Thursday, July 21, 2005


Liberty Through a Child's Eyes
(c) Roberto Isaza



Plato’s Republic, Socrates’ City.
by Roberto Isaza September 16, 1999
Professor Emory Craig


In Plato’s “Republic”, we are told of Socrates arguing about the goodness of Justice and the importance of well-being and happiness. He also clearly demonstrates how the accumulation of wealth serves no one, not even he who accumulates it.

As part of his argument, to look for justice in the individual, Socrates extrapolates the individual to a city. He creates an imaginary city in which citizens are grouped into categories or Castes: Guardians -the Ruler of the city, Advisers and Soldiers (auxiliaries to the Ruler); the craftsmen, farmers and wage earners.

The Ruler would be chosen from among the Guardians, who are the group educated in fine arts and are physically fit. This person must be older than those ruled, the best of them, impeccable. A Philosopher. Strong by nature, gentle in attitude and fierce defender of the City, its citizens, moral values and to uphold the laws and to defend the City from other cities who might envy the well-being of this city. The Guardian should above all preserve the educational system so that there were no changes in the constitution. Therefore there would be no absolute freedom. Though I think that for any group of people to live together in harmony there have to be at least some restrictive parameters so that no one intrudes upon the other’s well being, there has to be some flexibility as to what constitutes reasonable laws.

Socrates defined a well set of rules or laws to ensure that the most of people’s rights would be protected. These included the no accumulation of wealth by the Guardians nor indulgence in banal pleasures. The young guardians would have to be tested and put through many trials to ensure their total dedication to the city and its inhabitants. The upkeep of the guardians would be had by taxation to the citizens.

Socrates proposed to tell the citizens a story of how the god had created them, mixing into the Ruler’s creation gold, because they would be honored the most; mixing silver into those to be the Ruler’s Auxiliaries; and bronze and iron into those to be farmers and workers. I think that he demonstrated how the religions of the world have come to be. Someone makes-up a story to justify how we came to be and how we inherited the world we live in. The generation in which this story is created might frown a little and say, for example: “hmm, the carpenter’s son was a little strange, and it is true he was killed as a thief, on a cross. When the only crime he committed was to negate the Roman empire and be hailed as the King of the Jews. But I never heard of the part of him being the only Son of God.” Generations later, this is the only thing true and very few question the validity of Jesus, Son of God, raising to the heavens on the third day of his burial. People effectively created a new religion.

In Buddhism it is said that at one point, and after many trials, one will become ONE with all. Unicity is not a created or attained state. One is ONE with everything. The task is to realize we are all ONE. We all have one primal objective here on earth: to live and to learn to love which is the same. So, one does not become one with the universe. One IS the universe.

In Socrates’ city each person would occupy a position according to his/her disposition and temperament. Also, the occupations would not be inherited, so that the children of Farmers could become rulers or have a craft. The purpose of this city would be that the most would have a happy and fulfilling life, each person doing what was his nature’s inclination.

The more I read about Socrates, the less surprised I am that he was sentenced to death. His constant search for the truth, and his proposals of bettering the spirit rather than the search of physical pleasures, had to make him a lot of enemies. If Socrates’ model for a great city had been followed, who knows what our society would be like. There is always the human factor. Everything might be running well, until someone greedy enough to go against the laws will tip the scales.

Still, there were many of his proposals for the city to prosper and run smoothly that I can not agree with. The way I was brought up, a person must have freedom of expression, even if this freedom means to be enraged about one’s circumstances, poverty, hunger, helplessness in decisions that may mean the destruction of thousands, or the path our lives will take. Socrates proposed to censure children’s stories, games, and even the possibility of expressing their feelings in the fine arts. Also censured would be the fine arts themselves, literature, theater, music, paintings and sculptures it is here that I feel a transgression of human values. You can’t make me feel what I should be free to choose what to admire, read, listen to. Present me with ideas and I’ll choose what to do with them.
Anything less than radically free is never enough. To have to settle for less and be slave of fate is a waste of soul and growth. We have done it throughout our history. And we seem to not have learned our lesson yet.

