In an extended discussion of law (nomos) in Statesman, Young Socrates and the Eleatic Stranger give it a fairly scathing critique. Not only might the best constitution, surprisingly, function without laws according to the judgment of an expert ruler (293c), but even if such a ruler employs them, laws can never “accurately embrace what is best and most just for all at the same time,” since law is general and persons and actions particular (294b). Law “resembles some self-willed and ignorant person” who dogmatically rejects question or challenge, even when the questioner has a better idea, and so is too simple to be useful for human life, which is never simple (294c). Law may be pragmatically necessary when dealing with people in “herds,” but it only gives rough prescriptions “as suits the majority of cases and a large number of people” (294e). Once established (whether written or proclaimed) laws tend to resist change, which puts them at odds with necessary improvements or better laws from elsewhere, but it is destructive if such improvements are crudely imposed by force without effective persuasion or expertise (296b-c), so even the correction of a system of law requires the art of the Statesman.
In short, in the presence of an expert ruler laws are optional and not particularly beneficial, and in the absence of such a ruler they quickly become rigid and dangerous. We might infer here a scathing indictment of both Hobbesian-style legalism and rigid Borkian notions of “original intent” in constitutional interpretation.
I find this vigorous critique of law compelling, though also curious in light of two other discussions of law in Plato’s work. First, of course, there is the deep commitment Socrates evinces for the laws of the Athenians in Apology and Crito. Though he stops just short of an absolute commitment to law (he makes clear that he will disobey and accept the consequences if the law forces him to choose between it and a matter of conscientious principle) he is nonetheless prepared to accept death from a duly constituted court proceeding, even when its decision is manifestly unjust.
Second, Plato’s postumous and final dialogue Laws appears to be a detailed working out of what in Statesman he calls a “second-best” constitution, if the enlightened rule by genuine experts is unattainable. The result is about as unappealing in most respects as the critique of law in Statesman anticipates it would be, but along with Crito it shows just how much sustained attention Plato thought the rule of law deserves, its deep flaws notwithstanding. Bad as it is, the rule of law may at least constitute a bulwark against tyranny, given the frailty of human nature in the presence of power – a necessary evil?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I have only begun reading the Laws, but I do sense a shift in Plato’s concentration from the divine Eternal to a more earthly and practical rule. He seems to apply the truth he has learned to real life circumstances and government. In place of mythical and poetic storytelling, there is a sincere concern for the character of the people. Plato seems to take the matters of human affairs seriously and approaches these with great care; but this is done, I think, out of necessity rather than preference. (a “necessary evil” as you state.)
Plato presents an interesting tendency to gravitate toward earthly concerns, (from divine Ideals) as he gets older; this is curious because most Westerners levitate towards a God or Divinity as they progress in years. Plato seems to be doing precisely the opposite.
In reference to earlier blog, the truths Plato has learned realized (as a result of/causality) in contemplation of Forms.
the eloquence plato's writings entail are enriched with an infinite amount of 'ah hah' and 'duh' moments i have read both 'dialogues' and 'the republic' more than one time (all the way through) and i have not found anything to disagree with plato or socrates about. i suppose that is why he spoke theoretically; right or wrong he hasn't convinced anyone who has power to give it up for the greater good. philosophers are still being ignored until times get bad enough that the leader is worried about his personal safety to ask a philosopher for their service (chapter VI republic). as long as people's ego's manage their lives instead of the other way around we will only see personal progress, and we will continue to see those who succeed through virtue get stepped on, but those who know will not be deterred, we are working on something larger than ourselves
I'm amazed -- nothing to disagree with in Plato? Let's do a seminar sometime and see if we can remedy that!
I suspect it is a mistake to think Plato convinced no-one in power. He seems to have failed at Syracuse, of course, but the long-term impact of his thought on political life in the western tradition (to take just one example) for better and worse, has been substantial.
Post a Comment