4. Plato's Dialogue “Statesman” authorship Issues

[안재오]

4. Plato's Dialogue “Statesman” authorship Issues

I am Dr. Jaeoh Ahn from South Korea.

Youtube Voyage of Philosophy Episode 4 Plato's Dialogue “The Statesman” authorship Issues is a part of the book written by the author Jaeoh Ahn : “Parmenides, Plato, and Aristotle”.

The purpose of this article is as follows.

My argument is that only Theaetetus is a work of Plato, and the other three are works of his student Aristotle, out of the four books known as Plato's so-called late tetralogy: Parmenides, Sophist, Theaetetus, and Statesman.

It is mentioned in the “Statesman” that Sophist, Statesman, and Philosopher are a trilogy conceived by Aristotle. His order of expounding concept is that of sophist, statesman, and philosopher.

The Philosopher is Parmenides. Let's take a look at the text. The quoted text is from Platonic Foundation translated by David Horan.

257A Socrates says. Well, Theodorus, I owe you a great debt of gratitude for the acquaintance of Theaetetus and of the stranger too.

Theodorus says. And yet, Socrates, you will soon be three times more grateful, once they have completed the statesman for you and the philosopher too.

Socrates says. Whats this, Theodorus, are we to say that we have heard our supreme reckoner and geometrician expressing the matter in this way?

And in the Statesman, the young man who is the same name as Socrates and Elea's Stranger and Socrates, appear as conversationalists. The young man is called “Little Socrates” during the conversation.

And what's interesting is that 1. The “Sophist” episode features the main character as Elea's Stranger and Theaetetus, and 2. The “Statesman” features Elea's Stranger and “Little Socrates.” 3. The “Parmeneides” episode features Parmeneides and Socrates. In 2, the Statesman the little Socrates is in the position of learning from Elea's Stranger.

In “Parmenides” Socrates plays the role of a student. Socrates is academically immature and is sometimes ridiculed by Parmenides.

Considering that Socrates is usually the one teaching in Plato's dialogues, Socrates' status as an ignorant and ridiculed person implies a deval‎uation of Platonism.

This is something that is difficult to imagine in Plato's dialogues. And in “Parmenides” Plato's theory of ideas is completely destroyed. Therefore, it can be assumed that the order of writing was 1, Sophist 2, Statesman 3, Parmenides.

Part of the evidence for this is the passage in the text that says, “It is natural to put a Statesman after a Sophist.”(258B)

In any case, these three works are inextricably linked, so it is certain that they were written by one person, and that person was Aristotle.

And one of the evidences that the “Statesman” is a work of Aristotle is that the concept of classification of academic disciplines is introduced here. Also, classification, that is, classification of existence and classification of objects, is a major feature of Aristotle's thought.

Stranger says. Well, all knowledge may be subdivided in this way, by designating one part as involving action and the other as only cognitive.

Aristotle's classification of disciplines is usually summarized as follows.

1. Theoretical philosophy: metaphysics as the first philosophy, theology, natural science, mathematics, etc.

2. Practical philosophy: ethics, politics, etc.

3. Art of production: poetics, rhetoric, etc.

In the above quotation, he first classifies academic disciplines into two categories: theory and practice. In other words, he classifies “all academic disciplines into two categories: those that involve practice and those that are purely intellectual.”

This is the basic structure of Western scholarship. Aristotle was the first to classify the dual system of knowledge, theory and practice. However, we will discuss Aristotle's three-way and two-way division of scholarship in more detail later. The problem of classification also frequently appears in the Sophists.

(1) The Birth of Political Science

Aristotle's interest in politics, especially the politics contained in the Statesman, is not such a fascinating interest. This stands in stark contrast to the immense passion for the state and politics or rulers expressed by Plato in his The Republic. The fantasy and passion that a philosopher with knowledge of the idea of the good should become king and then the people would be freed from the pit of suffering and create a happy country represented noble idealism. Also, in the political science written by Aristotle, the main focus is on the classification and analysis of the real countries and political systems rather than the ideal state.

The concept of politics in the Statesman is extremely realistic and even technical. In other words, Aristotle's political science is 1. technical and technological 2. descriptive.

In other words, firstly politics is a technology of governing the masses or a technology of managing a group, and it is a technology of managing people.

Secondly rather than dreams or ideals about politics, it describes the state of contemporary politics in a value-neutral manner.

As such, Aristotle's political science is a descriptive one that is technical and technological, and it completely de-colorizes the concept of value in politics. Unlike Plato, he has no dreams or visions of an ideal state. This is also an advantage of his political science. Furthermore, he sees politics as part of animal management in that humans are included in animals. This is not entirely wrong. Of course, this is not all of politics.

