Plato (427-347 B.C.) was ancient Greek philosopher who is regarded to be the first systematic political thinker in the western tradition. Socrates (469-399 B.C.), his mentor, did not produce any writings; the cheif source of learning his political thought are Plato's works. So far all practical purposes, Plato is the pioneer of Western political thought.
Significance of the Polis'
Significance of the Polis'
In fact including political thought may be traced back to ancient Greek philosophy. Euclid, thef ounder of geometry, was born in Greece in the third century B.C. The methodology of geometryproved immensely useful in the development of scientific thinking. Then many Greek philosophers and teachers of philosophy dwelled on certain fundamental questions which are considered to be relevant even today. For example, they inquired into the nature of truth and justice, knowledge and reason, types of virtue of authority and rule of law, etc. The whole tradition of Western political thought originated in thinking about the life of the 'polis' that refers to ancient Greek city-state. The terms 'politics' and 'political' are derived from the word 'polis' itself.
Ancient Greece consisted of several city-states - the tracts of land which were separated from each other by natural barriers like mountains, dense forests, and these as, etc. These city-state were so isolated that transport and communication between them were very difficult. So each of them was required to develop its own self-sufficient economic life as well as independent political system. However, in spite of geographical separation, these were culturally very close to each other because they spoke a uniform language, and largely followed common religious traditions. All of them believed in multiplicity of gods. The most prominent of these gods - Zeus and Apollo were very close to the Greek heart.
In early Greek history till the eighth century В.С., kingship or monarchy was the most widely prevalent form of government in the city-states. But from around 700 BC most of the city-states came to be controlled by oligarchies. In due course, these oligarchies had to face internal conflicts. By 500 в.с. many city-states came to be ruled by tyrants. Originally these rulers cared for their subjects, but later they became corrupt and cruel. Then in most of these city-states, aristocracies were established with the popular support. Later, in many city states aristocracies were replaced by democracies. Greek political thought flourished against the backdrop of all these experience.
It is important to note that the so-called democracy in Greek city-states was not a democracy in its modern sense. Today universal citizenship is regarded to be a necessary condition of democracy: it is a 'rule by the people' as such, not by the selected few. But in a Greek city-state like Athens, there were about 400,000 inhabitants; of these about 250,000 were slaves or aliens who had no political rights of any kind. Then of the 150,000 freemen or citizens, women had no political rights. Of the remaining citizen (excluding children and 'retired' citizens), only a small number was active in politics. Since it was a direct democracy' (i.e., where citizens directly ran their government, and not through their representatives), only the active citizens presented themselves at the 'general assembly' which discussed and determined the policies of the state. They also had a 'supreme court' which consisted of over a thousand members who were selected from the citizens by rotation. So in the Greek model of democracy, political rights were restricted to the privileged few. However, within the qualified citizens, they made no discrimination between rich and poor, or high and low social strata; all citizens enjoyed equal political rights and equal opportunities to participate in public decision-making. In this sense, the Greeks were fairly familiar with the essence of democracy.
Ethics as the Foundations of Politics
It is important to note that in Greek philosophical tradition, politics as a discipline developed as a sequel to ethics. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics had closed by looking forward to his study on Politics. Earlier, Plato had treated the problem of discovering the nature of justice' (obviously a problem of ethics) as the central problem of politics in his celebrated work the Republic. Then Aristotle sought to bank on his doctrine of the "golden mean' (as enunciated in his Nicomachean Ethics) to evolve his model of the 'mixed constitution' as a solution to the problem of political instability (the central problem of his Politics). This fusion of ethics and politics was responsible for the common belief of the ancient Greeks that the state comes into existence for the sake of life and the sake of good life. Pursuit of good life is obviously an issue of ethics which reaches its logical conclusion in the institution of the state.
ETHICS
A branch of learning concerned with the principles of good conduct It inquires into moral beliefs and rules about right and wrong. This term is used as a synonym of moral philosophy as well as a set of principles of good conduct concerning a particular profession, such as medical ethics or 'business ethics'.
