A
Glance at Plato’s Republic
Notes
for undergraduate Political Philosophy students
Ish
Mishra
Index
1.
Preface
2.
Introduction
3.
Theory of Soul
4.
Theory of Idea or Form
5.
Theory of Justice
6.
Theory of Education
7.
Plato’s Theory of Communism
8.
Conclusion
Preface
With one batch of my
students studying Political Philosophy, I thought to prepare lectures in soft
copy. But if wishes were horses, I could have written material worth a
text-book. This compilation of few lectures on Plato’s political philosophy may
be of some use to undergraduate students of political philosophy, which I plan
to develop into a full-fledged, comprehensive chapter, if and when I would find
time.
Ish
Mishra
Associate
Professor in Political Science
Hindu
College, University of Delhi
Delhi
16.11.2018
1
Introduction
Plato’s Republic is
considered to be the foundational text of the western political thought. Born
in 427 BC in an Aristocratic family, 60 years after the death of Buddha (487
BC), one of the greatest teachers in the history of humanity and a year after
the death of Pericles, who institutionalized democracy in Athens, Plato remains
a reference point in the history of the western political philosophy. The
intellectuals react, reflect upon and respond to their own context and
conditions. Plato grew in Athenian democracy during its prolonged (BC 330-300)
war with Spartan military aristocracy, known as the Peloponnesian war[1].
In BC 404 Spartans defeated the Athenian forces and installed an oligarchical
government, known as the rein of 30 tyrants. The tyrannical rulers under the
leadership of Critias conducted purges on a large scale. Over 1500
citizens were butchered. Many democratic leaders fled to reorganize the
strength to overthrow the rule of tyrants and restore the democracy in BC 303.
The city state was economically wrecked and in social turmoil as usual after
effects of the wars, as war itself is serious issue. After the restoration of
the democratic government, most of the oligarchical rulers fled or were killed.
Many oligarchical rulers including Critias had been associates Socrates,
who considered governance as an art to be practiced by only knowledgeable and
that the knowledge is the virtue. Plato too was offered to join short-lived
oligarchical government but refused. Some scholars of Greek political history
feel that had it been nor the restored but Pericelian democracy, may be
Socrates was not tried and sentenced to death, probably the first political
trial by the judicial assembly (Heliaia) consisting of 6000 judges elected by
lot annually, in the history of European civilization. Every free born over 18
years of age was eligible to be member of legislative assembly (Acclesiae) and
above 30 for membership of Heliaia. There is no scope for going into the details
ancient Athenian legislative; administrative, judicial systems and institution.
Socrates considered being Plato’s philosophical mentor and the protagonist of
his all the dialogues except his last work, The Laws, was tried,
convicted and sentenced to death in BC 399 on the charges of corrupting the
youth and atheism. Plato’s one of the early dialogues, The Apology[2] is
a vivid documentation of the proceedings and Socratic argumentation. After the
death of his beloved Guru, Plato left Athens with the declaration, “I vow to
destroy the democracy” and wandered around various parts of the known world
enhancing his information and ideas about the places and people. Also, he must
have been apprehensive of trial for his association with the Socrates. Will Durant
suspects him to have travelled up to the banks of the Ganga[3].
Whether he visited India or not, should not detain us here, his Ideal State,
the proposed alternative to the democratic governance, looks like a close
copy of the Varnashram system of the social division. As education occupies
prominent role in the Platonic scheme, after returning to Athens in BC 387, he
founded Academy considered to be the foundational basis of the European
university system and the earliest precedent of public education. Academy
attracted students from far of places. He spent rest of his life teaching
philosophy and writing about it and died in BC 347. This write-up is
compilation of brief and not so brief discussions on the points mentioned in
the index.
2
Theory of Soul
The intellectual
world is teleological. That is to say nothing is written without purpose and
each intellectual responds to; reflects upon; provides intellectual explanation
and justification or critique and alternative to the issues and circumstances
prevailing in his contemporary time-space. Plato’s Republic is not an
utopia addressed to no-one but a passionate appeal to fellow Athenians to
overthrow the existing democratic governance that is in his opinion, the
government of fools, which he “vows” to overthrow and replace it with the ideal
state. Though he could not overthrow it, Roman aggressors did, couple of
centuries later. As the state is the institution of managing the common affairs
of humans, Plato, like the modern liber political theorists, begins with the
dissection of human psychology with tripartite assumption of human soul. Plato’s assumptions and views regarding the
soul constitute the foundation and basis of his theory of Justice and thereby
of Ideal State, which shall be elaborated in subsequent sections. Like the Idea
of the Good, Plato avoids defining soul in terms of empirically verifiable
facts but explores the world of desirable philosophical abstractions in the
search of perfection. Plato’s theory of Soul not only lays the foundation of
his theory of justice to be attained in Ideal State ruled by the philosopher
king/queen but is intimately related to his theory of Idea or Form. In fact
soul is the means for the acquisition and comprehension of the Idea or the Form
of good. Plato considers soul to be
above and beyond the visible, bodily person, just the appearance, the essence
lies in the its immortal, eternal, infinite in the soul, not part of the
visible phenomenal world but of invisible world of Ideas or Form, which Plato
uses interchangeably, in an acknowledgment of the spiritualism and the
super-naturalism. Soul and conscience,
as human attributes do not exist outside but inside human person and dies with
the death of person.
Plato, like
Pythagoras believed in the eternity and transcendence of soul, that is also one
of the key messages of Gita[4]. According
to him the soul is divine and eternal that roams in the world of Ideas and not
in the visible phenomenal world. Theorists of the eternity of soul and its
transcendence from one to another body do not explain the source surplus souls
required for the bodies of the increased population! To quote him from Phaedo,
“The soul is infinitely like unchangeable; even the most stupid person
would not deny that.”[5] He further adds, “What is the definition of
that which is named soul? Can we imagine any other definition than …….. . The
motion that moves by itself”. The motion of soul is first in origin and power
that moves by itself.” He reaffirms in his last work, the Laws, “Motion
of the soul is the first in origin and power.” And, “the soul is most ancient
and divine of all things whose motion is an ever flowing source of real
existence.”[6] A detailed discussion on the theory of soul
is beyond the scope of our present needs. Plato uses his tripartite assumption
of the soul as consisting of the reason; spirit and appetite and their
respective as philosophical tool for his division of society into 3 classes.
The Elements of
Soul
Plato divides the
soul into 3, hierarchical faculties – reason, spirit and appetite, in
descending order. In fact this trilogy of the soul provides the philosophical
foundation of his hierarchal order of the Ideal State, the abode of justice,
his central concern in the Republic. The abode of the lowest faculty, the appetite
is stomach and those of spirit and the reason are chest and the mind
respectively. The appetite is identified in both the Republic as well as
Phaedo with desires; greed; economic gains; physical comforts and sensuous
pleasure. The spirit is identified with fearlessness, valor and warrior like
qualities. The highest faculty of the soul is the reason – simple and
indivisible, eternal and immortal. The reason is beyond the time and space,
whereas spirit and appetite are within the time and space. The reason is,
according to him, immortal and divine whereas spirit and appetite are mortal
and mundane.
The Virtues of Soul
After defining the
soul in terms of its constituent elements, delves into their respective virtues
and thence derives the virtue of soul by integrating them together. Every
particular object has its particular nature and realizing that nature is its
virtue. The nature of teacher is to induce students into critical thinking and
help them in molding themselves into fearless, responsible citizen and in
his/her attempts to invent newer knowledge. If a teacher satisfactorily does
that he is a virtuous teacher. Virtue of a student is to study and discourse to
acquires knowledge and expand in the same way as the virtue of the eyes is
clear vision and of mind is clear
thinking and reasoning. A soul is virtuous if its elements realize their
nature, i.e. be virtuous. He first discusses the particular virtues of
particular elements and combines them to construct a new virtue, superior to
them and their coordinating force – the justice, Plato’s central concern in the
Republic. The virtue of reason is wisdom, that of spirit and appetite are
courage and temperance respectively. A soul is just or virtuous that has the
virtuous faculties and the inferior elements are regulated and directed by the
superior ones. In other words, the spirit and appetite must take directions
from, and obey the dictates of, the reason.
·
Wisdom or Knowledge
There corresponds a
particular virtue to each faculty. The virtue corresponding to the faculty of
reason is knowledge or wisdom. Plato conceptualizes wisdom or knowledge in
specific terms. The knowledge of mundane affairs or the knowledge of particular
skill falls outside its ambit. Knowledge of varieties of soil fit for
cultivation of particular crops or knowledge of medicine for particular disease
is not wisdom. Plato calls them the opinions or technical knowledge. Even the
knowledge of mathematics (arithmetic), geometry, astronomy or any other science
disciplines, which Plato places in the realm of intelligible world, too is not
knowledge, as they too use assumptions based on the objects of the visible
world. He explains it through his, oft-quoted, line diagram. Wisdom does not
come from the study of the objects of the visible world, as if the ideas come
from some vacuum, in opposition to the fact that ideas are abstractions from
the objects and have been historically emanating from them. According to him
wisdom comes from ability to reason and analyze; discus and debate; deliberate
and discourse. Plato’s pessimism does not allow him to accord these
potentialities to anyone but to ‘gifted’ few ‘endowed’ with immanently innate
qualities of excellence in the realm of reason. Plato’s theory of knowledge
shall be discussed below as an independent subtitle.
·
The Courage
Courage is the
cardinal virtue of the spirit. It finds frequent mentions in Republic.
Traditionally, the courage meant manliness. For early Greeks, courage meant
fearlessness, even of the death; patience in difficult situation; velour etc.
For Plato courage is not just warrior like bravery but also firmly defend
correct stand.
·
Temperance
The third particular virtue is temperance of restrain that has been
elaborately described in books III & IV of the Republic. It simply means
control of the desires. “To be stronger than one-self”; “To be master of
oneself”; doing not as one wishes but what one ought to.
·
Justice
Apart from the above 3 particular virtue
there is 4th virtue, a superior virtue that harmoniously coordinates
them and is the central concern of the Republic, as is evident from its
subtitle, Concerning Justice.
3
Theory
of Idea or the Form
Plato’s
theory of Idea or the Form constitutes the philosophical foundation of Plato’s
political theory. The problems of variety and the change have been common
questions for ancient Greeks, who were trying to discover the uniting element
in the variety, i.e. the one in many; and the permanence in
the ever changing world. Pre-Socratic Greek philosophy generally addressed
to the observation of life and motion of the natural, particular objects and
phenomena and their patterns from which they tried to generalize and derive the
universal qualities of particular, particularities. Socratic search begins with analysis of human
psychology. Various philosophers came up with varying answers; Plato
conceptualized the world of Ideas, in his answer and propounded the Theory
of the Idea or the Form of Good. In doing so, he dialectically
unites the two opposite views of Heraclitus and Parmenides. For the former, the
world is in continuous state of change and flux and the only constant is the
change itself. According to Parmenides, world is permanent, unchangeable and
that the change is an illusion[7]. Plato combines the two and
propounds that the visible, phenomenal world, which we empirically observe and
sense-perceive is changeable/perishable, but the world of Ideas or the Forms is permanent.
The commentators on the subject use the Form and Idea interchangeably, for the
sake of convenience; we shall be using the word Idea only henceforth. Plato
makes a distinction between the worlds of objects, the visible world, which can
be known by sense-perception; and the invisible world that could be known only
by reasoning. The permanent element of the changing object is its Idea that is
eternal; infinite; final and independent reality. According to him it is beyond
time-space but being the progenitor, is represented through them. Plato’s
dialectical description of the world and the dialectical unity of opposites,
like Hegel many centuries after him, is in inverted order. The idea cannot be
progenitor or creator of the object, but emanates from it. Newton’s law of
gravity does not make the apple to fall down vertically, but explains the
phenomenon of falling of object from particular height. First let us see, what
Plato means by the term?
A pre-Socratic Greek
philosopher, Thales defined the things with changing appearances as substance,
the existing state of affairs. Plato declares these substances to be
of momentary importance, mere shadows of their essence, the Form or Idea. Plato
cites the example triangles. Many triangles could be drawn and omitted but the
quality due to which all such particular geometric figures are known by this
name, the tringularity, which is permanent and universal. Similarly he
cites the examples of various particular horses and girls with horsiness or
girliness as their respective permanent, universal Ideas. I share one of
my experiences with my daughter when she was very young, to explain the
Platonic Idea of the object and their inter-relationship. She demanded to eat a
fruit. She was offered the particular fruits. She refused to accept
mango, banana etc., particular objects she had already known through her sense
perception and would have thought that fruit must be some particular eatable
like them. “Not banana; not grapes; not guava, I want to eat fruit”. There
happened to be a vendor selling strawberry, which she ate as a fruit. This is
to say that the universal Idea of a particular kind of particulars is their
universally common quality, through which they are known by that name. Plato
demonstrates it cave allegory or
the myth of cave[8], in which few chained
prisoners think the shadows as reality and after one of them frees himself and
is amazed and amused by the sight of sun-light. Plato portrays the darkness of
the cave as ignorance (illusion); the fire at the gate the visible object, and
the sunlight as intelligible Idea. But he does not care to explain the fact
that how the prisoners did got chained and reached the darkness of the cave?