However, considering that there are many countries on Earth where humans are treated worse than animals and are not properly fed, clothed, or housed, Aristotle's idea of seeing politics as a special case of animal management is only to be appreciated.

STRANGER says: The science of pure knowledge had, as we said originally, a part which was the science of rule or command, and from this was derived another part, which was called command-for-self, on the analogy of selling-for-self; an important section of this was the management of living animals, and this again was further limited to the management of them in herds; and again in herds of pedestrian animals. (267B) The chief division of the latter was the art of managing pedestrian animals which are without horns; this again has a part which can only be comprehended under one term by joining together three names—shepherding pure-bred animals. The only further subdivision is the art of man-herding, this has to do with bipeds, and is what we were seeking after, and have now found, being at once the royal and political.

Here we can see that Aristotle trys to find out the essence of Statesman through the subset theory i.e. he starts with living animal. A subset of living animal is herd animal. A subset of herd animal is pedestrian animal. The art of man-herding is politics. Therefore statesman is the man who has the art of man-herding.

Aristotle defines the meaning of statesman through categorization, i.e. division and classification.

This method of frequently repeated categorization in the Statesman is also found in the Sophists. In the Sophist the nature of sophists is revealed through categorization. In other words, sophists are defined as beings with acquisition, hunting, persuasion, and self-proclaimed education skills. Let's take a look at the sophist conversation.

According to current arguments, the conclusion seems to be that of the Theaetetus. In other words, the acquisition of skills to make one's own possession, the acquisition of skills of hunting, the acquisition of skills of hunting of land animals, the acquisition of skills of hunting of humans, the acquisition of skills of hunting by persuasion, the acquisition of skills of hunting targeting private individuals, Among them, hunting where the rite of shooting is paid for with money, that is, self-proclaimed education, and even more so when it is hunting for young people who are rich and prestigious, such a person should be called sophist in our argument. Plato's Complete Works, Volume 5, 136, “The Sophists”

The next feature of Aristotle's political science is that it presents a kind of social contract theory-like idea. In other words, it explains the origin of politics, which is a characteristic of human groups, in a social contract theory.

If Plato's political philosophy shows measures to solve immediate and pressing problems, Aristotle goes beyond such urgent and practical problems of reality and explores the genesis of the state and politics. In this respect, the Statesman is similar to Aristotle's Politics. In other words, it is a generational study of the establishment of the state. However, the difference is that the former deals with mythical genesis, while the latter explores the formation of the state by human nature.

Plato's practical political science is simply expressed in the idea expressed in his “The State”: “If good people refuse to participate in politics, the price is to be ruled by inferior people.”Plato describes the necessity of participation of good people in the politics as follows.

They never take the position of ruler with the expectation of any income. They take the position because they cannot find anyone who is better or equal to them to take the position of ruler. It is as if they are competing for power today. Therefore, it is clear that the true ruler is not in the pursuit of his own interests, but in the pursuit of the interests of the ruled.

Plato's Complete Works, Volume 1, translated by Choi Min-hong, “The Republic,” 52

Plato said, “Only when philosophers become kings can the misfortunes and disasters of human society come to an end.”

Unlike Plato, who set out the conditions for governance to solve the social problems of the time, Aristotle wanted to know the origin of politics or the establishment of the state.

He posits a state of nature, a kind of natural state in which there was no state or politics, that is, no king. Before the introduction of politics or the state, it is said that society was ruled directly by the gods.

In the “Statesman” many lengthy myths appear. Among them, the story that “in ancient times, people were not born from people, but from the earth” is often mentioned.

In addition, there is also a saying that the celestial bodies were spinning in the opposite direction to the present day. In such an era, there is also a saying that neither living things nor humans aged, but rather became younger and had the nature of a newborn child.

In that era, it is said that the gods directly supervised and ruled over humans and the universe. Aristotle says as follows.

Under the rule of God, there was no government. And women and children did not belong to any individual. Everyone was born on the earth and had no memory of the past. Of course, the earth provided these humans with abundant fruits. Humans were naked and lived mainly under the blue sky. The climate there was suitable. They did not use beds, but lay down on soft grass that grew thickly on the ground. “Statesman”(translated by Choi Min-hong in South-Korea p.384)

According to the legend told by Aristotle, in the ancient times when the gods ruled, there was no government and no ownership, and humans lived naked, just like in the Garden of Eden in the Bible. It is said that at this time, humans communicated and interacted with animals. Just like in the Garden of Eden, at this time, humans did not have to struggle for survival.

