TYRANNY AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY David Moreno Guinea, Ph. D. University of Dallas, 2021 Dr. Joshua Parens Tyranny is a theme that reverberates in politico-philosophical scholarship since the post- war era of the twentieth century and it has been taken up with a renewed interest in recent years. Aside from Leo Strauss, only very few scholars have focused on the link between ancient and modern tyranny, and even fewer on how the concept of tyranny might give insight into the study of political philosophy itself. In this dissertation, I argue that the concept of tyranny can make us aware of the permanent character of the problems that arise between philosophy and politics, and help us distinguish between the core and the peripheral tenets of political philosophy. On this basis, I contend that it is possible to draw a closer connection between Socratic and Machiavellian political philosophy. Through a close reading of select passages of Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle, on the one hand, and of Machiavelli, on the other, I address the main differences that separate the philosophic from the political way of life. I first analyze the concept of tyranny from the viewpoint of the city and of “real men” (andres), and then contrast it with the perspective of the philosopher. I assert that the praise of kalokagathia is more of a concession than the real essence of the classics’ philosophic teachings. Although I show that there is a close connection between the philosopher and the tyrant, I also explain what sets them apart. The subtle distinction that the classics made between the principles of their philosophic politics as opposed to the principles of philosophy itself, I argue, helps us to understand the classics better and to read Machiavelli in a different, more benevolent and more philosophical light. While I acknowledge that modern forms of tyranny, such as the universal and homogeneous state that Kojève proposes, originate in Machiavelli’s revolution, I hold that the essence of Machiavelli’s teachings, in harmony with the classics, shores up philosophy, not tyranny. The return both to the classics and to the origins of modernity that I put forward aims at keeping philosophy alive against tyranny of thought. THE BRANIFF GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DALLAS TYRANNY AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY by DAVID MORENO GUINEA B.A., INSTITUTO TECNOLÓGICO AUTÓNOMO DE MÉXICO, 2011 B.A., UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO, 2014 M.A., UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO, 2016 M.A. UNIVERSITY OF DALLAS, 2017 A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Dallas in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Politics in the Institute of Philosophic Studies. 04/29/2021 Reading Committee: Dr. Joshua S. Parens, Chair Dr. Richard Dougherty Dr. David Sweet ©2021 David Moreno Guinea Tyranny and Political Philosophy Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves. —Matthew 10:16 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….. xi Chapter 1: The Beginning of Philosophy…………………………………………………... 1 I. The Origin of the Quest for Wisdom………………………………………………….. 4 II. Reexamination of the Classics………………………………………………………... 11 III. Unjust Regimes……………………………………………………………………….. 17 IV. Toward the Best Regime…………………………………………………………….... 28 Chapter 2: The Real Man and the City…………………………………………………….. 39 I. The Most Pleasurable Life…………………………………………………………… 43 II. The Honorable Life…………………………………………………………………… 53 Private Men……………………………………………………………………….. 56 Lovers of Gain…………………………………………………………………….. 62 The Tyrant………………………………………………………………………… 68 Chapter 3: The Philosopher and the Tyrant……………………………………………….. 77 I. The Virtuous Life……………………………………………………………………... 81 Differing Truths…………………………………………………………………… 81 Political Virtue and the Noble……………………………………………………... 85 Kalokagathia as Peak and Concession……………………………………………. 90 II. The Blessed Life………………………………………………………………………. 100 The Most Choiceworthy Way of Life……………………………………………... 100 Tyrannikos or “The Skilled Tyrant”……………………………………………….. 103 Every Kind of Truth……………………………………………………………….. 107 Divine Dehumanization…………………………………………………………… 112 Eros and Friendship……………………………………………………………….. 119 Chapter 4: Modern Tyranny or Machiavelli’s Restoration of Philosophy……………….. 126 I. The Tyrannical Life …………………………………………………………………... 129 Cruelty and Pious Cruelty…………………………………………………………. 132 Effectual Truth…………………………………………………………………….. 138 II. Machiavelli, a Socratic Prince………………………………………………………… 145 Telling Silences……………………………………………………………………. 145 Arms as Knowledge: Machiavelli’s Implicit Philosophical Convictions…………. 148 A Philosophical State……………………………………………………………… 157 Machiavelli’s Ambiguous Legacy………………………………………………………… 164 Chapter 5: Tyranny as Utopia: The Strauss-Kojève Debate……………………………… 168 I. The Laborious Life……………………………………………………………………. 