Were they born chained together? They would have been taken into prisoners in
war or mob lynching. Logic of Plato’s highly eulogized cave allegory is
very illogical, he himself calls a myth. Nevertheless
the message it conveys is: the fulcrum of one’s knowledge depends upon the
limitations of her/his exposures, as mind reacts to the sense perceived reality
of the existing things. Sometimes inadvertent consequences become more
substantial than intended ones.
Plato supposed that the reality
was essentially or "really" the Idea and that the phenomena were mere
shadows, the momentary portrayals of the Idea under different circumstances.
The Idea a distinct singular thing causes plural representations of itself in
particular objects. For Plato, Ideas, such as beauty, saintliness etc. are more
real than any objects that imitate them.
These Ideas are the
essences of various objects: they are that without which a thing would not be
the kind of thing it is. For example, there are countless tables in the world
but the Form of tableness is at the core; it is the essence of all of them.
Plato's Socrates held that the world of Forms is transcendent to our own
world (the world of substances) and also is the essential basis of reality.
Super-ordinate to matter, Forms are the most pure of all things. Furthermore,
he believed that true knowledge/intelligence is the ability to grasp the world
of Forms with one's mind. For
Plato the Idea is transcendent to space and time. “The Ideas make the things
what they are”[9].
The abstract, invisible Idea is the model or perfection and of the visible
objects, its appearance, so they resemble not only with it but also among
themselves, like the siblings of the same parents. For him not the objects but
the Ideas are the subject of episteme, the knowledge. Plato uses a line diagram
to prove it.
. To demonstrate the
distinction between essence and appearance, Plato uses the line diagram to
demonstrate that the essence of the phenomenal world lies not in itself but
outside in the world of Ideas.
Intellibble world visible world
A
----------D-------------C--------------E---------------- B
(Original diagram is
vertical with A as the uppermost point and the B as lowest)
If the universe is
represented by the straight line AB and C is its mid-point and AC as the
invisible world of Ideas. D and E are points on AC and CB respectively so that
AD: DC = CE:EB. AD is the world of Ideas, i.e. the realm of knowledge; DC of
understanding like studies in science, mathematics etc.; CE the area of
existing world, knowledge about which in Platonic parlance, in no knowledge,
only technical knowledge that he calls opinion. Let us leave it here to be
elaborately critiqued in discussion on Plato’s theory of knowledge.
There is no problem with
his assumption of dialectical composition of the world but his priority and
portrayal of relationship between the worlds of ideas and the phenomenal world
can and must be questioned and contested. Objects have existed without ideas
and the ideas have historically emanated from the object. Plato projects a
derivative half- truth as truth. The total truth is dialectical unity of object
and idea with priority to the object. The word fruit as universal identification
of particular objects would not have come into being, if there were no
particular, perishable object like mango; banana; grape et.al. That is to say
that the idea of particular, its universal form emanates from it and hence
cannot be prior to it or its progenitor. It is the sense perceived reality that
stimulates the faculty of reason to discover, the laws governing its motion.
For example, had there not been the sense perceived reality of vertical fall of
the objects from the height, stimulated the mind of Newton to discover its idea
– the gravitational laws.
Sense perceived reality
is also not the totality of the truth, but partial. It answers the question,
what? But it does not answer the questions why and how? Newton’s laws do
gravity do, but had not there been the sense-perceived answer to what? The
questions, why and how would not have arisen and the infinite, eternal idea
could not be born contrary to Plato’s claim that they exist by themselves.
Therefore the idea cannot be the only or entirely the “real” reality. The
totality of reality or truth is the balanced combination of the two – the sense
perceived reality and it’s contemplated or the philosophically abstracted idea.
Any way mind too is one of the human senses and thinking is a practical act. As
Marx and Engels have theorized, the truth is constituted by the dialectical
unity of the object and the idea; the material conditions and corresponding
form and level of social consciousness.
The Idea of the Good
The
Idea of Good is the Idea of the Ideas. The Idea of Good enjoys the same status
in the world of Ideas, as the Idea among its particular objects. As, by now, we know that Plato locates the
essence of particular, sense perceivable, changeable and perishable objects not
into objects themselves but outside into their permanent, eternal, unchangeable
universal Ideas or Forms with capital I and F respectively. We also know that
Plato accords priority to the Idea over object, as it is the progenitor, the
model, the ultimate reality of the object and is beyond the time and space. The
objects resemble with not only their Ideas but among themselves, as the
children of the same father not only resemble the father but among themselves
also. The visible world, as it is changeable and perishable, cannot be really
real but not unreal either. It lies in the middle of the real, its Idea and
unreal, its shadow. It is semi real. This philosophic assumption would be
reproduced in an improvised and more sophisticated for by Hegel many centuries
later and contested and reversed by Karl Marx.
After
theorizing the Idea of the objects, Plato moves to his main point, the basis of
the Ideal state ruled by philosopher king, the Idea of Ideas, the superlative
or the supreme Idea, the Idea of Good. Comprehension of the Idea of Good is the
ultimate knowledge and the knowledge is the virtue and the ideal state must be
ruled by the virtuous and hence deduction of the need of philosopher king
automatically follows. The Idea of Good is the final and independent reality,
“existing itself by itself”. The way he traces the source of existence of
particular objects into their Ideas, the same way he locates the source of
existence of the Ideas into the Idea of Good. Plato argues it to be the
ultimate basis of knowledge.
Plato
generally emphasizes on definition but leaves the final reality, the Idea of
Good undefined that would be subsequently replaced in the medieval period by
another ultimate, undefined reality, like the God in theology. Plato confesses
that the meaning of the Good cannot be clearly defined but only known through
reason. The knowledge, the wealth or the happiness are not Good themselves but
just the conditions of Good. The Good is the final end of anything. It is the
basis of knowledge and ethics and the source of all the virtues, like truth,
beauty and the justice. The final objective of human life is attainment of the
Idea of Good. Where Plato cannot define illustrates with similes; analogies and
prevalent or constructed myths. Plato uses the slimily of the Sun to illustrate
the Idea of Good. The Idea of Good in the intelligible world is the same as the
Sun in the visible world. According to him the Ideas live not in the visible
but intelligible world and hence form the subject of contemplation and the
objects of the phenomenal world reside in the visible world and are the
subjects of sense perception and not contemplation. In the visible world eyes
sight things only when they are exposed to the light and the source of the
light is the sun. Plato argues that the sun is neither light nor the objects of
sight but their source and cause. Sun, as said above, occupies the same
position in the visible world, in his scheme as the Idea of Good in the
intelligible world. This slimily could be better explained by following
diagram:
Visible
World Intelligible world
Sun
------------------------ Idea of the
Good
Light
---------------------------- Truth
Objects
of Sight (Things) -------------------------- Objects of Knowledge (The
Ideas)
Sight
------------------------------
Knowledge.
To sum up Plato’s
Theory of undefined Idea of Good, we can say that it is related to the world of
Ideas in the same way as the world of objects in terms of being progenitor;
finality; absoluteness and supremacy. Plato does not answer the question, what
is the Idea of Good? It cannot be described but can only realized through
dialectics or contemplated through the application of reason. Can everyone
comprehend the Idea of Good? Plato’s answer is a clear no. Only those, who have
ability and training in dialectics imparted in the highest stage of educational
scheme can. Who have this ability and how is that determined? Those people
whose innate domain of excellence is Reason, described in his theory of trilogy
of the soul. How is that determined?
Through elimination tests conducted at various stages of education. Thus Plato
not only gives the idea of state regulated education but also is the first political
philosopher to conceptualize the meritocracy. As has been mentioned before, in
medieval times, also known as dark ages, the Good was replaced by God and only
the true devotees can know Him.
09.08.2018
4
Theory
of Justice
Plato’s theory of justice quite different
from and contrary to the justice as we understand it in constitutional-legal
terms, can be precisely summed in following two quotes from the Republic:
“Justice is having and doing what is
one’s own” and “A just man is a man just in the right place doing his
best and giving full equivalent of what he receives”.
In
Liu of Introduction
Intellectuals reflect upon their own
conditions. Plato’s immediate ambience was the democratic Athens, which had
been in the state of a prolonged Peloponnesian war with Sparta
(431-404 BC) that had ended in Athenian defeat; overthrow of democratic
government and banishment of the prominent democratic leaders in BC 404. No one
is a winner in a war; both are losers, as far as the people of warring countries
are concerned. It wrecks not only
economy and society but also the individual and social psyche. Before that
Athens and Sparta were allies in Greco-Persian war (499-49 BC). It was a
dilapidated post war economy and demoralized society. With the overthrow of
rein of thirty that was installed by Spartan victors, democratic leaders in the
restored democracy were taken over by a sense of insecurity and in desperation
tried and executed Socrates, Plato’s teacher. To salvage Athens from its
economic and political strife that is from injustice, Plato presents a
blue print of an alternative system -- the Ideal state ruled by
professionally trained rulers, the philosophers, the political class,
with the help of strong coercive apparatus, the warrior class.
In modern democracies too, there is political
class. Plato’s political class consists of the philosophers, whose realm of
excellence is reason. They undergo a 50 years long rigorous education to
acquire the wisdom, the ability of comprehending the Idea of the Good and
thereby the competence to practice the art of governance. The virtue of this
political class is knowledge. They are deprived of the private family and
property as a safety measure against any possible chances of their being
corrupt; indulgent; sectarian or sloth. They do not live in palatial houses but
in the barracks with their likes and the members of the auxiliary. In contrast
the virtue of modern political class is ability to win the election by any
means, verifying Machiavellian maxis, end justifies the means[10].
And the end is, attaining; retaining; expanding power. Many of its
members have good records of criminal cases against them. Most of them are
billionaires and spend huge amounts, in election campaigns. The US President,
contesting for the second term, spends only 3 years in office, the 4th
year is spent in fund raising. One’s ability to raise funds generally
corresponds to ability to win the elections. There is no scope here for
detailed comparison, the political class as envisioned in Plato’ republic has
single motive of practicing the art of governance with perfection, i.e.
selflessly pursuing the good of the people. Modern political class is concerned
with its own wellbeing and perpetuation of the ruthless exploitation and
oppression of the people by the global capital[11]. Members of the modern
political classes are not Platonic philosophers but Machiavellian Princes.
Unlike the modern political classes, which appeal to sentiments while trying to
blunt rationality for seeking power at any cost, even at the cost destroying
composite culture of the country, the Platonic political class, the Guardians
of the Ideal State appeal to the reason and seek to ensure justice for the
entire society, of course the justice as envisioned and defined in the Republic.
Here we shall be talking only about
Platonic ruling classes.
The central concern of Plato in Republic is
justice, as is obvious from the subtitle of the text, “A treatise concerning
justice”. It begins with the question of justice and concludes with the answer
that justice lies in the harmonious, hierarchal well-ordering of society.
Platonic concept of justice is not based on equality of humankind but just
opposite of it. It is not equality but the harmonious, well-ordering that
institutionalizes the inequality. According to Will Durant, during the 12 years
of his wandering after the execution of his Guru, Socrates in BC 399, Plato
wandered up-till the banks of Ganga. Even if had not he would have come in
contact with Indian scriptures via Egyptians.[12] Plato’s “harmonious well
ordering” of inequalities takes me to the childhood memories of my village. It
was a “harmoniously well ordered” village society without any tension, at least
over the surface. Though, the cracks in the prevalent social order had begun,
but were only microscopically visible. Everyone was doing their respective
works, as ordained and prescribed by the Shastras, the four-fold Varnashram
social-social division and the corresponding code of conduct. Plato’s Ideal
state, the rule of Philosopher over the economically productive classes, with
the help of the armed auxiliaries, appears to be a refined and edited version
of the Varnashram code of conduct. In Varnashram paradigm, the leader of the
armed classes (Kshatriyas) rule over the people on the advice of the
intellectuals (Brahmins). In Plato’s Ideal State, the intellectuals do not take
any chance, they rule themselves. The equivalent of the fourth, the lowest
class of Indian model, the Shudra, is missing in Plato’s Ideal State. The slave
can be considered as the near equivalent. But the slave treated as the property
of the master, an ‘animate tool’, in Aristotle’s words[13], is conspicuously absent
from Plato’s discourse. Either he took it for granted or did not find
ubiquitous institution of slavery worth reckoning.