Then, humans and the world fall into corruption, which is said to be caused by material things. Or it is also called an earthquake.

Through the great myths, what Aristotle wanted to say was to divide the period when there was no political rule between humans and the period when there was political rule. It was to divide history into the pre-political period and the political period. The political era was not a period of moral corruption. It was a period when people did not even have children, reproduction occurred, and people lived without working for themselves, without autonomy and self-governance, and lived by the grace of gods and nature. Aristotle says as follows.

Then, as we entered the political era, humans and animals became the masters of their own lives. They were destined to grow, nurture, and produce on their own. They were put in a relationship of killing and being killed with animals. To help humans in great trouble, the gods give humans the tools of civilization. Fire was given by Prometheus, various technologies were given by Hephaestus and the goddess Athena, and the seeds of crops and the method of planting trees were given by other gods. “Statesman”(translated by Choi Min-hong in South-Korea p.386)

And so everything that makes up life came into being. This is what I said earlier, and now, as the various gods have turned their attention away from humans, humans are finding their own path, becoming their own masters, and changing with the changes in the world, sometimes in that way. That should be enough for the story. I think it may be useful to clarify the errors we made when we discussed rulers and statesmen in the previous discussion. “Statesman” p.387

The above quote has many implications. As mentioned earlier, it refers to the process of moving from a natural state to a social or political state, and also to the duties of rulers or politicians. In addition, such a process includes human autonomy and freedom, and the meaning of ownership and family appears.

In addition, there is an idea that the role of a politician or king is to replace the gods in some ways. In other words, the first ruler is a god, and later humans will inherit it. Therefore, the ruler is given the role of ruling the people on behalf of the gods. And this idea is also consistent with the definition of politics, which is the breeding of human groups. I came up with this idea because it reminded me of the Bible verse, “The Lord is the shepherd of Israel.” When you don't know what politics is, you can get some understanding by referring to animal breeding.

Stranger says: Socrates, I cannot help but think that the appearance of a divine shepherd is more noble than that of a ruler. However, the politicians we see today on this earth are similar in character to those under their rule, and I think they are even being influenced by their character and teachings.

Socrates says : Oh, I see.

Stranger says: But we should study these politicians and see if they are truly like divine shepherds, superior or equal to the people under their rule. 『Statesman』 387-388

Here, the English translation of “ruler” is king.

In the above sentence, “the divine shepherd” refers to God. In other words, God is more noble than the king. “The earthly politicians” refer to the politicians of that time. They are saying that they were no different from the people under their rule. Taken together, this means that God is better than the kings or (rulers) and the politicians of that time were worse than them. Considering that Athens was a democratic state at the time, what Aristotle is implying in this sentence is that a monarchy is better than a democracy.

Divine governance can be seen as the breeding of humans. However, real-world politics, i.e. the art of humans governing other humans, cannot be breeding, but should be seen as management or administration.

Stranger says: The first thing we need to do is, as I said earlier, to change the name, to get the concept of “management” rather than “breeding,” and to classify it. Because there will still be many classifications.

Younger Socrates says: Then how should we classify it?

Stranger says: First, we need to distinguish between a sacred shepherd and a human guardian or administrator.

『The Statesman』 387-388

Nowadays, a politician is defined as an administrator or manager, not a shepherd. And further classification is made to distinguish between politics, in which the people voluntarily obey the rule, and tyranny, in which the people are managed by force. A person with such management skills is called a king or a politician. Here, the word “king” refers to a true king.

Aristotle may have been thinking of the politician and the king, respectively, as he wrote about them, and he may have been thinking of the politician required in democratic Athens at the time and the Macedonian prince Alexander, whom he would later teach.

Aristotle, who classified politics as a skill, then explores politics as a management. Politics is a cooperative art.

The concept that contrasts with this is causal art. It is also used as a collaborative cause and a major cause. To explain this, he uses weaving as an example. The technology for making the fabric itself is called the causal technology, and the technology for making the fabric weaving device is called the collaborative technology.

Without this, any technology that cannot do its job is called a “collaborative technology.” and the technology of creating physical goods is called “the technology of the cause.”

“ Statesman” 395

In other words, politics is not about production, but about the technology of making tools for production. To put it in modern terms, it refers to the function of coordinating various production activities carried out by humans.