THE GOLDEN MEAN
A famous ethical principle enunciated by Aristotle (384-322 в.с.) ancient Greek philosopher, in his Ethics. It holds the key to personal as well as social morality and serves as a guide for political action. The doctrine of the golden mean implies that virtue or excellence lies in finding' a middle path between two extremes, which would turn out to be vices in themselves. For example courage is a virtue that lies between cowardice and rashness: liberality between stinginess and extravagance; ambition, between sloth and greed; modesty, between humility and pride; and friendship, between quarrelsomeness and flattery. Buddhism also commends 'middle path' as the road to virtue.
THE MIXED CONSTITUTION
A mixture of aristocracy and democracy, prescribed by Aristotle as a remedy to cure the ills of political instability of his contemporary Greek city-states. He observed that none of the prevailing forms of government (viz. monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, polity and democracy) proved to be unstable because concentration of power in the hands of any ruler or ruling-group gave rise to discontent among those who were deprived of power, and also corrupted the rulers because 'power and virtue cannot coexist. He came to the conclusion that a judicious mixture of aristocracy and democracy would prevent the possibility of corruption of rulers as well as rebellion against the government. Under this arrangement, power would be exercised by the chosen few who were rich, educated and cultured, but their decisions would be subject to approval of the ordinary people. Aristotle argued that though ordinary people were not capable to rule, they would prove to be the best judge of the merits and demerits of public policy.
Greek Theory of Knowledge
The Greeks dwelled elaborately on the nature and types of knowledge. Their theory of knowledge is regarded to be particularly illuminating even today. The Greeks used a single word ‘episteme for 'knowledge' as well as 'science'. It means that they recognized scientific knowledge' as the real knowledge. Moreover, they were convinced that true knowledge was inseparable from virtue. In other words, a person having true knowledge would automatically follow the path of virtue. Knowledge made a man wise and virtuous. Pursuit of true knowledge or wisdom led to the evolution of philosophy. Philosophy literally means 'the love of wisdom'. Hence philosophy represents an effort for the acquisition of true knowledge. In modern times, we distinguish between 'science' and 'philosophy' on the ground that science deals with the natural or material world whereas philosophy deals with abstract and conceptual entities. But the Greeks did not recognize this distinction. For them, science and philosophy were coterminous.
At the outset, we may refer to Socrates' distinction between knowledge and opinion. Knowledge was based on sound principles, and it could be proved like a geometrical theorem. On the other hand, opinion or belief was merely based on impression; it was not bothered about finding the proof of what we held. Knowledge was objective; opinion was subjective. Knowledge was uniform and universal; it did not change with time and place, or from person to person. As the proverb goes: "Wise men think alike." On the contrary, different people held different opinions about the same thing; their differences were symptomatic of their lack of knowledge. Socrates argued that traditional morality was based on opinion which changed with time and place, but true morality was based on knowledge which was universal and eternal.
Then the Greeks also distinguished between 'pure knowledge' (theorea) and ‘applied knowledge' (praxis) Pure knowledge was an end-in-itself, it represented the 'knowledge for knowledge sake'. On the other hand, applied knowledge was a means to an end it embodied the knowledge for practical use. For example, the knowledge of truth, good or beautiful was not meant to serve a worldly purpose; it belonged to the category of pure knowledge, that is knowledge for knowledge sake. On the other hand, knowledge of agriculture, carpentry and other crafts was meant to produce useful things; it belonged to the category of applied knowledge. The Greeks regarded pure knowledge as a higher order knowledge (superior knowledge), and applied knowledge as lower order knowledge (inferior knowledge). They believed that pure knowledge was inseparable from virtue. Socrates argued that a person having true knowledge shall not depart from the path of virtue that vicious behaviour is the symptom of lack of true knowledge. On the other hand, applied knowledge was neutral to virtue and vice. Pure knowledge represented an intrinsic value (a value that was an end-in-itself) while applied knowledge embodied an instrumental value (a value that was a means to an end). The Greeks held that in order to attain good life (which was the goal of politics), applied knowledge should be subordinated to virtue.
At the outset, we may refer to Socrates' distinction between knowledge and opinion. Knowledge was based on sound principles, and it could be proved like a geometrical theorem. On the other hand, opinion or belief was merely based on impression; it was not bothered about finding the proof of what we held. Knowledge was objective; opinion was subjective. Knowledge was uniform and universal; it did not change with time and place, or from person to person. As the proverb goes: "Wise men think alike." On the contrary, different people held different opinions about the same thing; their differences were symptomatic of their lack of knowledge. Socrates argued that traditional morality was based on opinion which changed with time and place, but true morality was based on knowledge which was universal and eternal.
