Plato's Dialogues, which are supposedly documentations of Socratic conversations, constitute some of the most interesting and richest works of ancient philosophy. They are multi-layered, profound and are truly expansive in their dealing with important questions of life and society. They dwell on the problem of knowledge, the problem of conduct and also that of governance. I have continued to go back to them once in every few months since I first read them about four years ago. Though they, like some other works of Greek philosophy, have received much criticism and revision in the last two millenniums, there is still something endearing about them. May be it is the simplicity and approachability of the dialogical form, or perhaps the universality and humanness of the themes pursued. They were probably situated in the context of an Athens that had just lost a long war against the Spartans. They were the dialogues of someone from the losing side. This, some believe, could be at the roots of many of the 'less acceptable' ideas from Greek philosophy, particularly some of Plato's political ideas. For example, the Spartans raised their children in pretty much a regimented way. Socrates (and therefore, Plato) espouses such an idea, and even goes on to articulate the concept of 'philosopher kings', who are the chosen ones deserving to rule (Perhaps that's why Russel called The Republic a fascist agenda book). Though we may not want to defend such ideas, we must understand that there is always a good chance that history might see us in a negative light, name our age the 'dark age', call us names like 'the barbarian', or if we are somewhat fortunate, just completely ignore us. In my mind, there is always an element of doubt about these judgments by history, because of, what I think, is the nature of life as a series of ill-structured problems that require heuristic solutions, some of which may not look good on hindsight. This, of course, doesn't completely justify actions, but does call for a closer look at the motivations and compulsions that might have shaped ideas and driven decisions, if not to be fair to the dead, at least to be wiser for the future. We must dig below the surface of the conclusions passed on to us.
Many of the ideas in the dialogues are worth reflecting on. One of the strongest and most haunting episodes in the dialogues concerns the death penalty given to Socrates. Socrates is given a choice: Give himself Hemlock, or accept ostracism and exile himself from Athens. Friends suggest that since the charges are anyway made up, he should just leave and come back later. But, he doesn’t pay heed, because he realizes and reasons that the rule of law is the public expression of human rationality itself. It is the one way the rational power of the corruptible man gets itself expressed in such a way as to minimize the degree of self-corruption. Aristotle also espouses a similar idea when he writes : Law is reason without passion. It doesn’t seek to benefit someone in particular. It is disinterested that way. This is a very important thought. Many of us (including me for sure) are tempted to break the laws that don't make sense to us, or are just plain inconvenient. Imagine what would become of the society if everyone were to start breaking laws like this. There would probably be complete anarchy, of the decadent type, and life would be, in Hobbes's seemingly pessimistic words, “nasty, brutish and short”. To invoke Kant's idea of a categorical imperative: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Socrates says that he has devoted his entire life to the cause of reason. Now, just because his situation is compromised, he wouldn't give up everything and turn around. It would mean that his life amounts to nothing. He drinks the hemlock. Absolutist and crazy? May be. Stupid or wrong? I don't think so.
No comments:
Post a Comment