In other words, while a politician cannot make bread, he or she can define the various conditions required to make bread. This is closely related to the change from breeding to management. Breeding is mainly about feeding animals, but humans, who are the subject of management, find or make their own food. The characteristic of humans that they make their own food is their high level of sociality. If the social order is not maintained and controlled through morals, laws, and various systems, the productivity of humans will also decrease.

In this sense, Aristotle called politics a “cooperative technology.”

Aristotle, who defines politics with the concept of technology, again uses the art of measurement, which is a type of technology, to pursue the issue of length and excess and deficiency. This is where the concept of the golden mean, the most important concept of Aristotle's ethics, first appears.

Before the ethics of moderation, there is moderation in technology. This is actually a standard. Moderation in production technology refers to the right degree. This standard defines the large and small. For example, in the case of textile weaving, it refers to the length or thickness of the thread that is neither too large nor too small, but just right.

Stranger says: This is how the great and small come into existence and must be identified, as mentioned earlier, not only in terms of their mutual relationship, but also in comparison with other standards of moderation or ideal. “Statesman” 396

The moderation referred to here is the mean, or in other words, the ideal standard. In addition, moderation is the standard of governance in politics. Just as there must be standards in production, there must also be standards in politics and management. Without management standards, management and political skills cannot function properly.

Stranger says: As I have already said, management skills can be divided into two categories: on the one hand, skills for managing large and small, long and short, deep and shallow, and continuous and sustainable; and on the other hand, skills for managing the right amount, harmony, curiosity, and appropriateness. In other words, we will use the word “technique” to refer to the skill of managing standards that are outside of the center or extremes. “Statesman” 399

In other words, we will use the word ‘technique’ to refer to the skill of managing standards that are outside of the center or extremes”.

The art of measurement is divided into two categories: the first is the art of simply measuring quantities, and the second is the art of measuring the excess or deficiency of a given quantity based on the golden mean or standard. The latter is the art of politics as management. The golden mean, or ideal standard, is also known as harmony, moderation, and propriety. In fact, it is not easy to find such standards. This management skill is universal and applies to all things. In a sense, all skills are related to management.

Of course, finding the golden mean is not the only thing politics is about.

The skill of finding the golden mean, or standard, is also connected to the cooperative skills mentioned above.

Stranger says : In this way, we can say that the technology of making instruments in a state is a cooperative technology, regardless of whether it is large or small. I have come to find more reasons for this. Because if there were no such technology, there would be no state (or government) officials. But none of this can be said to have been created by governance, can it? “Statesman” 402

The above quote refers to the skills required for politics, administration, and management, which are nothing but the skills to create institutions in the state. These skills are the various systems, administrative organizations, and defense institutions of the state, as well as the various laws and regulations required for them. Without these state institutions, there would be no state or politicians.

(2) Analysis of political systems and forms

Aristotle distinguishes three major forms of government based on the political forms of his time. In other words, it is monarchy and minority politics and commoner politics. This is usually referred to as a monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. And monarchy is divided into a good monarchy, royalty and a tyrannical monarchy (tyranny), and minority politics is divided into aristocracy and oligarchy.

Commoner politics has no distinction between good and evil.

Therefore in the“Statesman,” a total of five forms of government are distinguished. As mentioned above, there is no distinction between good and evil in the common people's politics.

There are two types of monarchy and minority politics. In other words, there is good and bad, as mentioned above. The criteria for distinguishing between their values are will and force, poverty and wealth, and discipline and lawlessness.

Stranger says: There are standards of self-will and coercion, poverty and wealth, and discipline and lawlessness, and people have applied them to each of their identities. At first, the two were divided into two, and the two were seen as being in the royal court, and two names were given to them. That is the royal court and the tyranny.

Socrates says: Indeed, I see.

Stranger says: Let's divide oligarchy into two categories: aristocracy and oligarchy. “Statesman” 407

There may be some confusion in this sentence. In other words, monarchy is divided into good monarchy and tyranny, and oligarchy is divided into aristocracy and oligarchy. The meaning is that one-man rule i.e. (monarchy) is divided into monarchy and tyranny, and minority rule is classified into aristocracy and oligarchy.

Like his teacher Plato, Aristotle has no prejudice against democratic politics. He is value-neutral about all forms of politics. As the above quote shows, he also said that there are good and bad monarchies.

Stranger says: If a monarchy is subject to the constraints of good laws, it may be the most excellent of the six types of tyranny I mentioned earlier, but if lawlessness prevails, it may become the most painful and oppressive tyranny for the people, right?

Socrates says: Indeed, it is.

