PLATO - Hoshang Khambatta

Скачать книгу

appearing and seeming but not being, saying things but not true things, and uttering these things without being caught up in verbal combat. The Visitor then asks Theaetetus how a person would employ the words: “that which is not.” Theaetetus finds the question confusing. The Visitor replies that it is obvious that: “that which is not” cannot be applied to that: “which is”. He further says that this terminology cannot be applied to “that which” and thus it will not be right to apply it to: “something.” This “something” is always applied to a being, so a person saying something must be saying the same one thing. Someone who does not say something is not saying anything at all. Such a person speaks but says nothing. The Visitor then goes into a long exposition delving into the concepts of: “that which is not and those which are and also of being and not being”.

      In the end, all those present conclude that a sophist only imitates the production of contrary speech. He is insincere and unknowing. He is a juggler of words. He is human and not divine, earning a living by clever debating.

      Overview: This dialogue follows the one called Sophist. The whole dialogue, if it can be called a dialogue, is dominated by the Visitor from Elea. As in the Sophist Dialogue the Visitor remains unnamed. In those times, Parmenides was the principle sophist in the City of Elea and it appears that Plato did not always agree with him. The interlocutor, called young Socrates, is very much like the student Theaetetus in the Sophist dialogue. He always agrees with the visitor and never once asks an intelligent question.

       A statesman is a person who, by virtue of his knowledge, governs the City-State. Statesmanship requires knowledge to govern wisely, but none of the three modes of government prevalent at that time namely: kingship, aristocracy, or democracy, brings out the true statesman. None of the city rulers of Greece at that time possessed that quality. The best that citizens could hope for was a government based on a set of written rules, e.g., a constitution. When such rules are disregarded, as they often were in those times, then the government becomes a tyranny.

       The discussants in this dialogue start with the original intention of finding out what specific knowledge a sophist, statesman or philosopher has. It is interesting that Plato never wrote the third dialogue about what defines a philosopher and so the question remains open, why he did not do so? It may be that he left it as a challenge for the reader to decide what qualities are required to be a philosopher.

      Socrates, Theodorus and the visitor from Elea meet again to continue their discussion of what is implied by the titles Sophist, Statesman, and Philosopher. Along with them are young Theaetetus and the young Socrates, a namesake of the elder. Having completed their discussion regarding sophists, they consider what they should discuss next. They leave the choice to the Visitor, who chooses to discuss the statesman. The Visitor suggests that they should let Theaetetus rest this time and have young Socrates answer the questions. Everyone in the group agrees.

      The Visitor begins by asking if they should consider the statesman to be someone possessing knowledge or whether they should start with a different assumption. Young Socrates proposes that considering a statesman as someone possessing knowledge is a good starting place for their discussion. The Visitor suggests that they should consider different sorts of knowledge as they had done when discussing the sophist.

      The Visitor starts by claiming that arithmetic is a type of expert knowledge. It does not involve practical action but only provides knowledge. Skills such as carpentry involve an expert knowledge, but they also require a practical knowledge in the creation of objects. Based on this condition, the Visitor suggests that they divide knowledge into two classes, theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge. Young Socrates agrees that these two divisions are parts of the single concept of knowledge. The Visitor asks if it is appropriate to say that the statesman and the king on the one hand and the slave-master and the household manager on the other are also one thing. Young Socrates questions why the Visitor makes this division. The Visitor asks that if a person who is in private practice advises a doctor who is in public employment, should both be called by the same professional title? Young Socrates believes that this would be proper. The Visitor proceeds to ask that if this is so, then someone who is himself a private citizen, but is clever enough to advise the king, (although the king should have had that knowledge by virtue of his position), then is that person who passes that knowledge, whether private citizen or king, an expert on kingship? Once again young Socrates concurs. The Visitor then adds that, similarly, the household manager and the slave-master are the same thing. Likewise, there should be no difference between the ruler of a large household and the ruler of a city. Once again young Socrates agrees. The Visitor then summarizes that there is only one sort of expert knowledge, whether it is knowledge of kingship, or of statesmanship, or of household management.

      For the king to maintain power, does not require the use of his hands or body, only the use of his mental powers. A king’s powers, thus, are more aligned with theoretical knowledge than with practical knowledge. The statesman, too, will fall into the same category, namely as a possessor of theoretical knowledge. The Visitor now wants to discuss what theoretical knowledge is. He reminds his listeners that they have already agreed that there is such a thing as calculations, to which young Socrates also agrees. The visitor then adds that such calculations would be part of a theoretical type of expertise. Once one recognizes the differences among the various numbers, there is not much left to do with or discuss about them. Master builders do not function as workers but rather they manage other workers. A master builder provides the understanding but not the labor, and therefore possesses theoretical knowledge. The Visitor categorizes two types of knowledge, one that makes judgments and one that serves to direct others in their activities. The Visitor asks whether kingship would fall in the category of making judgments or in that of directing others. Young Socrates chooses the later. Now the Visitor wants to examine the concept of directing others, which he further divides into two categories. He gives as an example, a retail dealer who sells goods manufactured by others and a dealer who sells self-produced goods. A king, he claims falls into the class of those who sell self-produced goods.

      The Visitor continues, giving several examples that divide all new answers into two subdivisions. He also wants to consider the two aspects of a person who cares for humans, whether doing so is enforced or voluntary. If such service is enforced, it would be the result of tyranny, while if it is voluntary it would more likely be the result of statesmanship. The Visitor notes, and young Socrates agrees, that it is a universal experience that not recognizing something makes it appear to be strange. The greatest magician of all, the sophist, who plays with words, is the most versed in this art.

      The Visitor says that monarchy is one variety of knowledge that rules the cities. Young Socrates agrees. They then discuss a variety of governmental knowledge that arises in situation in which power is held by a few wealthy people. This type of governance is an aristocracy. Finally a third type of knowledge, the exercise of power by the masses via a ballot, called democracy. Monarchy may be tyrannical or benevolent. Power which is held by a small group of wealthy men may be an aristocracy or an oligarchy. Democracy managed by the masses may be by force or general consent. These are the three modes of ruling. As was discussed previously, kingly rule is based on some sort of expert knowledge and not on power, wealth or general consent. The Visitor asserts that no large collection of people is capable of acquiring any sort of expert knowledge. Thus, he notes, if some sort of kingly expert knowledge does exist, then for example a collection of people such as the wealthy, or all of the common people acting together, can acquire expert knowledge or statesmanship. One man with expert knowledge, ruling alone, must never do anything contrary to the written laws. If the rich follow this principle, then the state is called an aristocracy, while if they take no notice of the law the state will be called an oligarchy. When one person rules according to the laws, he imitates a person with expert knowledge and we call him king. When that ruler does not act according to the laws he is called a tyrant. The Visitor then presents another suggestion. If everything were performed on the basis of the written laws, and not on various sorts of expert knowledge, then the person selected to enforce and follow those laws rules accordingly. If that ruler were to ignore these precepts he would commit a great mistake and injustice. The person who possesses the art of statesmanship may do

Скачать книгу