I'm halfway through my political philosophy paper. The main base of the paper was to compare The Prince and The Republic in regards to the ideal government attempting to suppress human will to create stability and the "perfect" society. Personally I don't think it's possible to create a perfect society due to the fact of human will. I only have the Plato part basically done.
Kyle DiLeo
Professor Graham
Intro to Political Philosophy 2496-001
December 16, 2008
Throughout the history of Western culture, many civilizations have risen and fallen in the wake of internal problems. Many of the causes in the decay of society are attributed to greed, disobedience, and poor structural planning. Empires such as Rome, which fell to its overzealous territorial expansion, a disloyal military, and division of government strength, can be directly related to this theory and are a perfect example of the effect of human nature on society. Many ancient rulers have attempted to combat the deconstructive power of human will by installing laws and regulations, yet had still ultimately failed. In the works of Plato and Machiavelli, the stability and vitality of theorized political structures are dependent upon the attempt to compensate for human will and nature.
The Republic, written by Plato, introduces a style of rule that offered much criticism, as show in the dialogue of its text. As most structures of its time, the theory instates a leader, but from a different background. Instead of a ruler with a strong background in politics, Plato firmly believed the ideal state would be head by a Philosopher King. As defined in his “Allegory of the Cave”, Socrates states that the one who travels farthest from the cave, or educates himself the most with truth, is defined as the Philosopher King, and in turn is to be dedicated in showing the truth to the unenlightened and leading them to the best possible state. It is assumed that without a philosophical leader, driven by virtue or truth, that a state cannot flourish due to the inability of the masses to understand the meaning of righteousness, and in turn will exercise free will. The use of free will, in terms of Socrates, is a direct reaction to the inability for an unenlightened person to properly determine between the just and the unjust. The objective of the Philosopher King, or ruler in other theories, is to quash the need for the population of a state to exercise free will, in turn ending the problems that other civilizations have encountered.
An aspect of human nature that Socrates touches upon is the notion of the tripartite soul. Socrates believed that the human soul is broken into three parts ranging from primitive to righteous, respectively: appetitive, spirited, and rational. The theorization of such a partitioned soul, in Socratic interpretation, shows the ability for one to choose his own “path”, or exercise free will. He defines the righteousness of a human being by the order that one follows the elements of his soul. When a human’s rational aspect of the soul leads the spirited and appetitive nature, but still maintaining harmony of such components, then that person is just and fit to suit as a member of government. A soul lead by its appetitive nature would exercise its primitive desires and would have no interest in concern for others or the welfare of the state, commonly referenced as greed. A spirited nature would have some concern for the state, yet would be ultimately governed by its own passions, such as pride. Theorizing that the less just of the three would ultimately end in the decline of a state due to the overwhelming use of free will, Socrates claims that only rational people are fit to lead such an ideal state. Rational beings think and act in accordance to what is best for the state itself, and exercise control over their base desires and passions. Although arbitrarily to civilization an unjust person would prove no danger to society, the fact that these mislead individuals exist naturally and could lead to the deterioration of such a state expresses a concern to govern and control over such occurrences. The most righteous of all, the Philosopher King, must instill a just will of the state in place of the will of an individual.
In order to elect political officials and to define the rest of the population, a system of education and testing would be constructed in the society to place individuals into the appropriate positions in accordance to their strengths. The idea of such an institution replacing the need of its community to wonder and strive for a certain position is an attempt at replacing the use of free will. Unlike some capitalist notions that provide a sense of freedom to become anything desired, the Socratic educational system strives to remove the ability for one to thirst for more status in society. Men and women are allocated, for the most part, by the same credentials, creating a sense of “equality” throughout the state. Although this system removes the guesswork and is theoretically a better way to fill certain positions, it ultimately adds a dehumanizing aspect to the civilization due to the removal of choice. The act of dehumanizing a person and constituting them as just an engineered part of society attacks the ability of one to exercise free will, therefore making them more obedient to the state.
A major problem throughout the world in the stability of a state is the acceptance of one’s immediate family over the importance of the community. One of the most prevalent problems that arise in such a circumstance is the ability to create and exercise a hereditary monarchy, which often throughout history is prone to corruption. An example of a corrupt monarch due to such circumstances would be King Louis XIV of France, whom arguably lead by his spirited nature in a sense of pride, referred to himself as “The Sun King”. To prevent such a structural catastrophe from happening in the ideal state, Socrates claims that there should be no institution of marriage, and that the pairing of two individuals for reproduction should be randomized from a lot only at certain specified times of year. The randomization and strict rules for reproduction attempt to remove the romantic and lustful aspects, in turn removing another need for human free will practices. Upon birth, all children are removed from their mother and cast into the education system, never knowing who their parents were and breaking the institution of family to promote the strength of the state as a whole. The community is defined as ones family, and not by the paternal and maternal constraints.
Although the conditions that Socrates theorized in order to keep such a state completely stable seemed proficient enough, he characterizes another adaptation to the state to create an omnipotent force that delivers the consequences of unjust actions. Defined as a “noble lie”, the story of the existence of the state is told as the explanation of why such a community functions in the way that it does. People would be told that they were born of gold, silver, brass or iron, and that the type of element you are comprised of equates your function in society, and should not be mixed. The consequence of disobeying the natural rule was in complication with the reincarnation theory at the time, and that one could lose status by being unjust. The use of a consequence that affects one’s soul over eternity was a tool derived for the purpose of the constraint of free will. By impregnating a notion of divine intervention, the population of society would fear the repercussions and ultimately obey and integrate into such a preset society.