For the definition of justice, Plato
theoretically creates the Ideal State, from the beginning, from the
point zero, of the human association, in a teleological manner. Though Plato’s
imagined, ‘naturally evolved’ first human association, the First City is
nothing but the fictionalized version of the then existing democratic Athens. The
Varnashram code of conduct, with reference to the Manusmriti[14], was created as
philosophical justification and source of validity of an already existing,
institutionalized order in the aftermath of Brahmanical counter revolution
against the Buddhist intellectual and social revolution[15]. The Ideal State of Plato’s Republic
was a plea for a desirable alternative to the existing democratic government,
which he considered government of fools and “vowed to destroy.”[16] To philosophically validate
the Varnashram social order, the myths of the Gods Brahma etc. were
created. Defying all the biological laws, Brahma, “the creator”, created
from his different organs four hierarchal classes – Brahmins (intellectuals)
from the head; Kshatriyas (the warriors) from the arms; economic classes from
the stomach and the lowest, the Shudra (the servant classes) from the feet[17]. Plato, to convince the
people of lower classes of their innate inferiority, invented the myth of
metals -- the medicinal lie or the Royal lie. The philosopher king
should propagate that the God has created people with the qualities of
different metals – gold; silver and the inferior metals, like bronze and
copper. Those who are created by God with the qualities of gold are destined to
be philosopher; those with that of silver are destined to be warriors and the
rest the economic producers[18]. And this arrangement is
irreversible. As the doctor can lie to the patient and patient cannot to
doctor, in the same way the king could tell lie to the people but people
cannot. The right to spread lies belongs only to the ruler.
Plato’s project of Ideal State remains
unrealized, as envisioned in Republic. He himself was disillusioned with
its feasibility in his last days and theorizes the “second best state” based on
law, in his last voluminous work, the Laws. As his student Aristotle had
pointed that he thought about only the theoretical best without taking into
consideration, the practicality and existing reality. Idea of the ideal
emanates and is related to the existing reality, not the other way. The
universals do not create particulars but existing of particulars determines the
nature of the universal. Plato’s ideal state ruled by the philosopher still
remains an idea and the Varnashram system, as an idea and institution has yet
not been totally banished.
After this little longer introduction, in the
following pages I shall try to critically summarize the initial (Book I –III)
processes and points in Plato’s philosophical journey in search of the ‘truth’,
the ‘justice’.
Basic
Assumption
Everything has an end
corresponding to its nature, says Plato. Then end of eyes is to see clearly,
similarly the end of the state is to govern well. Like everything else the
philosopher too has an end. With that end in mind, he makes certain axiomatic
assumptions. Plato’s end it to have a state with ‘good governance’, the Ideal
State in place of democratic governance in which the entire population is the
member of the political community. As has been discussed in the section dealing
with the theory of ideas, for Plato the essence lies not in the object but in
its idea. Object is just the shadow, appearance of the invisible essence. A
visible human is only appearance of the essence – soul.
·
Tripartite composition of soul (see theory of
soul of the series.);
·
Men (Humans) are, by nature, interdependent
for their needs;
·
Everyone is intended with a nature and the
realization of that nature ought to be the end of life;
·
One can do only one thing appropriately and
hence one ought to do only what he is intended by nature.
·
Governance is an art needing specific
ability.
n I
The
Setting
As is well known, Plato’s works are in
“dialogue” format, i.e. in the form of debate and discussion, with Socrates as
the protagonist, except in the Laws[19].
This dialogue, Republic, is in the form of reminiscence of Socrates.
As a very systematic scholar, Plato first critiques the prevailing views,
rejects them and then gives his own views. The views he rejects, puts them in
the mouth of other characters in the narrative and puts the views, he supports
in the mouth of Socrates. In the first scene Socrates, while returning from a
festive fare, is on the way intercepted and invited by Polymarcus for a
dinner-discussion at his place. Public discussions and debates (Shastrarth
in the Indian context), in ancient societies, provided platforms for
dissemination of knowledge, as well as for intellectual duals. Apart from
Socrates, other characters of the drama are: Cephalus, an old rich business
man; his son Polemrachus; Thrasymachus, a Sophist scholar; Glaucon and
Adeimantus, Socrates’s pupils; and Cleitophon.
After exchange of the greetings, Socrates
asks Cephalus about his feelings of being wealthy. Apart from other things, he
included that being just as one of the attributes of being value and gives cue
to Socrates to initiate the discussion on justice, the reminisces of which is Republic.
Cephalus answers in terms of prevailing notions of morality that justice was
paying back one’s debts and retires to offer sacrifice to Gods, leaving the
stage for the next generation and his son Polemachus takes entry to supplements
the father’s answer. The views Plato criticizes and rejects are categorized as,
traditional; radical and pragmatic views of justice.
Traditional view of justice
The spokespersons of this view in the Republic
are Cephalus and Polemarchus. Cephalus replied in terms of prevalent moral values
that justice lies in telling the truth and paying debt. To this Socrates says
that in normal conditions these are the
normal morality, not justice. “Suppose that a friend when in his right mind has
deposited arms with me and he asks for them when he is not in his right mind,
ought I to give them back to him? No one would say that I ought or that I
should be right in doing so, any more than they would say that I ought always
to speak the truth to one who is in his condition”[20]. As mentioned above, Cephalus
after giving his opinion retires for performing sacrifice and his son
Polemarchus enters the scene. He added “justice is giving to each man what is
proper to him” and “justice is art which gives good to friends and evil to
enemies”[21].
Plato, through Socrates, extensively argues
against the traditional views expressed through father son-duo by using various
ancient sayings; examples and metaphors and rejects them. Socrates uses the
simile of sickness, which is cured by
physician by giving the sick parson medicine, “what is proper to him”. “But when a man is well, … there is no need
of a physician, in the same way as one who is not on a voyage has no need of a
pilot” in the same way as there is no need of a war ally in time of peace. But
justice is not situation centric, it is infinite and universal.
Justice is the quality of soul, it cannot be
art. Art can be good or bad but justice, being the highest virtue of the soul,
is always good. It is difficult to distinguish between friend and enemy, as one’s
appearance does not really reflect his real essence. A just soul follows the
path of goodness and cannot do evil to anyone. He considers it as sadism and
sadism is a contradiction in terms with justice. He argues that doing good to
friends may be a just act but harming anyone, even an enemy, cannot be the
objective of justice, as evil cannot be removed by counter evil. Tit for tat is
not justice. More over this view presents justice as relationship between two
individuals. Justice is not the quality of only good individual life but also
of good social life[22].
Radical View of Justice
The views expressed by Thrasymachus, are
called radical view of justice. Thrasymachus, who was at unease and “He roared
out to the whole company: What folly, Socrates, has taken possession of you
all? ……”. He expressed his observation as “justice is nothing else than the
interest of the stronger”[23]. This is like ‘the might is
right’ that historically has not been very far from reality, but Plato was a
philosopher of what ought to be. As the rulers are most powerful in any
society, they make laws in their own interest and hence working in the interest
of the ruler is justice and following one’s own is injustice. Wise men can
follow their own interest by being unjust. He concludes that an unjust man is
wiser; stronger and happier[24]. Socrates through point-to-point arguments
rejects this view[25].
Firstly Socrates of Republic rejects
his view that self-interest of the ruler is justice. One of the key
contributions of Plato to the world of political philosophy is his idea of
governance as an art. And artist does not follow self-interest but the interest
of the subject. The subject of the ruler is the people and his interest lies
not in pursuing the self-interest but in ensuring the well-being of the people.
Kautilya also s The way the physician does not pursue the self-interest but
that of the patient. Teaching is an art. Objective of the teacher is to help
students in becoming critical, responsible citizens with theoretical clarity;
to help them in acquiring abilities to scientifically comprehend the world and
determine his role to better it. Plato
rejects the concept of politics or governance as a consequence force or
muddling of numbers but of scientific deliberations. The interest of ruler lies
in the interest of people. This maxim finds an echo in Kautilya’s Arthshstra[26] around a century later.
Secondly, the unjust person cannot
be happier than the just. According to Plato, happy is one who knows his
nature, ability and limitations and places himself accordingly and does not
into the race of competition. Happiness lies in realizing one’s nature. A
teacher feels happy by realizing his nature, that is, by having a good
engrossing class with the students’ participation. Quoting a section of
dialogue would not be inappropriate.
“Then
an evil soul must necessarily be an evil ruler and superintendent, and the good
soul a good ruler?
Yes, necessarily.
And
we have admitted that justice is the excellence of the soul, and injustice the
defect of the soul?
That
has been admitted.
Then
the just soul and the just man will live well, and the unjust man will live
ill?
That
is what your argument proves.
And
he who lives well is blessed and happy, and he who lives ill the reverse of happy?
Certainly.
Then
the just is happy, and the unjust miserable? So be it. But happiness and not
misery is profitable.
Of-course.
Then,
my blessed Thrasymachus, injustice can never be more profitable than justice”[27].
Thirdly, the unjust cannot be wiser
than just as wisdom lies in realizing, as mentioned above, in knowing one’s
limitations and act accordingly and not in indulgence into competition. And
acting according to one’s nature is justice and hence a just man is wiser than
the unjust.
And finally an unjust person cannot
be stronger than the just. For Plato, strength lies in unity and unity is
possible on if people living together in a community have commitment to certain
common principles and common wellbeing of all. The consensus to the principles
is possible only in a just society.
With the refutation of
Thrasymachus’s views ends the Book I and also vocal presence of Thrasymachus.
Pragmatic
view of justice
The
spokespersons of this view that considers justice to be the “child of fear” and
the “necessity of the weaker”[28] are Glaucon and his brother
Adeimantus. Anticipating Hobbes many century later, it assumes a state of
nature where everyone is free to do injustice and become victim of it. To get
out of it people enter into an agreement of not doing injustice to anyone and
thereby not being victim of injustice from any one. A code of justice is
created to make the agreement functional. Thus men recognize their natural
tendencies of injustice but pretend to be just under the fear of the force of
law.[29]
Socrates refutes and rejects this
view with systematic arguments that justice is not an artificial virtue that
emanates from a contract. Justice is innate quality of soul and conscience. It
does not depend upon a contract nor needs any external recognition, it exists
by itself[30].
After saying this he begins to theoretically construct ideal state to define
justice.
n II
Plato’s
Concept of Justice
After arguing against above three views of
justice, on the request of Galucon and Adeimantus, Socrates in Republic
sets out to define justice in society and in individual. “Justice, which is the
subject of our enquiry, is, as you know, sometimes spoken of as the virtue of
an individual, and sometimes as the virtue of a State”[31]. Plato applies teleological
and architectonic methodology to explain the concept of justice beginning from the
starting point of human association, on the basis of his basic assumptions. Above
quote indicates that justice operates at two levels – at the level of Individual
and at the level of state or the society as in his opinion, state is individual
writ large. Then in the larger unit, the quantity of justice is likely to be
larger and more easily discernible. “I propose therefore that we enquire into
the nature of justice and injustice, first as they appear in the State, and
secondly in the individual, proceeding from the greater to the lesser and
comparing them.”[32]
He begins to construct the society from the beginning, when different people
interdependent natures for meeting their survival needs on the principles of
division of labour and exchange. He calls this naturally evolved association as
the first city.
The
First City
All the writings are reflections on the
contemporary state of affairs, great writings become all time classics. The Republic
being the foundational text in the history of western political philosophy,
still remains relevant even after around two and half a century. “One of the
main causes Plato’s pervasive and persuasive influence throughout the history
the ablest exponent of the aristocratic theory of state and the acutest critic
of democratic way of life”[33]. History of evolution of
civilization hitherto has been the history of evolution of inequalities. Plato
provides their rationalization on the basis of presumed innate abilities or
nature. Someone’s nature or ability may be of a farmer and someone’s that of a
carpenter and so on. As par Plato’s one of the basic assumption one should do
only one thing suited to his nature and accordingly he theorizes the principle
of division of labour.
“A State, I said, arises, as I conceive, out
of the needs of mankind; no one is self-sufficing, but all of us have many
wants. Can any other origin of a State be imagined?” tells Socrates to Glaucon.
Justice is the original principle laid down at the foundation of state, “that
one man should practice one thing only and that thing to which his nature was
best adapted. ….. And if we imagine the State in process of creation, we shall
see the justice and injustice of the State in process of creation also.”[34] As people have many needs
and wants “and many persons are needed to supply them, one takes a helper for
one purpose and another for another; and when these partners and helpers are
gathered together in one habitation the body of inhabitants is termed a State”[35]. He begins with basic
necessities of food, dwelling and cloth and the like. “Barest notion of state
must include four or five men.”[36] If everyone produces for everything himself
to fulfill his needs one would not be able to do it efficiently and hence as is
one of his basic assumptions that one should do only one thing to which his
nature is suited[37].
This community based on the principle of division of labour and exchange of
economic needs is called the First City. The principle of division of
labour enhances the productivity and gives rise to more specialized crafts.