Then the Greeks also distinguished between 'pure knowledge' (theorea) and ‘applied knowledge' (praxis) Pure knowledge was an end-in-itself, it represented the 'knowledge for knowledge sake'. On the other hand, applied knowledge was a means to an end it embodied the knowledge for practical use. For example, the knowledge of truth, good or beautiful was not meant to serve a worldly purpose; it belonged to the category of pure knowledge, that is knowledge for knowledge sake. On the other hand, knowledge of agriculture, carpentry and other crafts was meant to produce useful things; it belonged to the category of applied knowledge. The Greeks regarded pure knowledge as a higher order knowledge (superior knowledge), and applied knowledge as lower order knowledge (inferior knowledge). They believed that pure knowledge was inseparable from virtue. Socrates argued that a person having true knowledge shall not depart from the path of virtue that vicious behaviour is the symptom of lack of true knowledge. On the other hand, applied knowledge was neutral to virtue and vice. Pure knowledge represented an intrinsic value (a value that was an end-in-itself) while applied knowledge embodied an instrumental value (a value that was a means to an end). The Greeks held that in order to attain good life (which was the goal of politics), applied knowledge should be subordinated to virtue.
Dominant Themes of Political Inquiry
The Greeks were chiefly interested in philosophy. In this pursuit, they sought to inquire into the laws governing the universe. They believed that the universe was the product of the creative reason. All natural phenomena were therefore governed by certain uniform and immutable laws which could be discovered by the human faculty of reason. Initially the Greeks focused on the analysis of the external world. But by the fifth century B.C. they became interested in the analysis of human nature - the internal world of man. They noticed a world of difference between their own culture and the culture of non-Greek people, whom they called 'barbarians'. They began to investigate the reasons behind this perceptible difference.
The Greeks who were intensely inspired by their religious beliefs and wonderful narratives of their gods and goddesses, had become fearless about their destiny. They firmly held that man himself was capable of moulding his society into an excellent form. Indeed their intellectual curiosity was not bound by any limits. They realized that man was endowed by nature with certain faculties; it was his duty to develop and in them. In other words, man should apply his faculty of reason to improve his life. This led to the need of political organization the necessary instrument of good life. Aristotle declared that man is by nature a political animal'. He argued that a man who can live without a state is either a beast or a god. A man acquires and develops his human qualities only by living in a state which enables him to secure the conditions of good life. Whereas other countries of the Orient Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria and Persia considered the submission to law and the state an act of submission to an external power the Greeks regarded it an act of following the dictates of one's own higher self.
Since man is treated an integral part of the state in Greek political thought, he is expected to participate actively in its functioning. The environment of small, self sufficient city-states was quite suitable for such participation. All the citizens particularly the freemen in these states knew each other; so they could assemble from time to time to take public decisions about their city. As an indispensable instrument of good life, it was the state that regulated the entire life of man. There was no scope of thinking that man has any natural rights (i.e. the rights derived by man from the nature itself), or that the state was created for the protection of these rights. For Greeks, the objectives of the individual coincided with those of the state;, so they did not draw a line of demarcation between the public and private affairs. Democracy in Greece authorized constitute the state, and thereby provided them with political rights, but it didn't recognize any rights of individual against the authority of the sate. There was no scope for the concept of civil rights (i e. the rights restricting the state from exercising men to its control over the individual).
The Greeks who were intensely inspired by their religious beliefs and wonderful narratives of their gods and goddesses, had become fearless about their destiny. They firmly held that man himself was capable of moulding his society into an excellent form. Indeed their intellectual curiosity was not bound by any limits. They realized that man was endowed by nature with certain faculties; it was his duty to develop and in them. In other words, man should apply his faculty of reason to improve his life. This led to the need of political organization the necessary instrument of good life. Aristotle declared that man is by nature a political animal'. He argued that a man who can live without a state is either a beast or a god. A man acquires and develops his human qualities only by living in a state which enables him to secure the conditions of good life. Whereas other countries of the Orient Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria and Persia considered the submission to law and the state an act of submission to an external power the Greeks regarded it an act of following the dictates of one's own higher self.