I think that Socrates expressed Socialism before anyone else. This City would be self-sufficient and Justice would rule. The people in it would accumulate wisdom rather than gold. There would be no rich, but also there would be no poor. Education would be available to everyone according to their needs. All people would be respected on their merits in their occupations. They would specialize in their trade and have the happiness and pride of a job well done. No one would have more nor less than needed to lead a comfortable life.

If the children were cared for in a communal state, it is true that the family unit we have today would be different. But it is also true that these children would be responsibility of all, all children being in need of our love and devotion as if they were our own. This would also create a bigger sense of responsibility in them toward one another, and in their adult life carry this responsibility into their trade and regarding their city as a whole.

Socrates found the origin of war in the taking of goods from others to satisfy our own greed. If our city were to take land or goods from another city to satisfy our luxurious needs and acquisition of wealth, then in wronging another people we are wronging our own, bringing upon ourselves the wrath of those wronged. This is the source of evils both public and private.
Socrates defines Justice as harmony that results when each person is actively fulfilling their role and does not meddle with the role of others. Injustice is the opposite. Plato’s Republic, Book IV.- Justice in the individual is defined as an inner state of the soul, with each of its parts fulfilling its own function under the rule of reason which enlists the aid of the spirited part (the feelings) in controlling the appetites. This will inevitably lead to just actions, while injustice is an inner state of discord and rebellion with an inferior part of the soul in command. -
To me, this is a true definition of what Justice is. More people would be happy if they could attain a better balance of their spiritual self. This, within a society such as we live in, is a contradiction. We are shown that the ideal state of being is when we acquire material goods. Therefore our success in life is measured by how successful we are in our occupation, having a car, house, fancy clothing, our social status. White teeth, smelling goooood, keeping thin, red lipstuck all day long, laser’s permanent body hair removal, full head of hair, not a white hair, not a wrinkle. All of this goes against Socrates’ thinking. It also goes against reason. Normally when we eat, and our hunger is satiated we stop eating. This is reasonable. To eat more, insane. So it should be with our life. Socrates says that to have more or less than we need would make useless efficient in developing our true selves.

Yet, we see it every day,
there’s always someone trying to get ahead of the rest,
doing the least work with the most personal benefit. They take much more than they need, accumulating beyond reason while many have just the bare-bones, or maybe a little less.

A very naive way of seeing the world, but it's Liberty through a child's eyes.

2 Comments:

At 10:31 AM, Blogger elvira black said...

Rob:

First of all, that is an incredible photo! Wow...that really says it all.

I found your analysis very interesting indeed. I think throughout the centuries philosophers and religious figures have pondered on the best way for people to live in peace, and tried to probe the mysteries of why men choose "evil," including unreasoning greed.

Studying the religions and political theories of the world is fascinating stuff. Thing is, that no matter how lofty the theories, and no matter how good their original intentions, most of them work in theory but not perfectly in practice--in part because humans are complex creatures--individually unique and thus hard to "herd" into obedience to any one unified belief or behavior. Communism, which was initially a reaction against blatant capitalist greed in industry, proved to be a disaster and a farce when "applied," since any dictatorship is doomed to repress those it rules. Socrates doubtless based some of his beliefs on the Greek religous concepts, which set up a hierarchy even among its gods, and I assume applied this in turn to some of its social theories about the nature of mankind and government. Although I think his beliefs contained the seeds of democracy, the restrictions you mention are typical of many Western modes of thought.

Although I do not know much about Eastern religions, they seem to be much less concerned with individual control over others and more concerned with conquering one's own self-centered tendencies. I find this very attractive, since one of the things that turns me off about much organized religion is its insistence that its adherents do things according to the laws of that religion, or they are doomed or evil. And the other thing is that, like Communism or even democracy, the ideal never quite lives up to the applied reality.

I am Jewish (actually my father was Christian, my mother was Jewish, and I think of myself basically as a Jew). One thing I do like about Judaism is that it is not a prosteletizing religion. I am totally turned off by the Christian concept of converting others, although I understand that the devout feel compelled to do so by the teachings of Jesus himself. More wars and strife and oppression have been done in the name of religion than perhaps anything else.