Plato’s theory of division of the labour anticipates Adam Smith centuries later
for the enhancement of the Wealth of Nations but not the equivalent
exchange. The entire product of producers is appropriated by the non-producer
capitalist, the producers get meager wages to be able to survive to reproduce[38].
With refinement of crafts people develop new
tastes and wants that he calls artificial needs. “Let us then consider, first
of all, what will be their way of life, now that we have thus established them.
Will they not produce corn, and wine, and clothes, and shoes, and build houses
for themselves? And when they are housed, they will work, in summer, commonly,
stripped and barefoot, but in winter substantially clothed and shod. They will
feed on barley-meal and flour of wheat, baking and kneading them, making noble
cakes and loaves; these they will serve up on a mat of reeds or on clean
leaves, themselves reclining the while upon beds strewn with yew or myrtle. And
they and their children will feast, drinking of the wine which they have made,
wearing garlands on their heads, and hymning the praises of the gods, in happy
converse with one another. And they will take care that their families do not
exceed their means; having an eye to poverty or war.”[39] And “of course they must have a relish–salt,
and olives, and cheese, and they will boil roots and herbs such as country
people prepare; for a dessert we shall give them figs, and peas, and beans; and
they will roast myrtle-berries and acorns at the fire, drinking in moderation.
And with such a diet they may be expected to live in peace and health to a good
old age, and bequeath a similar life to their children after them.”[40]
The above mentioned first city is the edited
version of the existing system in which the entire population was the part of
the economic class based on the system of division of labour and exchange and
the market. But the governance, in Palo’s view that he repeats so often in Republic,
is a superior art, not a matter of force or number but ability to
comprehend the Idea of Good and act accordingly. And only wise, the highly
educated philosophers have that ability.
The Ideal State
After describing this gathering as a rustic,
happy egalitarian First City, he cleverly extends the principles of division of
labour and exchange to create a hierarchal second city --- the Ideal
State. The first city is unguided by the reason.[41] Thus evolved luxurious and
prosperous first city gets into “feverish condition” caused by “expansion of
human wants”, as “the
country which was enough to support the original inhabitants will be too small
now and not enough”. For
the extended population describing this gathering as a happy egalitarian First
City, the community of “pigs”[42], he cleverly extends the
principles of division of labour and exchange to create a hierarchal second
city --- the Ideal State. For extension of territory and saving the
prosperity from the neighbors, a new class functionally specialized in war is
needed.
“Then without determining as yet whether war
does good or harm, thus much we may affirm, that now we have discovered war to
be derived from causes which are also the causes of almost all the evils in
States, private as well as public”.[43] As one person must do only
one thing, there is need of specialized class that is good at art of war -- the
class of warriors, the “watch dogs”. “Then it will be our duty to select, if we
can, natures which are fitted for the task of guarding the city”.[44] Using the tripartite theory
of soul he proves that those who excel in the faculty of spirit, the virtue of
which is courage, are ideally suited for it. The courage as virtue has been
discussed in the theory of soul section of this essay. “The feverish condition
is, however not limited to the threat of external war but also implies the
internal disruption or dissolution of the health and the balance of the first
city through internal unrest.”[45] And hence there arises need
of a special class of warriors. But this class drunk with power might
degenerate into praetorians and quarrel continuously among themselves and with
the members of producing classes. As mentioned above that Plato compares the
warriors, the defenders of the city as watch dogs, which are friendly with the
insiders and furious over outsiders by instinct. So to make the perfect watch
dogs they need training to imbue them with the principles that makes the city
worth defending.
Thus the need of the class of the warriors
(auxiliaries), leads to the need of another class to recruit and train this
class as well as future guardians. The characteristic virtue of his class is
wisdom in the same way as the characteristic virtue of fighters and producers are
courage and temperance respectively. The first city according to him was the
result of the natural evolution, the “second” or the “ideal” city of the
republic is the product of rational planning and direction. This Platonic
community is the first example of the planned state. The recruitment and
training is done through education that is separately discussed in the theory
of education. To convince the auxiliaries and producers Plato advises the
ruling class, the wise, the philosopher to spread the medicinal lie (the myth
of metals) as discussed in the introduction.
Thus he theoretically constructs the Ideal State for justice, in which
everyone has his own and does his own. In the first city the entire population
was part of the division of labour economy, like the entire population was the
members of the political community in Athens, in Ideal state only around 80%
remain into economic community rest distinguish themselves as the ruling
classes – the guardians and the auxiliaries. Thus Plato divides the egalitarian,
‘happy’ first city into three exclusive classes – economic; coercive and
political. In fact the coercive class is the state apparatus and that is why
the upper two classes are clubbed together. The existing states are the
degenerated form of Plato’s Ideal. The personnel in the state apparatuses,
though belong to working collective in the capitalist state, yet is not part of
working class in Marxist sense, but a class apart, like Plato’s auxiliaries.
Thus Plato cleverly extends principles of the
division of labour of material production and exchange to divide the society
into hierarchically order of the classes of producers and non-producers, in
which non producers rule over the producing masses. The relationship between
carpenter and the farmer is not the same as the relationship between a farmer
and the philosopher kings. This ideal virtually boils down to be a aristocracy.
The society is just if it is harmoniously united, i.e. one doing only that for
which he is ordained to.
The main difference between a
craftsman and a philosopher in the Republic is the difference between
political wisdom and technical knowledge as he explains in the theory of
knowledge. Only philosophers have the he insight that a high, specialized
learning, needed to comprehend the human affairs and deal with them. Material
and exposure of a crafts man is finite limited to only visible world in
contrast the material and exposure of philosopher to the world of ideas, which
is infinite and unlimited. Effectively Plato’s notion of justice is creation of
Aristocratic community, in which the Aristocrats, emanating from planned
breeding and education, a special theory of eugenics, as is dealt in details in
the section dealing with the theory of communism. Communism and education are
two pillars of the Ideal State.
The
Social Justice
Plato theory of justice, i.e. the
theory of the ideal state is organic theory. As mentioned in the introduction,
Plato considers ‘state’ as ‘individual writ large’. Therefore he theorizes not
only social justice, i.e. the justice in society, as discussed above, but also
individual justice, i.e. the justice in individual and links them. A just state
is the state ruled by philosophers; defended by warriors and material needs are
supplied by the producing classes. A state can be just only with just
individuals, who are ready to accept the order in conformity with their nature.
How to convince the inferior classes? Plato gives the theory of meritocracy
through his theory of education that is separately dealt with. Also he invents
many myths, like the myth of the metal mentioned above. It should be noted that
Platonic social justice is not only different from but the reverse of the
contemporary discourse on social justice aimed at ending the class/caste
hierarchy. Platonic social justice is, as witnessed above, aimed and creating
and perpetuating class hierarchy.
Individual Justice
“The
state is not known by the quality of oak and rocks but by the character of individuals
living in it”[46]. The justice in individual is possible only if
the elements of soul are well ordered and harmoniously united in conformity to
its tripartite structure. The inferior elements, the spirit and appetite are
controlled by reason, which the willingly obey, in the same way as the classes,
the warriors and producers, whose realms of excellence are spirit and appetite
respectively willingly obey the dictates of the class, whose realm of
excellence is reason.
Some
observation
Before
concluding this discussion with a critical note, let us see major points
emerging from the above discussion.
·
It is not a legal but moral concept that does
not need any legal code of conduct to guide the philosopher king. He is the
embodiment of wisdom.
·
It involves division of labour among the
producers – non-hierarchical,
technical division of labour on the one hand and the hierarchical class
division on the other.
·
It is functional specialization in accordance
with one’s nature
·
It is a theory of non-interference.
Respective classes must not encroach into the realm of other classes.
·
It is also architectonic. To define justice
it constructs the edifice of the Ideal state beginning from the laying of the
foundation.
·
It is neither just functional specialization
nor the departmental excellence, these are its just the conditions. Justice is
the coordinating virtue of all the virtues of the soul.
In
lieu of conclusion
Plato’s concept of justice is not
the justice, as understood in juridical-legal sense. There is no law. The
ruler, being the perfect embodiment of wisdom and virtues, is the law in
him-self. He is capable of grasping and ensuring people’s wellbeing with the
help of state’s coercive apparatus. There can be no limitation of law over the
ruler. This has given chance to his critics to call him the first fascist[47]. His unselfish commitment to
his duty, ensuring the wellbeing of the, is projected as unchallengeable as he
has no property and family under the scheme of communism of property and the family.
Defying Platonic link between honesty and family and property, we find many
examples in modern democracies, batcher or married bachelor members of the
political class ensuring the wellbeing of capitalists on the cost of people’s
well-being[48].
Effectively it is a theory of a social code of conduct in a hierarchically
divided society, like Manusmriti. The source of validity in Republic is
relativity of rationality and not divinity, in Manusmriti, it is the
Gods. It is a theory of temperateness, a moral value and not the justice. It prescribes the code of conduct for various
classes of limiting their acts within their respective spheres and not invades
others in the tripartite social structure. What if “the harmonious well-ordered
unity”, the epitome of justice is disturbed by clash of wills or interest?
Plato does not take cognizance of this possibility, but implication of his
discussion on the need of a specialized class of fighters, is that it shall be
dealt with coercion. It is a theory of total subordination of individual to
state that ruled by philosophers is infinite and absolute.
This theory emphasizes on excessive
unity of the ruling classes -- philosophers and the soldiers -- and excessive
separation from the masses, the vast majority of the economic classes, which
are conditions and the part of the state. Manusmriti was created to the
existing four-fold hierarchical social order with huge difference between lower
and higher classes. Republic pleads for creation of such social division
in the context of his contemporary social and political equality, though
economic inequality did exist apart from the inhuman institution of slavery.
Aristotle takes its cognizance and stated that there were two cities in every
city, the city of the rich and the city of the poor. Plato, an aristocrat,
belonging to the “class of gainfully unemployed”[49], is not bothered about
economic inequality but political equality, notwithstanding the intellectual
inequality. His main concern was the participatory democracy, as it existed in
his contemporary Athens, in which all the freemen were members of the political
community. His problem was political parity of intellectually ‘unequal’ people.
How can a cobbler; carpenter; farmer or so sit on judgment on general of
generals at par with intellectually superiors like him? In his view, politics is an art to be
practiced only by virtuous, virtue is knowledge and the subject of knowledge is
world of ideas and the Idea of Good. His pessimism about potentially of
perfection in ordinary people makes him to feel that only a small number of
people have aptitude for knowledge that is refined by education. Hence his
famous statement that philosophers should be kings or the existing kings and
princes must be instructed into philosophy. He tried to teach philosophy to the
king of Syracuse, Dionysius I and subsequently his so Dionysius II and failed[50].
To conclude the ‘in-lieu of
conclusion’ it can be said that Plato’s vision of a just society and just
individual is well ordering of the classes and faculties of soul respectively
on the basis of the hierarchy of knowledge. Plato was against the democratic
rule full of corruption, but instead of reforming with equal universal
education he opines for of its destruction and its replacement by the rule of
philosopher with the help of armed auxiliary, the armed forces. If the Republic
is taken out of its historical context and placed it in the general context
of the class societies, in which a political class and a coercive state
apparatus have been historical realities, Plato’s scheme could be welcomed.
Politically educated rulers without conflict of interest should be preferred as
they do not have private property and family and live together in barracks and
thereby devote themselves to ensure the wellbeing of the people. Gandhi’s
advice to the legislators to live in hostels and to travel together to
parliament in bus, bears Platonic influence.
25.08.2018
5
Theory of Education
Introduction
“The
ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class
which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same
time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the
means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls at the
same time the means of mental production, so that the ideas of those who lack
the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing
more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships grasped
as ideas; hence of the relationships which make
the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The
individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things
consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class
and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they
do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as
producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas
of their age; thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch.”
Karl Marx in German
Ideology[51]
Education
is the key to Plato’s scheme of a just and virtuous society. Ruling classes of
all the epochs following disintegration of the primitive communism most
reliable and effective instrument of producing ideas and thereby creating the
form and level of consciousness. Not only it has historically played role of
ideological apparatus but also of revolutionary changes, depending on the character
of education [52].Plato
realized this with his experiences during the 12 years of wandering after
Socrates’s execution in BC 399. To realize his conceived notion Ideal State,
first task he undertook was to establish Academy in the natural ambience
at the outskirts of Athens, the first anticipation of the modern university
system[53]. Plato talks about social justice and
individual justice and the just individual is creation of an appropriate and
hence just education. The edifice of Plato’s theory of the Ideal State ruled by
the philosopher kings/queens rests on the pillars of his theories of education
and the communism. Plato realized the importance of education in defining and
controlling knowledge for a hegemonic social order. Our Vedic and Buddhist ancestors
had this realization much before Greeks, though for contrasting goals, former
for restricting the acquisition of knowledge defined by them and monopolizing
it for the perpetuation of social hegemony and later for ubiquitous spread of
knowledge defined by it in terms of real life situations aimed at the
destruction of the hegemony.
