Noble Lies &justice On Reading Plato 1973
Noble Lies &justice On Reading Plato 1973
Noble Lies &justice On Reading Plato 1973
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Palgrave Macmillan Journals and Northeastern Political Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Polity.
http://www.jstor.org
JOHN R. KAYSER
University of New Hampshire
Pity the student of politics who has never loved Plato. Professor
Kayser, a careful student of Plato, addresses himself in scholarly
manner to the question of how one should read the dialogues. In the
spirit of Leo Strauss, he undertakes to help the reader to see an
esoteric teaching behind the exoteric one and to understand why the
truth was not made easy.
7 This
point does not solely depend upon the Letters, but upon the similarity be-
tween the comments on writing in the dialogues and Plato's own words in the Letters.
Compare the views expressed by Plato in the Second and Seventh Letters with those
expressed in Protagoras 343c-344b; Timaeus 28c; Laws 66oe-66id; Friedlinder, op.
cit., pp. i54ff; Klein, op. cit., pp. 3ff; Merlan, op. cit.; and Eduard Zeller, Plato and
The Older Academy, translated by S. F. Allyne and A. Goodwin (London: 1888),
pp. I54-59 offer further support for the hypothesis that a Platonic dialogue is free
from the defects of writing.
8 Olympiodorous, Bohn's Classical Library, p. 235. This assumption also character-
ized much of the nineteenth century scholarshipon the dialogues. Cf. Werner Jaeger's
comments on Schleiermacherin Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture translated by
Gilbert Highet, Vol. I (New York: I944), p. I62. According to Schleiermacher,the
Phaedrus "was a sort of introduction to his [Plato's] work."
9 Cf. W. Windelband, History of Ancient Philosophy (New York: I9Io), pp. I81-
82; Jaeger, op. cit., pp. I87-89, 330. Zeller, op. cit., offers a good general discussion
of the problem of finding the written date of the dialogues. Despite great concern
with written dates of the dialogues in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
one is tempted to agree with Perls that, "Hundertfiinfzig Jahre haben nicht geniigt,
um diese Arbeit zu beenden," Hugo Perls, Plato Seine Auflassung vom Kosmos
(Bonn: 1966), pp. 13-I6.
10 A more extended treatment than is possible here would also have to take the
Cratylusinto account.
11 Cf. Friedlinder, op. cit., chapter 8.
ing to the king as a gift. Surprisingly,the king was not at all pleasedwith
this present.He complainedthat writing would make men lazy for they
would use the god'sgift as a substitutefor memory.12This, in turn,he con-
tendedwould serveto impedegenuinelearning.For men would now turn
to the writtenteachingabouta subjectratherthan devotetheirenergiesto
an examinationof the subjectthemselves.Their knowledgeof a given sub-
jectwould no longerresidein what Platotermed,"thatfairestregionthey
possess[their own minds],"13 but in a writing to which they could refer.
The responsibilityfor knowing a given subject could be shifted from
themselvesto the writings on that subjectand hence the writings, as
authorities,would be blamedfor what men themselvesdid not know. The
king's objectionto writing, as relatedby Socrates,is also based on the
assumptionthat a written teachingis incapableof directlyaddressingits
audiencesince it has no controlover its dissemination.For despiteall pre-
cautions,accordingto Plato, "it is not possiblethat what is writtendown
should not get divulged."'4That is, a written teaching,since its author
has no guaranteeover who his audienceshall be, cannottake into account
that with which the audienceis familiarand perhapsknows and that with
which it is unfamiliarand does not know. On the other hand, a verbal
teachingis able to base itself on knowledgeof the audienceto which it is
addressedsince a speaker,unlike a writer, can, in principle,select his
audience.Hence the unique characteristics of the listeners,their passions,
knowledge, and
interests, can
prejudices, be takeninto account.Moreover,
a verbalteaching,by virtueof its "faceto face"quality,can put questions
to the listenersthus ensuringthat the teachingis being understood;it can
also answerquestionsput by the listenersthus ensuringthat doubtsabout
the teachingreceivea reply.Consequently,a verbalteachingcan require
its audienceto participateactivelyand directlyin the processof learning.