Kyle DiLeo
Professor Graham
Intro to Political Philosophy 2496-001
December 16, 2008
Throughout the history of Western culture, many civilizations have risen and fallen in the wake of internal problems. Many of the causes in the decay of society are attributed to greed, disobedience, and poor structural planning. Empires such as Rome, which fell to its overzealous territorial expansion, a disloyal military, and division of government strength, can be directly related to this theory and are a perfect example of the effect of human nature on society. Many ancient rulers have attempted to combat the deconstructive power of human will by installing laws and regulations, yet had still ultimately failed. In the works of Plato and Machiavelli, the stability and vitality of theorized political structures are dependent upon the attempt to compensate for human will and nature.
The Republic, written by Plato, introduces a style of rule that offered much criticism, as show in the dialogue of its text. As most structures of its time, the theory instates a leader, but from a different background. Instead of a ruler with a strong background in politics, Plato firmly believed the ideal state would be head by a Philosopher King. As defined in his “Allegory of the Cave”, Socrates states that the one who travels farthest from the cave, or educates himself the most with truth, is defined as the Philosopher King, and in turn is to be dedicated in showing the truth to the unenlightened and leading them to the best possible state. It is assumed that without a philosophical leader, driven by virtue or truth, that a state cannot flourish due to the inability of the masses to understand the meaning of righteousness, and in turn will exercise free will. The use of free will, in terms of Socrates, is a direct reaction to the inability for an unenlightened person to properly determine between the just and the unjust. The objective of the Philosopher King, or ruler in other theories, is to quash the need for the population of a state to exercise free will, in turn ending the problems that other civilizations have encountered.
An aspect of human nature that Socrates touches upon is the notion of the tripartite soul. Socrates believed that the human soul is broken into three parts ranging from primitive to righteous, respectively: appetitive, spirited, and rational. The theorization of such a partitioned soul, in Socratic interpretation, shows the ability for one to choose his own “path”, or exercise free will. He defines the righteousness of a human being by the order that one follows the elements of his soul. When a human’s rational aspect of the soul leads the spirited and appetitive nature, but still maintaining harmony of such components, then that person is just and fit to suit as a member of government. A soul lead by its appetitive nature would exercise its primitive desires and would have no interest in concern for others or the welfare of the state, commonly referenced as greed. A spirited nature would have some concern for the state, yet would be ultimately governed by its own passions, such as pride. Theorizing that the less just of the three would ultimately end in the decline of a state due to the overwhelming use of free will, Socrates claims that only rational people are fit to lead such an ideal state. Rational beings think and act in accordance to what is best for the state itself, and exercise control over their base desires and passions. Although arbitrarily to civilization an unjust person would prove no danger to society, the fact that these mislead individuals exist naturally and could lead to the deterioration of such a state expresses a concern to govern and control over such occurrences. The most righteous of all, the Philosopher King, must instill a just will of the state in place of the will of an individual.
In order to elect political officials and to define the rest of the population, a system of education and testing would be constructed in the society to place individuals into the appropriate positions in accordance to their strengths. The idea of such an institution replacing the need of its community to wonder and strive for a certain position is an attempt at replacing the use of free will. Unlike some capitalist notions that provide a sense of freedom to become anything desired, the Socratic educational system strives to remove the ability for one to thirst for more status in society. Men and women are allocated, for the most part, by the same credentials, creating a sense of “equality” throughout the state. Although this system removes the guesswork and is theoretically a better way to fill certain positions, it ultimately adds a dehumanizing aspect to the civilization due to the removal of choice. The act of dehumanizing a person and constituting them as just an engineered part of society attacks the ability of one to exercise free will, therefore making them more obedient to the state.
A major problem throughout the world in the stability of a state is the acceptance of one’s immediate family over the importance of the community. One of the most prevalent problems that arise in such a circumstance is the ability to create and exercise a hereditary monarchy, which often throughout history is prone to corruption. An example of a corrupt monarch due to such circumstances would be King Louis XIV of France, whom arguably lead by his spirited nature in a sense of pride, referred to himself as “The Sun King”. To prevent such a structural catastrophe from happening in the ideal state, Socrates claims that there should be no institution of marriage, and that the pairing of two individuals for reproduction should be randomized from a lot only at certain specified times of year. The randomization and strict rules for reproduction attempt to remove the romantic and lustful aspects, in turn removing another need for human free will practices. Upon birth, all children are removed from their mother and cast into the education system, never knowing who their parents were and breaking the institution of family to promote the strength of the state as a whole. The community is defined as ones family, and not by the paternal and maternal constraints.
Although the conditions that Socrates theorized in order to keep such a state completely stable seemed proficient enough, he characterizes another adaptation to the state to create an omnipotent force that delivers the consequences of unjust actions. Defined as a “noble lie”, the story of the existence of the state is told as the explanation of why such a community functions in the way that it does. People would be told that they were born of gold, silver, brass or iron, and that the type of element you are comprised of equates your function in society, and should not be mixed. The consequence of disobeying the natural rule was in complication with the reincarnation theory at the time, and that one could lose status by being unjust. The use of a consequence that affects one’s soul over eternity was a tool derived for the purpose of the constraint of free will. By impregnating a notion of divine intervention, the population of society would fear the repercussions and ultimately obey and integrate into such a preset society.