Education is so immensely vital in Plato’s
scheme that it is the subject of focus in all the books (chapters) from ii to
vii except book v of the Republic. Rousseau calls it “the finest treatise on
education that ever was written”[54]. Through state controlled
and maintained education system the rulers could create such mindsets that
would help retaining the social order and harmony. For Plato, the State’s
priority must be education that shall take care of all the other issues. Ever
since, the education has remained the most effective ideological apparatus in
the hands of the ruling classes. Plato is the first western philosopher to
theorize and put in practice through the establishment of Academy, the concept
of institutionalized public education system in the west. China and India had already well-established
systems of institutionalized education. In ancient India, there were two competing
education educational systems. The Brahmanical Gurkul system, an authoritarian
system of instruction in which the Guru (teacher) was beyond question. In some
Sanskrit maxims, he is equated with God[55]. Neither questioning nor any
debate-discussions were allowed, whereas knowledge comes from not what is
taught, but from questioning what is taught.
It imparted the education of conformity; conformity with the established
Brahmanical hierarchical social order. The children of only the ruling classes
in the fourfold social division were allowed the access to education. Buddhist
tradition was a revolutionary, dialectical system of debate-discussion, and
democratic discourse. There is neither scope nor the need of distraction into
Buddhist and Brahmanical schools of education; it is just to allude to the
historic fact that education may be an instrument of revolution as well as of
reaction. The modern education of scientific revolution and Enlightenment
played a revolutionary role by emancipating the knowledge system from the
clutches of theology. It was essential for the bourgeois democratic revolution
against the regressive feudalism. The liberal capitalism based on the
industrial revolution needed scientific temper and inventive mindset to
question and invent. The logical corollary of scientific education is
questioning its claim of the end of history. Need of neo-liberal global capital
is no more rationality but conformity. There is no scope of going into the
history of changes in the nature of institutional education in correspondence
with the changing needs of the ruling classes.
Plato is also the first philosopher in the western tradition to
conceptualize state maintained and controlled education. In recent times,
particularly since the globalization, states have been abdicating their
maintenance responsibility while intensifying the control over it[56].
History of knowledge is much older
than the history of education. In fact the history knowledge is as old as the
history humanity. Knowledge is continuous dialectical process of learning and
unlearning ever since the humans began to distinguish themselves from animal
kingdom by producing and reproducing their livelihood by application of labour
and the active mind, a human species-specific attribute. In ancient primitive
societies, those considered to be knowledgeable were entrusted with positions
like priest or commander and consulted about righteousness of particular views
or acts. The journey of knowledge through learning-unlearning process from
experiences and experiments has covered a long distance, to put it
metaphorically, from Stone Age to cyber age. The intellectuals of every
generation critically consolidate and build upon the achievements of previous
generations. There is no scope of detailed discussion on the history of
knowledge; I have dealt with it, elsewhere.[57] The history of education is almost as old as
the division of society into classes of haves and have-nots with disintegration
of primitive communities. The transformation of subsistence economy into
surplus economy and appropriation of surplus led to their control over the
society’s means of production. Systems of education began to construct the
knowledge in the interest of the dominant classes and provide validity to their
hegemony. Plato believed that knowledge is the highest virtue hence pleaded for
the supremacy of knowledge but not the knowledge of worldly things, the
knowledge of the Idea of Good, as defined by him. Out of the huge population
only a very few have the potentiality and ability to know the Idea of good. How
is it determined and realized? It is
done through education lasting up to the age of philosophers.
The importance of education in Plato’s political scheme
Plato’s priority for education can be easily understood
as half of the space of the Republic is devoted to education. He
considered education to be sure cure of the all ills of the society. Like his
theory of communism, the theory of education is also a logical corollary of the
theory of ideal state that he theoretically constructs for his central concern
of the justice. Justice for him is everyone’s acting according to his nature.
And one can know and realize one’s nature though education. The basis of the
ideal state is philosophy and study of philosophy requires the well planned
educational system. Buddhist education was aimed at breaking an established
class society of Varnashram order based on the hegemony of knowledge.
Brahmanical system of knowledge was to defend the existing class society while
Plato’s aimed at creating a class society on the basis of the hegemony of the
knowledge. For him taking care of education is state’s foremost responsibility,
as it is instrumental to create politically unequal classes and maintain it in
the context of politically egalitarian Athens, notwithstanding the economic
inequalities.
In Plato’s Republic, the authority of the ideal
state ruled by the philosophers is absolute that requires absolute
subordination of individual to the state. Therefore, the education must be so
designed that molds the mindset to suit the law of the state, as envisioned by
the rulers. Rousseau in his critique of the civilization opines that civility
introduces duality. One wants to look what one is not – the eternal
contradiction of essence and appearance. This duality is most clearly visible
in traditional Indian families. Parents and children live under the same roof
for years without ever democratically interacting, they only hierarchically
communicate. Children internalize these values of hierarchical relations of
‘discipline’ and obedience as the natural and the righteous way. Discipline and unquestioned obedience to
superior is underlined in the beginning of the discussion on education for
preparation of future generations[58]. This is done by habituating them to think
into just one way, perceived to be the righteous way, by designers of
course-curriculum or the teacher. There is no scope of any dissenting ideas in
the ideal state ruled by philosopher king. Such ideas of the past must be
strictly censored. “Then the first thing will be to establish a censorship of
the writers of fiction, and let the censors receive any tale of fiction which
is good, and reject the bad; and we will desire mothers and nurses to tell
their children the authorized ones only. Let them fashion the mind with such
tales, even more fondly than they mold the body with their hands; but most of
those which are now in use must be discarded.”[59] The present fiction writers
or poets who do not sing the prescribed tune shall be banished or denied
platform for performance[60].
Plato’s
apprehensions of the danger from, and intolerance to the dissenting ideas from
those thought to be righteous by the all-powerful rulers, have been relevant
through all the historical ages in varied forms, in varying time & space.
In the modern history, beginning from fascist onslaught of poets and activist,
progressive poets and intellectuals[61], via cruel McCarthyism[62] to the contemporary
Neo-McCarthyism of the neo-liberal age, dissenting views are cruelly crushed
under the pretext of anti-nationalism. Most recent demonstration of Platonian
apprehension is, the ruthless
suppression of intellectuals with dissenting voices through
extra-constitutional forces of ‘Hindutva’ terror groups and the constitutional
coercive apparatuses of the state, since the inception of the present RSS
supported BJP government[63]. Most recent example of is arrest of five
well-known activist-intellectual on the fabricated charges by the Police[64]. The contradiction of theory and practice is
not the monopoly of capitalism that never does what it says and never says what
it does, but an immanently innate attribute of the all class societies. Plato’s
notion of education as a determinant of meritocracy is full of such
contradictions.
On
the one hand he says that the mind is an active element that is attracted to
its subject on its own. It has eyes and the teacher’s task is not to interfere
in its motion but only to make its object sightable, i.e. to provide exposure
and create conducive ambience for the free realization of its nature by the
mind. On the other hand, proposes a strictly censored course curriculum with
many prescriptions and proscriptions.
As
can be inferred from the above discussion, the theory of ideal state is the
logical corollary the theory of justice and hence by implication, so is the
theory of education, one of the two pillars of the edifice of the ideal state,
the other being, the theory of communism. Justice means everyone acting towards
realization of one’s nature. Education is to determine and thereby make the
individuals to know their nature on the one hand and also train them towards
perfection of it. He draws a comparison between the relationship of the soul
and education with that of growth of a seed into plant with the variety of the
soil and climate[65]. He considers education as the spiritual food
of the soul and hence a lifelong process. Theory and practice both, according
to him, are products of mind, even state is product of mind. That means one of
the aims of education is to train the mind to remain in touch with the theory
and practice both. The inverted priority of matter and mind has been discussed
in the theory of ideas; the state cannot be product of the mind as mind
abstracts the universal ideas from the particular objects not the other way round.
Plato has a teleological (purposive) conception of mind that aims to comprehend
the Idea of Good. But not everyone can
reach to that stage of knowledge, but only few, who are immanently innate
attribute of excellence in the realm of reason.
The
Education system
In
ancient Greece, two systems of education were prevalent -- Athenian and the
Spartan. In Athens most lucrative field was politics. The education was private
and the Sophists were, as is said, the robing universities, who taught for a
fee. Protagoras (BC 490-420) was a prominent Sophist of Socratic era[66]. He was an atheist, a rarity those days in Greece. One of the
false charges against Socrates in the Athenian judicial assembly was corrupting
the youth by spreading atheism. Sophism, in Greek, is equivalent of
wisdom. Sophists taught natural philosophy, mathematics and the subjects
related to, what was considered by them, wisdom and virtue -- from practical
knowledge and prudence in public
affairs to poetic ability and theoretical knowledge; oratory; eloquence;
articulation argumentation, logic etc. In Republic, the sophist,
Thrasymachus, is demonized and ridiculed and is shut up by the end of book I.
That is the realm of education was family centered. Not the state
centered. Sparta was a military
aristocracy and had a state controlled education system that imparted mainly
military education and discipline. Plato synthesized the two and added the
study of the dialectic at the highest stage of the scheme.
Plato
divides the education into two parts – elementary and higher. As the “early life is very impressible”[67] and the children are like
wax and can be molded in the shape, one wishes to. Hence the education begins
from the birth itself. “…… also that the
beginning is the most important part of any work, especially in the case of a
young and tender thing; for that is the time at which the character is being
formed and the desired impression is more readily taken”[68]. Hence the education begins
from the time of birth itself.
The
elementary education
The
elementary education is divided into 3 parts:
1.
0-6 years of the age;
2. 6-18 years and
3.
18-20 years.
The
First stage (0-6 years)
The
scheme of education is the same for boys and girls both. Education of women is
a revolutionary contribution of Plato, as it was unheard of not only in Plato’s
time but up to many successive centuries. The first stage of the education of
the children, both boys and the girls, begins from the time of birth and lasts
up to age of 6 years. Plato is quite correct to note that early childhood is
very impressionable age and the children are keen observers; quick imitators
with thinking faculty at the early stage of its growth, and also vulnerable to
indoctrination. Purpose of education at this stage is to provide appropriate
exposure and examples. The teachers must teach by example, same is true for
parents outside Plato’s commune. Convinced with correctness of his views of
good and bad and the ‘real interest’ of the society at large, Plato
overtly-covertly resorts to the indoctrination. In the early stage the children
are taught morality and goodness through lyrics, tales and historical or
mythological heroic examples.
“But
what shall their education be? Is any better than the old-fashioned sort, which
is comprehended under the name of music and gymnastic? Music includes
literature, and literature is of two kinds, true and false. …… . I mean that
children hear stories before they learn gymnastics, and that the stories are
either untrue, or have at most one or two grains of truth in a bushel of
falsehood. Now, and children ought not to learn what they will have to
unlearn when they grow up; we must therefore have a censorship of nursery
tales, banishing some and keeping others. Some of them are very improper, as we
may see in the great instances of Homer and Hesiod, who not only tell lies but
bad lies; stories about Uranus and Saturn[69],
which are immoral as well as false, and which should never be spoken about to
young persons, or indeed at all; or, if at all, then in a mystery, after the
sacrifice, …..”[70]
This
is a very sticky wicket. There is no denying that the early exposures and tales
and lyrics influence the growth of the child’s brain and its direction and
dimensions, which shape their, the child consciousness. The choice of the kind
of exposure in the hands of the rulers is tricky and subject to widely misuse.