A writtenteaching,accordingto Socrates'restatementof the king's objec-
tions,seemsa possiblehindranceto activelearning,substitutingin its stead
a passiveresponse.Finally,it appearsunlikelythat a writtenteachingcan
engenderthe passionnecessaryfor genuine learningto say nothing of re-
solving the ad hominum doubtsand answeringthe particularquestions
which standas obstaclesin the path to knowledge.
If a Socraticdialogueis to be free from these limitationsalludedto in
Socrates'tale of the genesisof writing in Egypt,it must prod the memory
15 Friedlinder, op. cit., pp. I58ff; Klein, op. cit., pp. Io-2o; Merlan,
op. cit.; F.
J. E. Woodbridge, The Son of Apollo (New York: 1929), pp. 47-58; J. C. O'Flah-
erty's introduction to his work on Hamann, Hamann's Socratic Memorabilia (Balti-
more: I967), all indicate this point.
16Republic 527d-e. Cf. also Eva Brann, "The Music of the Republic," ArlN
The Journal of ClassicalStudies (April, 1967), pp. 23ff, iio. Moreover,as Brann also
points out, this is reflectedin the substanceof the teaching of the Republic. Aristotle's
criticism that the regime constructedin the dialogue is "not that uniting a multitude,
but rather that of each good man with every other," indicates this point. In this re-
spect, the goal of Socrates' political teaching in the dialogue does not differ from
Plato's goal in writing. Cf. also, Strauss, op. cit.; Merlan, op. cit.; John R. Kayser,
"Prologue to the Study of Justice," Western Political Quarterly (June, 1970), pp.
258-260.
ments on this passage in his, Ancient and Modern Philosophy (Oxford: 1935), pp.
1-4. Cf. also Republic 357b-358b, 368b-369b, 345b-345c, 504b, 595c.
28 454c.
29 Leo Strauss,The City and Man
(Chicago: 1964), p. 35.
able; that, in a Socratic sense, they did even graver damage to their own
souls is hardly less doubtful.
Socrates' second objection, then, consists in the notion that written
speeches are more likely to prove harmful to the unintended reader than
are oral speeches. Apparently, written speeches will multiply those men
who wish to imitate Critias and Alcibiades. By adhering strictly to con-
ventional truisms-to that which could assure the safety of the reader, the
writer and the city-a written speech would surmount Socrates' second
objection. But such a writing could not be philosophic. Granted the truth
of conventional wisdom, philosophy cannot accept the conventional basis
for that truth without an investigation which looks upon convention as
merely one of many alternatives.34 A philosophic speech, if it is to over-
come Socrates' objection and protect the reader, the author, and the city,
must conceal its true teaching. In other words, a conventional teaching for
the many who are not philosophic must be combined with a philosophic
teaching for the few who are capable of remaining uncorrupted by the
truth. The commonplace truism must cover the uncommon truth. In short,
a speech which surmounts Socrates' second objection must have an esoteric
as well as exoteric teaching.
The classical Greek authors, including non-philosophers, are generally
acknowledged to have combined two such teachings, either from a desire
to be playful-to amuse as with a puzzle-as W. H. S. Jones contends in
his introduction to the works of Hippocrates,35 or because they held the
written word in contempt, as Spengler argues.36 Schopenhauer maintains
that this form of writing characterizes the work of all who deserve to be
called philosophers be they ancient Greek or modern European.37 Al-
though such general statements may prove doubtful, there is little doubt
in Athens, Plato and Xenophon. Speaking of Critias, they note, "he became the most
bloodthirstyand reactionaryof even the Thirty [this] was in wide circles, and quite
naturally,attributedto the influenceof Socrates."
34 This is among the reasons that founders of
conventions, founders of regimes,
could not in antiquity inhabit the regime they founded. Cf. Machiavelli's treatment
of the great founders in Chapter 6 of The Prince. Cf. also Harry V. Jaffa, Crisis of
the House Divided: An Interpretationof the Issues in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates
(Garden City, New York: 1959), pp. 186-236.
35Hippocrates, translated with an introduction by W. H. S. Jones (New York:
1923), vol. I.
