the issue that is really at stake is that
of personal liberty and to what extent the greater good should take
precedent over personal freedom. If philosophers were to force each
other to return to the darkness are they not acting in a manner that
is inconsistent with the 'good' by forcing their collective will upon
someone who resists them.
In
terms of ruling the city, Plato also assumes that the rulers would
all come to the correct and best way to rule the city. If one
philosopher was to rule the city after being forced back into the
physical world, it is not a stretch to think that they might
themselves fall back into an emotional way of thinking by way of
being forced into something they do not wish to do. While in this
emotional state the ruler could make laws that punish those that are
responsible, at least in some way, for him being forced back into the
physical world, namely the non-philosophers. In a worst case scenario
the ruler could essentially create a state that benefits him alone
and morph the state into a dictatorial style of government that
reduces the population to slavery at best and death at worst.
Many
of the points raised previously might have a suitable answer, at
least from Socrates' perspective. In response to the enlightened
philosophers becoming harmful to each other one might say that
because of their learning they would not see any benefit to society
or each other in partaking in it and therefore would abstain from it.
The
idea that by not having good in the physical world and therefore
being left with bad is a more difficult point to answer. If all the
forms are part of the form of good, then the form of bad must be so
also. But if the form of bad is also good then it would not be bad,
it would be good thereby making the idea of bad good. This in essence
negates anything 'bad' in the world and would further negate the
need for the philosophers to return to the physical world. It also
presents the problem of having an idea that does not have an opposite
and therefore becomes the normal. Without the bad, the good just
wouldn't be good in the same sense that most people think of it. The
best way to resolve this conundrum is to place the bad outside of the
conventional idea of the theories of the forms. Socrates might
possibly say that bad is created by the gods as a way for mortals to
distinguish between things, or something to that effect. There really
is not a good answer to this question.
The
question of a person actual ascending into a metaphysical world is
not so much of a problem. The allegory that Socrates provides is
exactly that, an allegory. The actual ascent would be induced in the
mental state of the participant. Hence his being forced back into
darkness would be more of a forcing him to partake in everyday
affairs.
The
problem of deciding who had actually attained the knowledge of the
forms and therefore is fit to be forced back to rule can be explained
by the forms themselves. If a person is fit to rule then the form of
governance, or something similar to it, would be evident in their
character, and evident to those who recognized the forms, i.e. the
philosophers. If the person were attempting to fake this knowledge
that would also be apparent.
This
same reasoning can be used to explain the way that philosophers
would react to being forced back into the physical realm. Because
philosophers are taught to reject the emotions in favor of the
rational they would see themselves returning to the physical world as
beneficial and therefore for 'good' and would not reject the
expectation of having to do so. Their personal liberty would not be
at issue as they would want to do the most good they could for the
state and would not be emotionally attached to liberty. They would
most likely view their bodies as simply instruments for their minds
to operate through and would see the sensibility of subjecting
themselves to physically governing.
The
way that each philosopher would rule would also be nearly identical.
If the forms were dictating what the good thing to do is then the
philosopher ruling the current city would view that as the best
possible choice. Any other philosopher would see the same choice as
the best because each rule and law would be taken directly from the
form of the good.
The
real problem with forcing people back into the physical world is
deciding exactly how they have to improve it/rule it. The form of the
good would already be prevalent in the world because of the lack of a
form of bad. Until a satisfactory answer is found to this question
the idea of sending enlightened philosophers back into the physical
world to rule is unacceptable. The good that they are capable of is
not what is in question but rather whether or not the amount of good
they could do in an already good world would be significant enough to
force them into something that they might be unwilling to partake in.
Unless a cost to benefit ratio is established, the violation of
person liberties/freedoms, whether a grievance of the participant or
not, sets a bad example for the remainder of the population. This
idea could possibly lead to the enslavement of the free citizens to
work exclusively for the state to better the lives of everyone in the
state, but you are still compromising the welfare of the few for the
many, which is morally negligent on the part of the state.
No comments:
Post a Comment