I do not believe Jesus would be pleased with the way many of his "followers" have interpreted his edicts for their own ends, just as Marx undoubtedly did not intend his "utopia"to be practiced in the way it was in the Communist Bloc.

Some religions tout the concept of original sin, which postulates I suppose that all people are born with the seeds of evil. I try to take a less moralistic view--a friend was telling me of an Eastern philosphy that espouses that the "evil" or misguided things one does are the results of spiritual sickness that one must strive to heal within oneself, and try to understand in others, in part through detachment combined with compassion.

There is also the evolutionary/biological argument that since we are animal as well as human--just as Jesus was a man as well as divine--that we are all biologically programmed to do things that might result in harm to others, and we live with the conflict between our more primitive, instinctually driven brain and our more complex, reasoning cortex. Just as a lion may kill an antelope in order to survive, it seems as if man's competitiveness and drive for status derives in part from the instinct for survival, an innate hierarchical social structure (simiilar to that seen in other species), and so on. The "primitive" part of our brains--which controls such drives as the seeking of pleasure and the desire for immediate gratification--is part of our survival instinct as well as the source of much greed and "evil."

I am very grateful to be an American and live in a free democracy, but as with any political construct, our system is not perfect in practice. Our nation has a sad history of oppression as well, but I believe we are evolving upwards in large part, though certain "religious" leaders are holding us back. It is amazing that those who call themselves "Christian" would forget one of the basic premises of Jesus--to foresake great wealth. Many religious leaders totally eschew this mandate in their personal and professional lives, and pick and choose the "laws" they wish not only to follow, but to demand that others follow.

Once again, fascinating topic, and terrific photo, Rob!

 
At 12:53 AM, Blogger Rob said...

That’s Liberty from a childrens playground in Brooklyn. Once again my mind’s been blown! Wow, Elvira. Thank you for adding to my blog a getting my mind to chugg... surely, most theories no matter how lofty and integral they be look great on paper but in practice turn out to be something else, mostly when it is a philosophy of peace. Someone will play crooked and to their advantage taking from those who have decided to “play nice”. Flower Power almost had it demanding of the ‘Man’ to play fair. Well, ‘fair’ became the demise of ‘flower power’ and its followers were absorbed by the ‘man’, terminated, and the few left scattered to the four winds. Did you ever read “Walden Two” by B. F. Skinner. That is a nice Utopia there. There’s a selection from the book http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/skinnerselection.html Some of the people from the Flower Diaspora started Intentional Communities, some were successful and many weren’t. Still, there are many sprouting worldwide. There’s a list http://www.ic.org/ here, but one of the Communities I found most interesting was http://www.loshorcones.org.mx/ . I’m not much for religions although I mention God at every chance, I don’t follow any given set of beliefs. To me God is that within which we exist. Laws to follow are those that make sense, like not taking from others what is rightfully theirs, not killing them, and having respect for one another and all of what is here accompanying us in this material trek. No absolute truths, no innate faiths with the truth in their clutches, no chosen people in little groups (we are all given this fantastic opportunity to live!). I was born a Jew, but it wasn’t my choosing, nor do I subscribe to exclusivist groups. Too much harm has been done in the name of God. Any belief system that tells you to introspect, help each other so we may all grow, become wiser, and prosper, with respect and dignity, and love for our planet, is good and worthy of being pursued.
As to the Original Sin, what better way to scare the populace into subscribing to a religion than to hook ‘em up on a guilt trip. What great idea to tell people that others will come to take their lands, daughters, jobs, to turn them against each other, what better way to justify a war than to say, “if we don’t get them, they’ll get us.”
The time of human history when ‘survival of the strongest’ was essential is long past and yet it lives in our society as if it really mattered. Ya’, be ruthless and you’ll climb to the top... what top? When you’re dead and cold, you’ll be in the company of homeless, kings, queens, and bishops, the same as everyone else. If no one hoarded more than they can hold, and shared what they know, there’d be no reason for malnourished children, prostituted people, slaves, slavers.
Wow, got me going there. Thank you also for the comment on the pic. It’s great to see what happens to human conscience in these following years.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home