Interpretation: a Journal of Political Philosophy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Interpretation A JOURNAL J_OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Winter 1998 Volume 26 Number 2 149 Jules Gleicher Moses Politikos 183 Tucker Landy The Limitations of Political Philosophy: An Interpretation of Plato's Charmides 201 Jason A. Tipton Love of Gain, Philosophy and Tyranny: A Commentary on Plato's Hipparchus 217 Larry Peterman Changing Titles: Some Suggestions about the "Prince" Use of in Machiavelli and Others 239 Catherine H. Zuckert Leadership Natural and Conventional in Melville's "Benito Cereno" 257 Jon Fennell Harry Neumann and the Political Piety of Rorty's Postmodernism Book Reviews 275 George Anastaplo Aristotle's "Physics": A Guided Study, by Joe Sachs 285 Michael P. Zuckert Shakespeare and the Good Life, by David Lowenthal 295 Joan Stambaugh Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil, by Rudiger Safranski 299 Patrick Coby Hypocrisy and Integrity: Machiavelli, Rousseau and the Ethics of Politics, by Ruth Grant 305 Susan Orr Leo Strauss and the American Right, by Shadia Drury 309 Will Morrisey Public Morality and Liberal Society: Essays on Decency, Law, and Pornography, by Harry M. Clor Interpretation Editor-in-Chief Hilail Gildin, Dept. of Philosophy, Queens College Executive Editor Leonard Grey General Editors Seth G. Benardete Charles E. Butterworth Hilail Gildin Robert Horwitz (d. 1987) Howard B. White (d. 1974) Consulting Editors Christopher Bruell Joseph Cropsey Ernest L. Fortin John Hallowell (d. 1992) Harry V. Jaffa David Lowenthal Muhsin Mahdi Harvey C. Mansfield Arnaldo Momigliano (d. 1987) Michael Oakeshott (d. 1990) Ellis Sandoz Leo Strauss (d. 1973) Kenneth W. Thompson International Editors Terence E. Marshall Heinrich Meier Editors Wayne Ambler Maurice Auerbach Fred Baumann Amy Bonnette Patrick Coby Elizabeth C de Baca Eastman Thomas S. Engeman Edward J. Erler Maureen Feder-Marcus Pamela K. Jensen Ken Masugi Will Morrisey Susan Orr Charles T. Rubin Leslie G. Rubin Susan Meld Shell Bradford P. Wilson Michael P. Zuckert Catherine H. Zuckert Manuscript Editor Lucia B. Prochnow Subscriptions Subscription rates per volume (3 issues): individuals $29 libraries and all other institutions $48 students (four-year limit) $18 Single copies available. Postage outside U.S.: Canada $4.50 extra; elsewhere $5.40 extra by surface mail (8 weeks or longer) or $1 1.00 by air. Payments: in U.S. dollars and payable by a financial institution located within the U.S.A. (or the U.S. Postal Service). The Journal Welcomes Manuscripts in Political Philosophy as Well as Those in Theology, Literature, and Jurisprudence. contributors should follow The Chicago Manual of Style, 1 3th ed. or manuals based on it; double-space their manuscripts, including notes; place references in the text, in endnotes or follow current journal style in printing references. Words from languages not rooted in Latin should be transliterated to English. To ensure impartial judgment of their manuscripts, contributors should omit mention of their other work; put, on the title page only, their name, any affiliation desired, address with postal/zip code in full, E-Mail and telephone. Please send four clear copies, which will not be returned. Composition by Eastern Composition, Inc., Binghamton, N.Y. 13904 U.S.A. Printed by The Sheridan Press, Hanover, PA 17331 U.S.A. Inquiries: (Ms.) Joan Walsh, Assistant to the Editor interpretation, Queens College, Flushing, N.Y. 1 1 367- 1 597, U.S.A. (7 1 8)997-5542 Fax (7 1 8) 997-5565 E Mail: [email protected] Limitations of Political Philosophy: An Interpretation of Plato's Charmides Tucker Landy Kentucky State University Both the Republic and the Charmides are in the form of a monologue by Socrates, and both contain a description of a good or ideal regime, but the differences in the presentation of these regimes are decisive. In the Republic, the description of the good city takes up the bulk of the work, and it is taken quite seriously by the dialogue's participants as a realizable proposal (see 471c-e). In the Charmides, Socrates very briefly describes a city ruled by temperance, in which all tasks are performed by those who know their busi ness, but he characterizes this description as a dream and leaves open the ques tion whether it has come from the gate of hom, which issues true dreams, or of ivory, which issues false ones (173b) (see Homer, Odyssey 19.562). The inter locutors of the Charmides, then, are discouraged from taking this description as a realizable proposal. The Charmides, the dialogue on temperance, appears to Republic.1 offer a sobering counterweight to the intense political idealism of the Part of the reason for this difference has to do with the characters in each dialogue. In the Republic, Socrates speaks mainly to Glaucon and Adeimantus, who are eager to see justice and the just life defended against the arguments of the sophist Thrasymachus. Glaucon and Adeimantus would appear to need