Let us give the benefit of doubt to Plato as the ruler of his ideal state is an
all knowledgeable philosopher, who is able to comprehend the idea of good and
would not allow its misuse. But historically, philosopher rulers have been
exceptions; most of them have been the artists of power games, as realistically
claimed by Machiavelli, many centuries later.[71] As quoted above from Marx’s German
Ideology, in each historical epoch, the ruling class ideas influence the
level and form of the social consciousness through particular value
system/systems. These value systems have reference source/sources for the
validation human acts and opinions. In ancient Greece these sources were the
mythological writings of Homer and Hesiod; works of the socially recognized
poets and fictions, as the bible in the medieval, theological era in Europe,
also known as dark ages, or various scriptures like Manusmriti and mythological
scriptures in India in the aftermath of Buddhist revolution and Brahmanical
counter revolutions[72]. Plato questions the
pervading value systems and proposes an alternative value system. In book II, after convincing his assenting
companions, Adeimantus and Glaucon about the need of the tripartite social
structure corresponding to tripartite composition of soul for the establishment
of social and individual justices, Socrates in Republic proceeds to
chalk out the scheme of education for the future guardians. From here to the
next book, he does not say so much about what is to be taught as what is not to
be taught. Why was Plato so against the value system based
on mythological Homeric tales about various gods and divine order? All the
communities create their language; idioms and phrases; Gods and Goddesses
according to their historical needs and divine order in their own image. Evils
of war; incest; patricide; quarrels and wars among the Gods were the
fictionalized reflection existing mundane world. “First of all, I said, there
was that greatest of all lies in high places, which the poet told about Uranus,
and which was a bad lie too,–I mean what Hesiod says that Uranus did, and how
Cronus retaliated on him. The doings of Cronus, and the sufferings which in
turn his son inflicted upon him, even if they were true, ought certainly not to
be lightly told to young and thoughtless persons; if possible, they had better
be buried in silence.”[73]
For
Plato Gods cannot do anything bad but only good. “But surely God and the things
of God are in every way perfect”[74]. Plato insists that they should not learn
things of bad influence, what they have to unlearn, when they grow-up and goes
on to ruthlessly analyze the existing intellectual resources, the poems of
Homer Hesiod and works of other poets and dramatists and their evil influences
on the children in their tender formative stage of life. “Then, although we are
admirers of Homer, we do not admire the lying dream which Zeus sends to
Agamemnon; neither will we praise the verses of Aeschylus in which Thetis says
that Apollo at her nuptials ’Was celebrating in song her fair progeny whose
days were to be long, and to know no sickness. And when he had spoken of my lot
as in all things blessed of heaven he raised a note of triumph and cheered my
soul. And I thought that the word of Phoebus, being divine and full of
prophecy, would not fail. And now he himself who uttered the strain, he who was
present at the banquet, and who said this – he it is who has slain my son.’
These are the kind of sentiments about the gods which will arouse our anger;
and he who utters them shall be refused a chorus; neither shall we allow
teachers to make use of them in the instruction of the young, meaning, as we
do, that our guardians, as far as men can be, should be true worshippers of the
gods and like them”[75].
The
purpose of this long quotation is just to underline that the literature of the
past must be strictly censored and the present writers must write only those
things that are recommended by the state. Those poets and writes not following
the state prescription are to be banished from the ideal state or denied the
platform for performance. The future guardians must not be exposed to those
stories and songs, which may arouse fear of death or erode devotion to Gods or
hatred towards the truth. Therefore, on the one hand Plato, in principles,
maintains that the education’s task is not to instill anything from outside but
to provide only exposure and mind on itself would find its way, that should
mean the exposure to the totality of the reality, on the other hand limits the
exposure to only what he considered to be desirable. The knowledge process
involves not only learning but also unlearning, questioning and unlearning the
irrational social values that one has acquired through socialization
independent of one’s conscious will. But Plato’s educational scheme does not
leave any scope for what one has learnt via a strictly censored and regulated
course-curriculum. The early exposure is quite important in building up of the
mindset and Plato seeks to expose children only to the good aspects of society
and God. But the problem arise when they confront the existing reality that
does not consist of only virtues but vices also, they are not taught how to
deal with them. But like his theory of ideal state, the theory of education,
it’s one of the pillars, is also a theoretical construct to eliminate the vices
in coordination of its other pillar, the theory of communism.
The
second stage (6-18 years)
In
the first stage of the education the emphasis is to develop the appropriate
orientation through music that develops and refines the soul. In the second
stage the gymnastic is added to the music for the simultaneous development of
body also along with the soul.
The
Music
As
quoted above, the music includes literature; poetry; songs; dance and
instrumental music. The censorship of music that includes literature continues
in the second stage also. At this stage the scope of the music takes a higher
form by including selected harmonies and rhythms. “Next in order to harmonies,
rhythms will naturally follow, and they should be subject to the same rules,
for we ought not to seek out complex systems of meter, or meters of every kind,
but rather to discover what rhythms are the expressions of a courageous and
harmonious life; and when we have found them, we shall adapt the foot and the
melody to words having a like spirit, not the words to the foot and melody”[76]. Further that “the musical training is a more potent instrument than
any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of
the soul, on which they mightily fasten, imparting grace, and making the soul
of him who is rightly educated graceful, or of him who is ill-educated
ungraceful; and also because he who has received this true education of the
inner being will most shrewdly perceive omissions or faults in art and nature,
and with a true taste, while he praises and rejoices over and receives into his
soul the good, and becomes noble and good, he will justly blame and hate the
bad, now in the days of his youth, even before he is able to know the reason
why; and when reason comes he will recognize and salute the friend with whom
his education has made him long familiar”[77]. This means the censorship
of literature is similarly applied to the harmonics and rhythms of the
instrumental music. Plato firmly believes in the influence of the music in the
character building, though it does not impart any scientific knowledge but
promotes the thinking in the right direction. The wildness of passions is
calmed down by the rhythms and the harmonies and fills the minds of the youth
with a sense of conviction to justice. “When the modes of the music change, the
fundamental laws of the state always change with them”.[78] It fills in the sense of
discipline and devotion to God and protects the soul from evil influences. It
shall not be inappropriate to conclude this section with yet another quotation.
“And
therefore …….. musical training is a
more potent instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their
way into the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten,
imparting grace, and making the soul of him who is rightly educated graceful,
or of him who is ill-educated ungraceful; and also because he who has received
this true education of the inner being will most shrewdly perceive omissions or
faults in art and nature, and with a true taste, while he praises and rejoices
over and receives into his soul the good, and becomes noble and good, he will
justly blame and hate the bad, now in the days of his youth, even before he is
able to know the reason why; and when reason comes he will recognize and salute
the friend with whom his education has made him long familiar.”
The
Gymnastics
Gymnastics
is about health care – maintenance of healthy body. It includes prescription of
simple diet and cure of the body. He proscribes spicy and heavy food. He is
against cures of illness as in his opinion death is preferable over living with
illness. In his ideal state there is no space for physicians, who instead of
curing increase the illness like non-conforming poets and artists they too are
banished[79]. The soul in the weak and ill body, according
to him, cannot realize its nature. He holds the indulgence and indolence are
the basic causes of illness. The physical trainings and exercises keep the body
so fit that illness keeps away from it. The exercises not only keep the body
fit but also help in building the moral character, as its final goal. It makes
the youth temperate; courageous and disciplined. It is basically aimed at
enabling the youth for military duties.
It
is to be noted that though the reasoning is the philosophical basis of Plato’s
political theory, there is hint that apart from censored music and gymnastics,
nothing is taught in which the students have scope for application of reasoning
abilities. The main aim seems to induct in the students the sense of discipline
and obedience to the state that is to the directions of the philosopher, whose
authority knows no limits of any law.
The
third stage (18-20)
Last
two years of the elementary education are devoted to military training. This
phase is very important as music nurtures and nourishes the soul and gymnastic
the body. In the choice of rhythms, as quoted above, Plato prefers warlike
rhythms. Through appropriate music and
drills; sports; exercises as part of gymnastics, the elementary education
prepares the youth into a disciplined soldier, the courageous watch dog knowing
well on whom to be fierce or friendly. The dogs depend for knowing this on
their instincts, the soldiers by training. Trainings of personnel of security
forces of the states through the ages, not perfectly, but approximately fit
into Platonian framework of the elementary education.
After
the 20 years education in music and gymnastics, there is a first great
elimination test, those who clear it are admitted to higher education and the
rest take up the responsibility of warriors as disciplined soldiers.
The
higher education
There
are three stages in higher education also.
1. The
scientific education (20-30)
2. Education
in dialectic (30-35)
3. Practical
in dialectics (35-40)
The
first stage (20-30 years)In this stage the students are given
scientific education, which Plato, in his theory of knowledge diagram marks as
the realm of understanding. After 20 years of elementary education in music and
physical training, the successful candidates are introduced to the subjects
like mathematics (arithmetic); geometry; astronomy; astrology and harmonics.
The scientific education orients the youth towards the truth. Emphasis is on
mathematics and not wrongly as it trains our mind for clear thinking;
reasoning; logic and analysis. In underlining the importance of various
subjects, Plato emphasizes their utility in war formations and strategies.
There is no scope to go into details of his treatment of various disciplines.
In nutshell there are two major advantages of te scientific education,
according to Plato, firstly it orients towards reasoning and secondly it
introduces the soul to the principles and ideas essential for the comprehension
of the final knowledge, the knowledge of the Idea of Good. At the end of the 10
years of the scientific education, there is the second great elimination test.
Those who clear this final test are recommended for further higher education in
dialectics and those who fail are selected for subordinate administrative and
military offices. As mentioned earlier, Plato does not consider the knowledge
acquired from the scientific education as real knowledge but only
understanding.
Second stage (30-35)
The students selected for higher education
are taught dialectics – the philosophical journey into the invisible,
intellible world of ideas -- for the next five years. This has been briefly
discussed in section of the theory of ideas. The training in the dialectics
enables them to comprehend the idea of the good.
Third stage (35-50 years)
After 5 years of training in dialectics, the
students become would be only potential philosopher kings and queens, that the
become after testing their philosophical theories into practice by a 15 year
long apprentice by working on higher administrative and military
positions. Those, who prove their worth
in handling the tough tasks working on these positions, become philosopher
kings/queens, at the age of 50. Thus as a result of 50 years long strenuous
education results into creation of the philosopher, who his a high quality
scientist and philosopher. After the completion of education, the philosopher
kings/queens devote themselves to the contemplation of the truth and the
wellbeing of the people and guide them to just ways of the life.
Women’s Education
Though it has already mentioned in the
beginning itself that education is meant for boys and girls both, yet it
deserves additional treatment as the society was a rigidly patriarchal, and
women were confined to only domestic chorus. They were not even citizens. In
England, women got full citizenship rights only in 1929 after a
prolonged feminist struggle and scholarship, beginning with Mary
Wollstonecraft, in the last quarter 18th century[80]. Allowing women to uniform
and equal upbringing and education with men was an innovative, revolutionary
idea. His student Aristotle was so upset that questions Plato’s wisdom of
giving away the enslavement of women with one stroke of pen, which has been a
historic achievement of mankind. In book V of Republic, Socrates
meticulously argues with Galucon and Adeimantus the equal potentials in women
if given same upbringing and education as men. Confining the women into
domestic chorus means deprivation of society of the utility of half of its
intellectual resources. Let me conclude this discussion with a long quotation
from dialogues between Socrates and Glaucon.
“Then, if women are to have the same duties
as men, they must have the same nurture and education?
Yes.
The education which was assigned to the men
was music and gymnastic.
Yes.
Then women must be taught music and gymnastic
and also the art of war, which they must practice like the men?
That
is the inference, I suppose.
I should rather expect, I said, that several
of our proposals, if they are carried out, being unusual, may appear
ridiculous. No doubt of it. Yes, and the most ridiculous thing of all will be
the sight of women naked in the palaestra, exercising with the men, especially
when they are no longer young; they certainly will not be a vision of beauty,
any more than the enthusiastic old men who in spite of wrinkles and ugliness
continue to frequent the gymnasia.
Yes, indeed, he said: according to present
notions the proposal would be thought ridiculous. But then, I said, as we have
determined to speak our minds, we must not fear the jests of the wits which
will be directed against this sort of innovation; how they will talk of women’s
attainments both in music and gymnastic, and above all about their wearing
armor and riding upon horseback!”
Plato argues that once people see the results
of women’s performances in public offices or in the field of war, they shall
begin appreciating it instead of ridicules.
Concluding Remarks
The educational scheme is only for the ruling
classes, not for children of the majority of economic producers. Though, Plato
theoretically constructs the ideal state by extending the principles of the
division of labor and exchange in the egalitarian First City, the city
of various kinds of producers, he
excludes them from the political community, to be ruled by educated
philosophers with the help of trained, armed auxiliaries. Plato’s aristocratic
education, not totally but largely resembles the Brahmanical, Gurukul,
education system in the same way as the structure of his ideal education
largely resembles the Varnashram social system. The Brahmanical education was reserved
for only the ruling classes, the intellectuals (Brahmins) and the warriors
(Kshatriyas), not accessible to the classes of economic producers (Vishyas) and
the servant classes (Shudra). The education of warrior classes generally
focused on military education and politics (Dandniti). The higher education
that is the knowledge of scriptures was reserved for the intellectuals, the
Brahmins. The RSS’s notion of education imparted in the Shishumandir and Shakha
bears noticeable influence of Plato’s education system. Plato theoretically
picks up children at the time of the birth and subjects them to selected tales
and lyrics. RSS picks them up little later and inducts them as Shishu ( child)
Swamsevak and trains them further as Bal (boy) Swamsevak; kishor (Adolscent)
and Tarun (young Swamsevak) Swamsevak and then graduation to full-fledged
Swayamsevak after attending two camps ITC and OTC (Officers Training Camp).
Like Plato it too emphasizes, in belief in the God, discipline and obedience
along with indoctrination in selected way of thinking. There is no scope here
of comparison between Platonic and RSS education systems, which is subject
matter of separate discussion. But unlike Plato, it does not allow women in its
scheme. From the above discussion we can conclude that Plato’s education system
is an aristocratic system aimed at maintaining the strict class division of the
rulers and the ruled and training the philosophers to rule over the majority of
the producers.
