On
the matter of Plato's "paleo-technocratic" politics, the Republic is
appropriately (and characteristically) ambiguous. With Plato it is
always important to keep context in mind, and in respect to the Republic
the purpose of the dialogue is to define
"Justice". Approached from this angle, Plato's "utopian" vision
clearly shows that moral and political philosophies predicated on the
criterion of "Justice" will lead to an insufferable dystopia, with all
the gory details amply dilated upon in Plato's descriptions.
Plato's
Laws, however, is less ambiguous. Clearly, the fellow comes across as a
totalitarian, tyranny-mongering aristocrat. In view of the world he
lived in, maybe he has a point. And that is certainly how German
political philosophers like Leo Strauss view totalitarianism; that is,
they believe, upon "scientific" grounds, that totalitarianism is a
desirable state of affairs. One would think Strauss, after finding in
America salvation from the Nazi's, would have embraced the land of
Jefferson... Does it over-simplify the matter to assert that Strauss is
"just another ogre" from the Continent who reviles English freedoms, who
loathes the middle-classes, who hates Christianity, and so on?
Meanwhile,
rather than "Justice," Plato elsewhere advocates Eudemonia (or
"Happiness") as the criterion for Ethics and political philosophy.
Clearly, in this matter he agrees with Aristotle. But there is an
important distinction. Plato argues for Eudemonia in the next life, in
eternity; this world and the meager "good things" in this life are to be
eschewed. On the other hand, Aristotle argues for pursuing Eudemonia in this
life as well as the next. Aristotle agrees with Plato, however, in
stating that the ultimate purpose of happiness in this life is to
contemplate God (see link below).
In
theory, the distinction attends their disagreements over Plato's theory
of forms. What Aristotle did was use the criterion of Eudemonia to
argue for a large middle-class. Rather than utilitarian grounds (though
as a matter of outcomes he satisfies these requirements), Aristotle
seats his concept of Eudemonia in something comparing to Plato's
emphasis on coming into contact with God.
"Eudemonia." as Aristotle conceives it, is politically (and Platonically) "writ
large" in Locke and Jefferson (again, see the link below for Sir
Anthony Kenny on Aristotle's Eudemonia).
Kenny
elsewhere has difficulty equating Aristotle's Eudemonia with our
English word "Happiness", but of course we have to keep in mind that
Kenny is no Lockean or Jeffersonian. He is English, and the English
don't expect to be "happy." Ahem. But Eudemonia of course is embedded--and forcefully--in the American Declaration of Independence,
and that concept of Happiness, via Locke, Aquinas, Christianity and
Judaism, compares precisely with Aristotle's vision.
Aristotle and the Meaning of Eudaimonia
Aristotle and the Meaning of Eudaimonia
Plato and Aristotle viewing a beautiful landscape