Stranger says: Politics by the minority is somewhere between one-man rule and democratic politics, and it is also somewhere in the middle of good and evil. However, compared to other political systems, democratic politics is the weakest, and while it cannot do much good, it also does not commit much evil. Because the positions are so subdivided and so many people occupy them. Therefore, this stagnation is the worst of all politics governed by law and the best of politics governed by lawlessness. “Statesman” p.421

Previously, the three basic forms of politics were divided into one-man rule, rule by a few, and rule by the many i.e. (democracy), and one-man rule was further divided into monarchy and tyranny, and rule by a few was divided into aristocracy and oligarchy, for a total of five forms of politics. Here, however, it is said to be six. Perhaps democratic politics is also divided into good and evil. This is the same way as in “Politics”. All forms of government, whether monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy, have both good and bad aspects. In this respect, “politics” and “political science” are the same.

And it is not that monarchy is always good, but that it is best when it is subject to the constraints of law. A monarchy without the constraints of law, i.e. a tyranny, is the worst form. “If lawlessness prevails, it can become the most painful and oppressive stagnation for the people,” was Aristotle's idea. If we dare to compare it to modern politics, he would have preferred a constitutional monarchy. This is different from Plato, who was quite negative about democracy.

And many people say that Plato hated democracy, which is a rather exaggerated view. A detailed analysis and description of Plato's democracy, oligarchy, and autocracy in Book 8 of The Republic shows that he did not simply dislike democracy. Above all, Plato recognizes the value of freedom, which is the advantage of democratic politics. Of course, there was strong disappointment and dissatisfaction with democratic politics due to the unfairness of the trial of Socrates, but this is not necessarily the case from the perspective of political science, apart from such private feelings. He speaks of the idealism that the philosopher, the one with the highest knowledge, should become the king, but this is not the case in the analysis of real politics.

And Aristotle's assessment of democracy is interesting. He says that democratic politics is “the weakest, unable to do much good, and unable to do much evil.” Democracy is the worst of the rule of law and the best of illegal politics.

In other words, the assessment of democracy itself is very neutral.

It refers to the fact that Aristotle, despite knowing the limitations of law, preferred the rule of law.

In fact, he expounds on the weaknesses of law in several places in his “Statesman.”

Stranger says: Even if there is no doubt that legislation can be a task of the ruler, the most important thing is not governed by law, but by the ruler with wisdom and power. Can you tell me why?

Socrates says: Why is that?

Stranger says: The reason is this. The law does not contain the most correct and complete set of rules that apply in all cases, and therefore cannot issue the best orders. Each human being has a different personality and behavior, and the infinite and irregular movements of human affairs never allow the application of general and simple laws. And no ruler's skill can create a law that can be applied at any time and forever.

“Statesman” p.411

In a word, the law cannot properly reflect the complex reality.

Ultimately, a true politician is someone who has the skills and knowledge of governance as mentioned above. In other words, a person who has the skills of management and applies the law based on moderation and ideal standards to overcome complex reality. There is no need to necessarily associate a specific form of politics with it. The best form of government is a monarchy, as mentioned above, in which a single person rules by law. However, this cannot be illegal either. It would be the worst form of government.

Stranger says: Then what is the only true identity? It must be a political system that is governed by a ruler who has mastered the correct academic knowledge, and not a political system governed by an ignorant person. Therefore, whether it is governed according to the law or not, whether it is in accordance with the will of the people or not, such things cannot be included in the concept of a ruler. “Statesman” p.409

The true meaning of the above sentence, which seems to ignore the rule of law, is as follows: In other words, the law is also made by the ruler for the people.

To put it in modern terms, what is more important than the actual law is the purpose and will behind making the law. The spirit of the law, that is, abstract concepts such as justice, fairness, and the welfare of the people, is more important than the actual law.

Stranger says: Whether that ruler corrects the country by killing or expelling someone for the public good, or whether he reduces the population by emigrating the people out of the country, or whether he increases the population by accepting immigrants from abroad, as long as they act with wisdom and justice and exercise their power for the public order and development, they rule, and the country with these characteristics is called ” It can be said that it is a country of justice, and all other politics are not true politics, but merely imitations of this politics. And some of these imitative politics can be called good governance, but some are bad governance. However, even good governance is no more than mere imitation. “Statesman” 409, 410

Aristotle also has an idealism of politics, not unlike Plato. And some more explanation is needed regarding the issue of law. While the law and policies are made by the ruler, the fundamental law, or today's constitution, is not. We should look at Aristotle's sentence by taking advantage of the dual meaning of law.

He also recognizes the rule of law. However, if one falls into the formalism of the law and ignores reality, one will encounter a huge contradiction.