171 The Universal and Homogeneous State…………………………………………… 171 Preeminence of Politics Over Philosophy………………………………………… 176 II. Dystopia: Dangers of Modern Tyranny……………………………………………….. 181 Kojève’s Historicism and the Primacy of Honor………………………………….. 181 Ancient Wisdom……………………………………………………………….….. 188 Reassessment of Machiavelli’s Enterprise………………………………………………… 192 General Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………. 196 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………….. 200 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I want to thank Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM) for its sustained support during my PhD study, and Dr. Carlos J. McCadden for his trust and encouragement. I also wish to warmly thank the University of Dallas, and the Politics Department, not only for the funding received toward my PhD, but also for taking me in as part of the UD family. I am extremely grateful to my dissertation advisor, Dr. Joshua S. Parens, for his teachings, his firm guidance, and his constant dedication and commitment to us, his students. I also owe a debt of gratitude to the other members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Richard Dougherty and Dr. David Sweet, for their invaluable advice and constructive criticism. Special thanks to Dr. José Molina Ayala, Dr. Wayne Ambler, Jesse Conne, Natalie Moreira, Javier Arturo Velázquez Galván, and Mariana Carbó for good conversations and for lending me a hand when I needed help. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my parents, to my brother and sister, to my cousin, Javier Cortabraz, and most especially to my wife and my daughter for their tremendous understanding, encouragement, and support in the past few years. ix x INTRODUCTION TYRANNY AS A POLITICO-PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPT Tyranny was, in ancient Greece, an absolute form of rule in which one individual exercised power according to his will rather than according to the rule of law. While some tyrants were relatively benevolent toward their subjects and brought stability to their cities through equitable rule, others were famously avaricious, violent, or cruel. The former received heroic honors, whereas the latter were the target of continual plots, often overthrown, and put to death. The outcome of tyranny was always uncertain because people could not know beforehand whether the tyrant, having taken power, would behave in a kingly rather than in a self-serving manner. Since there was no peaceful or legal way to depose the tyrant, if need be, or to moderate his actions once he took power, tyranny was generally considered dangerous and undesirable. Although for some time now there has been a reticence to speak of “tyranny” as such,1 modernity too has seen tyrannical rulers. Like ancient tyranny, modern tyranny is generally2 thought to be cruel, high-handed, and unjust. Modern tyranny is also conceived of as dangerous, and perhaps much more so than ancient tyranny, due especially to the technological advances of our era, which enable it to cause greater harm at a larger scale. Despite the similarities between ancient and modern tyranny, the face of tyranny has changed substantially, to the point that modern tyranny has been considered to be at root different from ancient tyranny. Some believe that unlike ancient tyranny, which was a tool of oppression for the benefit of the tyrant, modern tyranny can be a means to further the common good in ways that the ancients could not even dream of. Others, in contrast, see in modern tyranny a formidable threat that is potentially worse than what the ancients could have imagined. 1 See Leo Strauss, On Tyranny, 23. 2 As we will see in chapter 5, in our discussion of the universal and homogenous state that Alexandre Kojève proposes, there are indeed champions of “beneficent tyranny.” xi In either case, it would seem that from their standpoint the lessons we can draw from the ancient study of tyranny have a very limited scope when it comes to speaking of modern tyranny. However rewarding the study of ancient tyranny may be in itself, it does not help to understand the challenges that modern tyranny poses, except perhaps by way of contrast.3 In that sense, not only the study of ancient tyranny but also of classical political philosophy appears to be, if not altogether futile or obsolete, at least poor or insufficient to address the problems of today. Since modern tyranny is thought to be fundamentally different from ancient tyranny, the philosophic insights of the ancients about tyranny are bound to be taken as little more than outmoded sermons, altogether irrelevant to the study of modern tyranny. In this dissertation, I offer arguments that contest that view. Part of