17.09.2018
6
Plato’s Theory of Communism
Ish Mishra
Plato’s theory of communism is just opposite
to Marxian theory of communism that seeks to eventually establish a classless
and hence stateless society, as according to it the state is instrument of the
domination in the hands of ruling classes. Plato’s theory of communism that is
used as one of instruments of consolidation of the hierarchically ‘well
ordered’ state through perpetuating class-division and class-domination, the
other instrument being the education. Plato’ Republic seeks to establish
justice, i.e. the ideal state where the philosophers, selflessly, rule over the
masses involved in the material production of the society, with the help of the
armed auxiliaries. Plato’s theory of communism is based on his belief of
corrupting influences of family and property over people holding the public
offices that remains a historic fact and continuing norm. It is aimed at
freeing the ruling classes, i.e. the philosophers and the warriors from the
institutions of family and property. The vast producing masses are kept out of
the realm of communism that applies to only ruling classes – the philosophers
and the warriors. The longings for family and property make the rulers
self-seeking, indulgent, greedy and hence corrupt that is a diversion from and
impediment to appropriate performance of their duty to
rule not in their own but in public interest.
Intellectuals react to and reflect upon their
own time and space, i.e. their surroundings and conditions. They do not create
justices/injustices, they only analyze; critique; explain; justify or challenge
and provide alternative to the already existing conditions. The war torn Athens
in Plato’s time was in miserable conditions, the polis (city-state) to which
Plato belonged, was divided into two cities, the city of the rich and the city
of the poor and the rich could influence the politics through money power and
the rich could influence the politics through money power. Sophists, “the
roving universities” were professional teacher and would teach the children for
a fee that only rich could afford. There were no public educational
institutions. The main subjects taught were eloquence and oratory and the
demagogues were influence the public opinion. Corruption was quite rampant as
is clear from the fact that Plato and other pupils of Socrates had bribed the
civil and jail officials to facilitate his escape from the jail but Socrates
had refused to. The status of women was miserable as in any patriarchal
society. They were forced by the custom to be consumed in domestic chorus and
child rearing. Plato recognized the
potential talent of women that was being wasted in marriage and the girls were
married off in childhood itself as was the case prevalent in India till few
decades and child marriage still prevails in many regions and communities. They
were deprived of their public presence and were merely instruments of sexual
satisfaction of husbands and looking after kitchen and children. Hence his
theory of communism seeks to abolish the institutions of property and family
among the ruling classes to keep them incorruptible and dedicated to
governance.
The Communism of Property
“Wealth, I said, and poverty;
the one is the parent of luxury and indolence, and the other of meanness and
viciousness, and both of discontent.” (IV, 278; idph.in)
The gist of Plato’s communism is deprivation
of all the members of the ruling classes, the guardians and soldiers from
having any private property including private house, land or gold and silver
(wealth). Their survival needs shall be taken care by the commodities collected
from the producing classes in the form of taxes. They shall live in the state
managed barracks and eat in the common mess.
Plato’s communism is ascetic and aristocratic simultaneously. As has
been already mentioned, the communism applies for only ruling classes and not
for producing masses. The private ownership of property by ruling classes is to
be replaced by their collective ownership of property and collective domination
over the producing masses under the direction of philosopher king with the
coercive apparatus of the armed auxiliaries.
The ruling classes are forced to leave the longing for gold and silver
and also of private wives in the larger interest of the state. According to him
those classes which have the qualities of gold and silver within, need not
external silver or gold. They are the servants of the people and not the
masters, a contradiction in terms. This duality of theory and practice
continues in modern democracies as the ruling parties and leaders despite their
all kinds of uses and misuses of power claim to be servants of the people. They
shall be paid no salary or allowances, their essential needs shall be taken by
the state. The longing for property corrupts the rulers and makes them greedy
and selfish that would lead to instability of the state. Also involvement of
rulers into economic activities shall be a deviation from their role and
commitment to the justice, i.e. to serve the people by way of maintaining the class-divided
social order. Also, in his opinion, family and property were the chief sources
of disunity and social tension.
Plato’s arguments in defense of abolition of
the institution of property among the ruling classes are not economic in terms
of the nature of ownership of means of production and exchange, but moral,
political and psychological. According to his basic assumptions of human nature
and the principle of functional specialization, he opines on the moral grounds
that everyone must accomplish one’s nature of achieving the requisite end by
transcending self-interest. Contrary to the Sophist view that one exists and
acts in the self-interest, Plato hold that individuals do not exist and act as
individuals in the self-interest but exist as parts of collectivity (state) and
must subordinate the self-interest to the collective. As the theory of
communism is a corollary of the theory of justice of which the non-interference
is one of the specific features, Philosophers and soldiers must not interfere in
the economic activities, the prerogative of the ruled classes – the producing
classes. Therefore it is imperative on the classes of philosophers that they
selflessly devote themselves to their duties of ruling.
The philosophers and warriors are the embodiments
of the cardinal virtues, wisdom and courage respectively; therefore they must
save themselves from getting trapped into lowly faculty – the apatite, the
desires and passions are whose mean attributes. Appetite would blunt their
reason or spirit and disturb the balanced equilibrium of the relationship
between individual and the collectivity that would be detrimental to justice.
Moreover the rulers are endowed with the inner qualities of gold and silver
respectively and must not long for the external gold and silver. Plato during
his visit to Egypt was impressed by his observation that the clergymen living
ascetic life were the revered rulers. In India the supposedly ascetic priests
enjoyed superior status in deciding the socio-political code of conduct. Hence
he finds the discipline of communism essential for proper just conduct of
rulers. He is pragmatic in concluding that combination of political and
economic power in the same hands is a deadly combination, destined to lead to
corruption, dissention and hence instability of state. Philosophically, people
equipped with specific virtues of wisdom and courage must emancipate themselves
from worldly longings and lead exemplary disciplined lives of the principles of
communism. Plato’s primary purpose of abolition of private property among the
ruling classes is political, i.e. stability of his Ideal state. The communism
applies only to the ruling classes, a miniscule minority of the population.
Plato’s belief that wealth has a corrupting influence on politics hence the
rulers must be deprived of it, to the extent that the words ‘mine’ and ‘yours’
disappear from their vocabulary.
Communism of Wives
“…if the difference consists
only in women bearing and men begetting children, this does not amount to a
proof that a woman differs from men in respect of the sort of education she
should receive; and we shall therefore continue to maintain that our guardians
[and] their wives ought to have the same pursuits.” [Ebenstein] In the book V
of Republic, Socrates first convincingly proves the equality of women with men
after considering all the possible objections and arguments and arrives at the
conclusion of the need of abolition of family. This was a revolutionary novel
idea to his time where women were married in childhood and confined in to four
walls of family and domestic chorus all their life. On the question of women
striping off in front men exercising with them, Socrates, though stops short of
absolute equality on the ground of perceived weakness of the physical strength,
yet placed in its historical context, it is an insignificant. “The wives of our
guardians, then, must strip for exercise, since they will be clothed with
virtue and they must take their share in war and in other social duties of
guardianship. They are to have no other occupation; and in these duties, the
lighter part must fall on the women because of the weakness of their sex. ………”.
Plato in a way pleads for women’s emancipation from patriarchal family on the
ground of their equality with men in all aspects if given the same conditions
of bringing up, education and opportunities. Therefore confining women into
domestic chorus was wasting half of the potential social talent. “So far then
in regulating the positions of women, we may claim to have come safely through
one hazardous proposition that male and female guardians shall have all
occupations in common. The consistency of the argument is an assurance that the
plan is good and also feasible. …. .” And henceforth he moves to argue the
indispensable need to abolish the institution of family itself for the ruling
classes. His student, Aristotle, was furious over his giving away the “historic
victory” of mankind in “enslaving women”, while declaring, “Dear is Plato, but
dearer ids the truth”.
The nomenclature, ‘communism
of wives’ does not suite the content that is not about arrangement of ‘wives’
among the ‘husbands’ but abolition of the institution of family itself for the
Guardians. There is no privacy and no scope of individual men and women forming
any regular or permanent bond. Plato argues the abolition of family on two
counts. First argument Family, according to him is linked with property and is
equally distractive and corrupting as property. The rulers must not waste time
and energy in familial responsibility but devote themselves in the invention of
the truth, i.e. in the comprehension of the Idea of Good. Before coming to his
idea of the regulated sexual intercourse and unique eugenics, let us quickly
glance through Plato’s arguments against the family of guardians, apart from
wastage of female social potentialities.
·
The emotive and impulsive attachment to the
family fetters the absolute devotion to the state and concern for their
offspring causes selfish tendencies detrimental to social unity and
harmony.
·
Family education is limited and inappropriate
to instill the sense of absolute commitment to the state in future
guardians.
·
Family is hurdle for women’s equal education
and function as guardians and hence an obstruction in their emancipation.
·
Abolition of the institutions of marriage and
family is essential for the moral development of guardians. Due to marriage men
and women carelessly indulge into sexual intercourse, whenever they wish to
instead of controlled and disciplined sex to produce worthy children.
·
The maintenance of family needs wealth
implying that the involvements of the guardians in economic activities
interfering into the realm of economic producers deviating from their political
duties in violation of the principle of justice.
After
critiquing the family, Plato proposes his new scheme, “…. A law that follows
from that principle (male and female guardians having all occupations in
common) and all that has gone before , namely that, of these guardians, no one
man and one woman have to set up house together privately: wives have to be
held in common by all; so too are the children. No parent is to know his own
child or any child his parent.” All the children are brothers and sisters and
all adults are their mothers and fathers. Aristotle had pejoratively comments
that he would happier to have even one distant cousin than hundreds of brothers
and sisters. Plato recommends discipline of asceticism not celibacy. The Ideal
state would need future guardians. Plato recommends a state regulated sexual
association of men and women on festive occasions for procreation and not for
pleasure. “The worthy men and women, who have special accomplishments in the
service of state must be coupled together more often for superior offspring’s. Plato’s this scheme is based on his genetic
misconception, “bad crow lays bad eggs”. “….. . If we have to keep our folk at
the highest pitch of excellence, there should be as much union of the best of
both the sexes and as few of the inferior as possible and the offspring of the
better unions should be kept (as guardians). And no one else but Rulers must
know how all this is being effected; otherwise out herd of guardians may become
rebellious.” Rest will be “thrust out among the artisans and farmers”. The
paring is done at festive occasions with all the enthusing activities of poetry
and songs (befitting the occasion) and of course prayers and sacrifices. For
the best unions the Ruler should intelligently maneuver the draw of lots. “They
would have to invent some ingenious system of drawing lots, so that at each
pairing off the inferior would blame his luck not the Rulers.” Plato undermines
the emotive and impulsive aspects of human personality and subordinates them to
rational aspects and considers sex not as a human need but only a instrument to
produce future guardians. Let us conclude this discussion before going into
their merits and demerits with a long quotation from the Republic (book V):
“As soon as children are born, they will be
taken by officers appointed for the purpose, who may be men or women or both,
because offices are to be shared by both the sexes. The children of the better
parents they take to crèche to be reared in the care of nurses living apart in
certain quarter of the city. The children of inferior parents and any children
of the rest that are defective are hidden away in some appropriate manner that
must be kept secret.” It is to be noted that infanticide of defective children
was practiced at Sparta. What a unique eugenic theory and family planning
scheme! “They must be if the breed of our guardians is to be kept pure”
In lieu of a conclusion
Ernest Barker calls Platonic communism as
half communism. “It affects less than half of the persons and less than half of
the goods of the society to which it belongs.” Barker’s quantification is very
generous it does not apply to even hundredth of the population. Moreover,
slavery, the specific feature of the Greek glory is completely missing from the
discourse. Either slavery is abolished in his Ideal State or Plato finds
slavery so insignificant and taken for granted, in that was not worth
reckoning. In case of the first probability, he never tells about how was it
abolished and nothing happens on its own, according to the Newton’s law. His
theory applies to only a parasitic (non-producers), miniscule minority of
rulers, who rule over the vast majority of economic producers and traders, who
in the then contemporary Athens were free and equal citizens with the right to
participate in legal and juridical deliberations. If the Ideal State was to be
established in the then Athens, it would have involved de-enfranchisement of
the entire free male population and disbanding the families of the first band
of rulers. When he talks of the unity and the purity of the state he simply
means the unity of the ruling classes so that the philosopher kings could
consolidate their rule over the producing masses with the help of the armed
auxiliary. If the property and family are the corrupting influence and vices
for the ruling classes, why not free the entire population of these vices?