36 0. Spengler, The Decline of the West (New York: 1926), pp. 230 ff.
Spengler
states that the Greeks particularlyheld the written word in contempt. One indication
of this, he contends, is that they refused to adorn books or manuscriptswith the de-
signs used so freely on other objects. Written works were deliberatelymade to appear
ugly. Cf. also Friedlander,op. cit., pp. IO9-IO.
37 A. Schopenhauer,The World as Will and Idea (London: I896), pp. 302 ff.
above using their bias in order to make his points. In his discussion with Polemarchus,
Socrates uses as examples of arts activities which he calls sham arts in the Gorgias,
compare Republic 332c with Gorgias 462d-463a. He is apparentlypermitted this be-
cause Polemarchusis not, or does not prove himself theoreticallyinclined.
54 Bloom, op. cit., pp. 335-36, commenting on Republic 35od-e.
55 They become friends later in the dialogue, 498d, testifying to the fact that the
best regime will require the services of someone with the art of Thrasymachus.Cf.
Leo Strauss, "Plato," in Leo Strauss, Joseph Cropsey, editors, History of Political
Philosophy (Chicago: i963), pp. 30-31.
56 466e.
57 The women, as bearers of future citizens, are more irreplaceablethan the men
as any farmer who has bred animals knows. This parallel, incidentally, is appropriate
in this context. Socrates speaks of breeding the guardians as if they were animals.
The allusions and examples he uses are derived from animal, not human, behavior.
Perhaps this is why in addition to declaring the breeding of the best with the best
sacred, Socrates states, "it will be a necessity for them to use many drugs," (459c).
For comparison between human and animal breeding, cf. 459a-c.
58 The patent physical difference indicates this. Also, the guardian women will be
bred more often and thus be pregnant more often. Obviously a woman does not
make a good warrior throughoutpregnancy.
59 In the dialogue, the parallel between the city and man is transformed into a
parallel between the city and the soul. The Republic disregards the body and treats
humans as disembodied souls. Among other things, this permits the easy equality
of the sexes which must disregard bodily differences or differences which stem from
bodily inequalities. Eros, the passion connected with both the body and the soul, is
also disregarded.Cf. Strauss,op. cit., pp. 22-23.
69 Brann, op. cit., pp. 32-37. Cf. also, Eric A. Havelock, Preface to Plato (New
York: I967), pp. 15-I6, note 12. Bloom's analysis of the critique of poetry in the
first half of Book o leads us to conclude that a Platonic dialogue is the only true
form of poetry. Cf. Bloom, op. cit., p. 434.
70 Bloom, op. cit., p. 402.
71 Friedlander,op. cit., p. 158.
may have the virtues of a good citizen, but not those of a philosopher. The philo-
sophic soul does not, according to Socrates, make the a priori assumption that the
unfamiliar ought to be treated with enmity and the familiar with some good.
81 Cf. note 19 above. Also, Apology of Socrates4xd20-22, 20d-2xa8; Laws 639b-c;
Strauss,"Plato,"pp. 53-55.
82 Compare45oa and 543c.
83 Havelock, op. cit., offers a most provocative analysis of the dialogue, which
disputes this commonplace view. Havelock contends that the work is designed as a
criticism of Greek education and a remedy for that education. Nonetheless, to the
extent to which there is a relationshipbetween what men are taught and how they
behave, the dialogue would still have to be consideredpolitically relevant.
84 Undoubtedly this explains why those who have escaped from the cave must
be compelled to return from the isles of the blessed. It may also explain why Aris-
totle does not speak of philosophy in his critique of the Republic.
85 Compare45oa with 543c.
93 Brann, op. cit., p. 33: "For the narrator,Socrateshimself, is always present and
responsible, and he keeps himself before us with the ever recurring phrases. ...
What is more, he is not an anonymous mouthpiece whose work a reader reads, as
he does the Homeric epics, without ever learning who the poet was .... The teller
is Socrates," Brann, however, neglects to mention that the Socrates we have come
to know is a characterin other men's writing. Socratesis indeed the "teller" in the
Republic, but not the author of the dialogue which casts him as narrator; Plato is
the "poet."