Philosophers

I'm a philosophy student, and like most philosophy students (and philosophers), I've been known to rhapsodize about Plato. Even if I don't agree with all of his views, he is 'the' philosopher, a great man, and so we put him up on a pedestal. But I've had a sort of crisis of consciousness. The Republic is, more or less, a fascist book, no? If I met anyone in real life who held the views Plato claims to in the Republic, I would be horribly disturbed-- I wouldn't devote my life to seriously considering her philosophy. I understand the merits of distancing yourself from emotions when doing philosophy, and just considering the ideas on their own merits. Isn't that what philosophy's all about, actually? But at the same time, I don't really want to seriously consider fascism, I don't think it deserves it. And why are people still seriously discussing Plato's ethics like they might have something useful to tell us? Shouldn't we stop at "Plato was a fascist"? And what does it say about philosophy that a fascist like Plato is one of our biggest heroes?

Comments

I'm not convinced that we should equate Plato's political philosophy with fascism, although certainly this claim has been made seriously and with rational argument. But let's put that to one side.

It seems to me that there are two questions here. First, should we judge historical figures by the same moral standards that we hold today? And, second, in what sense can someone whose views we find repugnant ever be considered a 'great' philosopher?

The first question paints one directly into a corner: it seems that either we should reject historical philosophers because of the views they held (in which case there would be not much of the history of philosophy left!) or, we are forced to take seriously, over and over again, morally and politically dubious positions. But what does it mean to 'take seriously'? One approach would be a broadly historicist one: Plato's political theory can be understood as rational only given the historical circumstances in which he lived; since those circumstances no longer pertain, the theory is of historical interest only. I have some sympathy for this way of thinking, but I think it is too often used to sweep things under historical carpets and avoid having to take them seriously. But, again, what does that phrase mean? It does not mean just to accept or agree with. Instead it means to analyse and evaluate the position and the arguments put forward for it. If the arguments are found wanting, then so be it; if not, then maybe our own complacent and naive views need to be challenged, or at least the reasons for our views need to be reviewed, strengthened and defended. At any event, surely nothing is more 'fascist' (in a loose sense) than stopping at 'Plato was a fascist'. My answer to the first question is also an answer to the second: a great philosopher is not great (as far as I am concerned) because of his or her conclusions (again, there wouldn't be many philosophers left after the application of this filter), but because he or she has the power to make us think, carefully and critically, and perpetually to raise new issues for us to think about.

Many of the questions and responses in the 'Philosophers' and the 'Ethics' sections of this site grapple with similar problems.

Read another response by Douglas Burnham

Read another response about Philosophers