Plato’s concept of sexuality not as a normal
human attribute and need but simply as a tool of procreation of future rulers,
whereas the toiling masses are left without education and subordinated to be
fooled by myths and illustrations, like
the myth of metals. There is no scheme of upward mobility of the lower classes,
though there is scope for downward mobility, as we have seen above that
offspring of inferior couples and those born by unauthorized coupling are
secretly thrust over the producing community, if not abandoned or buried in
some remote corner. After through education and elimination tests, by way of
meritocracy, Plato talks about taking to state crèche and state nursery only
the legitimate children born out of state sponsored and manipulated temporary
marriages. The Republic is silent about the education of the children of
producing masses, condemned to remain deprived of Platonic scheme of education
and the Ideal State practically turn out to be an aristocracy without private
families and property, living in a commune unified domination over, and extract surplus from the economic
classes, the producers and the traders. Plato’s idea of abolishing the
institution of family would have been a welcome gesture had it not been
qualified by so many regulations restrictions and manipulations over sexual
intercourse between garrisoned elite men and women, not for mutual feelings,
pleasure and passions, is dehumanizing and mechanizing the emotive humane
sensibilities under his superstitious genetic assumption, “bad crow”. His
eugenics and family planning proposals are unique but cruel to physically
handicapped and illegal children. Also he has no scheme for abolition of family,
as an idealist he begins from scratch and in theoretically constructing the
Ideal, i.e. from the perspective of the circumstances of his own choice and not
in the given circumstances, transmitted from the past. Out of ignorance of
genetic and biological laws, he links the restrained and regulated sexuality
with one’s moral development that is not product of the biological accident of
birth. His student and first critic criticizes the common ownership of property
and abolition of family, for wrong reasons, there is scope here to go into
details here. The family is certainly a conservative institution that breeds
unfreedoms and inequalities but abrupt abolition of family would not be readily
accepted and would lead to socio-economic anarchy. To abolish the family, a
particular form and level of consciousness in needed. The first step towards it
would be democratizing the family by rejecting the patriarchal social values
and sense of possessiveness. This would be possible only in a classless society
of human emancipation and not in a hierarchical society of class consolidation.
Though he allows theoretical equality to men
but contradicts himself by his so many remarks in Republic and elsewhere. For
instance, “I am fortunate to be born as a free man not a slave; a man and not a
woman….” Apart from his acknowledgement that women are physically weaker
(Rep. V, 170), at places he brackets
them with the duffers and slaves (IX 341). He advises the superior men not only
against following the example of rascals and criminals but also not that of
women (II, 96-97). The sinner men of this life are born as women in the other.
(V, 195-96). Everything said and done, despite his regressive notions of
transcendence of soul, paradoxes in his views on women and restricting this
equality only to the ruling class women, given his historical context, Plato’s
views on women’s equality are quite radical, as a text can be better understood
by placing it into the appropriate context.
Comparison with modern Communism – the Marxian
Communism
Comparison between two diverse things
belonging to different time and space separated by over 2,000 years is not only
inconvenient but also irrelevant. Plato was writing in a time and space
characterized by slavery in democratic Athens aimed at creation of
‘meritocracy’ based classes and at replacing the democratic governance with an
Ideal State ruled by the wise (and only few are endowed with the ability to it)
with the help of its armed auxiliaries. The aim of his communism was to consolidate
the class rule by keeping the members of the ruling class united by
freeing/depriving them of the private family and property that has been
discussed above. Marx was writing in the time and space characterized by
industrial capitalism and wage slavery, aimed at eventually ending the class
differences completely leading to a classless society, based on the basic
principle of equality of human dignity, which shall make the state unnecessary
and shall wither away. In the stateless society, the management of the people
shall be replaced by management of things. The communism of Plato is means to
consolidate the hierarchical social ordering, in Marxian communism; there is no
hierarchy except the hierarchy of knowledge, the technical hierarchy based on
functional specialization, for coordinating the collective labour processes.
Karl Popper wrote Open Society and its Enemies (Vol. 1, The Spell of
Plato & Vol.2, The Spell of Marx) in 1945, in the aftermath of
the 2nd World War and emergence of the USSR as world power
representing an alternative model of economic development and governance to
capitalism. It is to be noted that that in 1945 there was no danger of Plato’s Totalitarian
Communism of Plato’s Ideal State ruled by the Philosopher but the danger of
the Marxian Communism ruled by the proletariat themselves through their
collective organization into a communist party. After the Bolshevik revolution,
The Ten Days That Shook The World (John Reed) and foundation of the Third
International – The Communist International (Comintern), most of the
capitalist countries had Communist Parties with substantial influence among
workers, teachers and students. It is also to be noted that when the capitalist
world was reeling under the great depression, USSR beginning from the
scratch under the state controlled planned development not only remained
unaffected but also emerged as a big economic and military power. Hence the
threat of the communist danger, Popper thought, could be combated by vilifying
its ideological basis the – Marxism – by describing it as Totalitarian. For
doing so, he invents the historical links of totalitarian philosophies from
Plato to Marx via Rousseau.
Perceived Similarities
However let us quickly look into the
similarities and differences pointed out by those who have compared the two.
·
Both give priority to the state over
individual but we know that Marxian communism is a stateless society; the state
of dictatorship of proletariat is only a transitional phase, the state of
political emancipation, on the way to communism, the state of human
emancipation.
·
Both consider individual interest to be
safest in the collective social interest.
But social interest for Plato is the interest of the ruling classes to
which it exclusively applies and the social interest for Marx is the interest
of the vast producing masses.
·
Some point out that both recommend the
abolition of the private property as source of vices. This is a mistaken
analogy. Plato recommends abolition of private party among the rulers enable their
united control over the producing masses. Marxian communism seeks to end the
ownership and the control of the ruling classes over the means of production
and overall economic activities and transfer it the producers, the working
class.
·
Another point of similarity is state
controlled education but Plato’s educational process is a regimented one aimed
at training the ruling classes while under the state of proletarian
dictatorship, there would uniform and compulsory school education for all and higher
education according to one’s aptitude and choice.
·
Another point of similarity is suggested
creation of society free from exploitation, tension and conflict that would be
based on the principles of fraternity, solidarity and harmony. But here again
as Plato’s communism is applicable to only ruling classes and Marx’s
universally.
·
Both emphasize the unity but Plato’s unity is
hierarchical, whereas Marxism emphasizes the unity of working classes to end
the ruling class hegemony.
These
are few untenable points of similarity, while differences are basic and
fundamental, let us quickly overview them too.
Differences
A.
Historically, as
pointed out above both ate historically placed at different time-spaces.
Plato’s theory is based on logical explanation of history and Marx’s on the
economic in terms of dominant modes of production. Plato’s theory is meant for
4th century BC small city states and Marx’s communism is an
alternative to capitalism that has a global character and hence the communism
to is global, that is why Marx called for the unity of the workers of the
world.
B.
Philosophically, Plato’s
theory is based on spiritual idealist principles consequent to his basic
assumptions about eternity, transcendence and the trilogy of the soul, whereas
Marx’s is based on the principles of dialectical materialism linked with
historical materialism that could be empirically verified. Plato locates the
reality in the invisible Idea of Good and Marx in the visible matter. For
Plato, the visible world is a shadow of world of ideas, the Real Reality
existing beyond the time and space, the progenitor of the world of objects.
That is to say Plato accords primacy to ideas over object but according to Marxism,
historically objects have existed without ideas and historically ideas have
emanated from the object. Hence primacy lies with the object, which in a
dialectic unity with its idea forms the totality of the reality. According to
Plato, truth and moralities are eternal and objective but Marxism does not
recognize any final truth, the concept of which varies according to time and
space. The moral values are created and perpetuated in the class interest of
the ruling classes. Both believe in dialectics and dialectical composition of
nature and the universe but Marx’s reference point is not
Platonic but Hegelian dialectics, which he put upside down, as it stands on the
head. Platonic dialectics aims at invention of truth the one in many; the
permanent in the changing world and the comprehension of the “Idea of Good”
that cannot be defined but only contemplated. Marxian dialectics aims at the
comprehension and interpretation of the contradictions of the system and the
dynamics of the quantitative evolutionary and qualitative revolutionary
changes. Plato believes in the
eternity of the reality, Marx, like Heraclitus, believes in the eternity of the
change; and historically proves that continuous, evolutionary, quantitative
changes, in course of time mature into revolutionary qualitative changes,
leading to overall transformation of economic, political and intellectual
structures. There is no scope here to go into the details of the dialectical
materialism, which says that anything that exists is destined to perish and
capitalism is no excsption. End of Plato’s philosophy is justice that means a
well ordered class society and that of Marx’s science is annihilation of the
classes, as there cannot be justice in a class society based on the
perpetuation of class exploitation. Plato contemplates the rule of philosopher
king and Marx termed philosophy as ideology and reserves more respectable term
science for his critique of the political economy.
C. Politically, Plato’s
communism is for the purity of ruling classes to competently maintain the
well-ordered class rule whereas Marxian communism for the establishment
of the dictatorship of proletariat through sustained class struggle and
eventually for a classless, stateless society.
D. Economically, Plato deprives the ruling
classes from property to uncorrupted efficient class rule over the producing
classes, Marxism seeks to abolish the private ownership of the means of
production and replace it with the collective ownership of the producers,
themselves.
E. Plato’s
society is a class society with ruling classes practicing communism of property
and wives, Marxian communism is a classless society in which men and women live
as equal comrades.
Thus we can conclude the
theories of communism of Plato cannot be compared as both of them not only
belong to two distant time and spaces but also have contrasting prmises, one is
idealist and other propounded the theory of historical materialism.
12.09.2017
7
In lieu Conclusion
Plato’s strength and weakness lies in his ability
to confront, ‘what is’ with ‘what ought to be. His Ideal State is not a utopia
and that the Republic not addressed to no one. The Republic is a
passionate plea by an aristocratic Athenian to his fellow Athenians to
overthrow the existing ‘corrupt’ and ‘inefficient’ government by the deal State
ruled by philosopher and defended by courageous warriors on the economic
foundation created by the economic classes. The flight of the future model is
not limited by the present issues. Plato argued that politics is nor matter of
force or numbers but a matter of scientific deliberation.
.
[1]
A note
[2]
Plato, Apology
[5]
Phaedo
[6]
Phaedrus
[8]
Ref. from Rep.
[9]
Rep.
[10]
Prince
[11]
A note with reference to Biplab Dasgupta SAP & NEP
[12]
The Story of Phil
[13]
Note with reference to it
[14]
A brief note on Arthshastra and Dharmshastra traditions
[15]
Ambedkar
[16]
A note with references
[17]
A note
[18]
Rep
[19]
Note
[21]
Ibid p.183
[23]
Ibid p. 190
[24]
Ibid pp. 190-93
[25]
Ibid pp. 193-209
[26]
Note with the quote from AS
[27]
Republic, op.cit. pp.207-08
[28]
Ibid p. 213
[29]
Ibid pp. 212-215
[30]
Ibid
[31]
Ibid p. 221
[32]
Ibid
[34]
Ibid p. 278
[35]
Ibid p. 221
[36]
Ibid
[37]
Ibid pp. 223-24
[40]
Ibid p.225
[41]
Ibid
[42]
Ibid
[43]
Ibid p. 226
[44]
Ibid p. 227
[45]
Ebenstein, op. cit. p. 5
[46]
Ibid p.
[47]
Note
[48]
Note
[49]
Sudipta Kaviraj, Concept of Man in Political Theory, Social
Scientist, New Delhi, December 1979
[50]
Note
[51]
K Marx &F Engels, German
Ideology, K Marx & F Engels, Collected Works, (CW, hence forth)
Vol. 5, Progress, Moscow, 1978 pp. 59-62
[53]
A note
[54]
Quoted in William Ebenstein, The Great Political Thinkers, p.
[56]
http://ishmishra.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-higher-education.html
[57]
http://ishmishra.blogspot.com/2016/05/blog-post_22.html
[58]
Republic, op.cit. pp. 228-30
[59]
Ibid, p. 231
[60]
Ibid p. 234
[61]
A note on Gramsci’s incarceration judgment
[62]
A note and http://ishmishra.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-specter-of-naxalism-neo-mccarthyism.html
[63]
A note and ईश मिश्र, राष्ट्र-राज्य
और राष्ट्रवाद, समयांतर, जनवरी, 2018, also in http://ishmishra.blogspot.com/2017/12/blog-post_24.html
[64]
A note
[66]
Ish Mishra, https://countercurrents.org/2017/09/17/protagoras-490-420-bc/
[67]
Republic, op.cit. p. 230
[68]
Ibid
[69]
Two of the multitude of the Gods (a note )
[70]
Republic, op.cit. (emphasis added)
[72]
Ambedkar, Gita (reference)
[74]
Ibid, p. 235
[75]
Ibid p. 254
[77]
Ibid p. 255
[78]
Ibid p.256
[79]
Ibid p. 262
No comments:
Post a Comment