a noble vision of justice worthy of their laudable request. In contrast, in the Charmides, Socrates speaks mainly to Charmides and Critias, both of whom would later be involved in the regime of the Thirty Tyrants in Athens (404-403 B.C.; see Xenophon Hellenica 2.4.19). During that time, Critias took extremely violent measures to establish and maintain a Spartan-style oligarchy or aristoc racy there. (Critias wrote a poem celebrating Spartan moderation. I have this from Tuckey, p. 15.) Knowing these facts about their careers, we are not sur prised that Plato chose to have Socrates give Critias and Charmides a lesson in temperance and furthermore in the limitations of what can be accomplished with philosophy in the political arena. Knowing also, however, that Critias had spent some time with Socrates be fore becoming one of the Thirty Tyrants, we also wonder to what extent Socra Critias.2 tes and his ideas influenced the character and thinking of Of all the dialogues, the Charmides would seem to be the most likely place to look for Plato's thoughts on this matter. The difficulty is that we cannot be sure that the Socrates of Plato's dialogues is intended to represent the historical Socrates, his interpretation, Winter 1999, Vol. 26, No. 2 184 Interpretation thoughts, his speeches, and his actions. In any case, the most important ques tion, probably for Plato and certainly for us, is not whether the historical Socrates actually influenced the historical Critias, but whether political philosophy not just some political philosophies, but political philosophy in general neces sarily inspires or encourages dangerous political ambitions in certain people as it awakens the faculty of philosophical inquiry and teaches them how to think independently, even radically, about political affairs. It is reasonable to assume that this larger question, rather than the historical question, would be Plato's main concern, although the historical question was certainly the stimulus to the main question and is still of some importance because it provides empirical data for answering the larger philosophical question. In this essay we shall assume that the character Socrates represents, not the historical Socrates, but rather the ideal political philosopher to the extent that Plato's philosophical and literary powers allowed: one who is aware of the dangers inherent in political philosophy and of the need to exercise caution in introducing others to its charms. In this respect, he may differ from the histori cal Socrates. We shall then take Critias as representing a dangerous type of student: one who is liable to believe that the knowledge of political philosophy he has acquired is the necessary and sufficient condition of good rulership. Critias, in other words, is something like a prototype of many well-known mod em revolutionaries who were inspired by what they believed to be a complete science of politics that delegitimized all other claims to rulership. The inter pretation of the Charmides that follows, it is hoped, will bear out these assump tions. The Charmides, I shall argue, acknowledges inconspicuously that, because the serious pursuit of political philosophy requires an inclination for (or at least a willingness to engage in) spirited, adventurous inquiries into the most controversial political subjects, that pursuit bears some of the marks of an in temperate or immoderate activity. Political philosophy therefore cannot com pletely avoid inciting and fostering the ambitions of people like Critias. Indeed, both the historical and the Platonic Socrates show a predilection for the politi cally ambitious, perhaps precisely because of the adventurous spirit they pos sess (cf. Alcibiades I 104e-106a). The Charmides also shows, however, that steps can and should be taken to bring some measure of temperance to the souls of such students and to make them aware of the practical limitations to which the application of political theory is subject. We see the Platonic Socrates tak ing such precautions especially in this dialogue. Finally, the Charmides shows that even these steps may not be completely effective, and that the danger of misguided inspiring ambitions is perhaps a necessary companion of political philosophy. Clearly, if the Charmides has this agenda, it can express these concerns only in an esoteric allusive, manner. It will leave the impression with less attentive readers that there is one only Socrates, the historical Socrates, who was con demned the Athenian unjustly by demos and who was lovingly reproduced here The Limitations of Political Philosophy 185 and in the rest of Plato's dialogues; the inattentive reader will see only a Socra tes innocently concerned with fostering a deeper understanding of virtue in the minds of the young and tender. Because of the difficulty of demonstrating the existence of a hidden agenda, the coherence and plausibility of the interpreta tion offered in this essay will depend on the evidence and the reasoning pre sented as a whole.