Since man is treated an integral part of the state in Greek political thought, he is expected to participate actively in its functioning. The environment of small, self sufficient city-states was quite suitable for such participation. All the citizens particularly the freemen in these states knew each other; so they could assemble from time to time to take public decisions about their city. As an indispensable instrument of good life, it was the state that regulated the entire life of man. There was no scope of thinking that man has any natural rights (i.e. the rights derived by man from the nature itself), or that the state was created for the protection of these rights. For Greeks, the objectives of the individual coincided with those of the state;, so they did not draw a line of demarcation between the public and private affairs. Democracy in Greece authorized constitute the state, and thereby provided them with political rights, but it didn't recognize any rights of individual against the authority of the sate. There was no scope for the concept of civil rights (i e. the rights restricting the state from exercising men to its control over the individual).
The laws of ancient Greeks were rooted in their long-existent custom. So there was no scope for the idea that law is the expression of anybody's will, or it is the product of deliberation of a legislative organ. The Greeks generally agreed that a true polis relied on 'rule by laws, not by men'. Even absolute monarchs, wherever they existed, did not introduce any new law. Similarly, no democratic regime, like the one that flourished in Athen, sought to make any new law. Eventually the Greeks came to believe that law is an integral part of nature; it is perpetual and unalterable like the laws of nature itself. It can be discovered through human faculty of reason, but it cannot be changed at will. The state is concerned with the application, not the creation of law. Thus the Greeks recognized judicial function of the state, and not its legislative function. While dispensation of justice was sanctioned by religion, law had no religious sanction behind. Hence application of law in any case was required to be argued, defended or challenged by human reason itself.
Role of Sophist
In the ancient Greece, sophists were the paid professional teachers of logic, philosophy and rhetoric who travelled from place to place, working there for short periods. They were the forerunners of Socratic dialectic (widely applied by Plato in his writings) and Aristotelain logic. The most famous sophists were Gorgias, Protagoras and Prodicus. Broadly speaking, the sophists looked inwards upon their own thought and nature rather than outwards upon the world of things. Many of them had profound knowledge of philosophy. The sophists did not constitute a single school of thought because each of them developed his own ideas on the subjects of his inquiry. They inquired into a wide variety of subjects. Will Durant (The Story of Philosophy; 1954) has significantly observed: "there is hardly a problem or solution in our current philosophy of mind and conduct which they did not realize and discuss". They asked questions about anything on earth or elsewhere. They took nothing for granted, and fearlessly proceeded to challenge the prevailing religious beliefs and political restrictions. They sought to judge everything from the perspective of reason. Illustrating the variety of the viewpoints evolved by the sophists, Will Durant has further observed: "One, like Rousseau argued that nature is good, and civilization bad; that by nature all men are equal, becoming unequal only by class-made institutions.... Another school, like Nietzsche, claimed that nature is beyond good and evil, that by nature all men are unequal, that morality is an invention of the weak to limit and deter the strong..." (ibid.).
Protagoras sought to justify the profession of sophists as they helped to develop the rational faculties of people. He argued that all men were endowed with the capacity to share in the process of decision-making, but not in equal measure. Only good educators would help to enhance their capacity in this respect and to prepare them for political leadership. However, later sophists abandoned their quest for truth and sought to use their skills for attaining material success and developing their clients ‘ability to argue a case in a convincing manner irrespective of its merits. Politicians of those days widely learnt the art of oratory from many sophists for winning votes of the people, but they neither acquired necessary competence nor developed a sense of duty to serve the state Socrates and Plato were particularly disillusioned with such politicians so much so that they were inclined to abandon democracy and switch over to the rule of philosopher kings to save the state from disaster!
Protagoras sought to justify the profession of sophists as they helped to develop the rational faculties of people. He argued that all men were endowed with the capacity to share in the process of decision-making, but not in equal measure. Only good educators would help to enhance their capacity in this respect and to prepare them for political leadership. However, later sophists abandoned their quest for truth and sought to use their skills for attaining material success and developing their clients ‘ability to argue a case in a convincing manner irrespective of its merits. Politicians of those days widely learnt the art of oratory from many sophists for winning votes of the people, but they neither acquired necessary competence nor developed a sense of duty to serve the state Socrates and Plato were particularly disillusioned with such politicians so much so that they were inclined to abandon democracy and switch over to the rule of philosopher kings to save the state from disaster!
0 Comments