Freedom and Democracy
Plato's description of the individual's obligation to Athens may strike the modern reader as somewhat odd. I myself was astonished by Socrates' almost complete submission to the State throughout his persecution in Athens. Often in the modern world when we think of Democracy we think of freedom being associated with it, but in one of Socrates' arguments, the individual seems to have very little freedom as the State is the ultimate being and the entity to which every person ultimately owes their lives as payment for the good which the State has brought them. This is vastly different from modern democracies where people oppose the government every step of the way, no matter how "final" the decision is and believe they are justified in doing so to ensure that the government gives them fair treatment. I believe that the reason for this is that politics was more majoritarian in Athens than it is today. Most modern democracies have institutionalized methods for regional and minority interests to ensure that these interests do not get run over by more powerful groups. Plato hints at the dangers of majorities in his conversation on the opinion of the masses in his dialogue. While there is some wisdom in the majority it is an imprecise wisdom that must be tempered by small groups that have specific interests.
In background readings for the Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, many philosophical/sociological perspectives I’ve been reading hypothesize that the moral/ontological order of Greek mythology/mysticism is in some way a projection/representation of the order of Greek social order. Is the multiplicitious social perspective we have today in some part a differing sense of institutional order in the social contract? Maybe our individualized modern experiences contribute less to a mindset which would succumb to the many for the good of the many.
ReplyDeleteI'm intrigued by Matt's comments on the variety of Greek government, as though Boston were a socialist city-state and Albany a military dictatorship--the scale of modern life forces us to think on a different political plane than Socrates had to consider.
ReplyDelete@Devin, the stark differences between monotheist Christianity and the Greek polytheist pantheon certainly reflect some part of our different social worlds: but it would seem that the Greek model offers more freedom of interpretation when even Euthyphro (a high priest) must admit that the gods disagree, and every mortal seems entitled to some interpretive freedom of a god's meaning.
I agree with Brett's point about the differences in the politics we experiences verses what Socrates had to consider. It seems that social order was such a well defined aspect of Athens due to the size. Maybe the overwhelming loyalty resonated in some (like Socrates) because days away was a whole different society. If no one stayed loyal to their society then the society may not have been as potent and may have been easily influenced by other societies around it. To go off of Brett's example: those living in Boston would have to show strength and loyalty to their city state as to not be influenced by Albany. Maybe the loyalty for Athens was more of a power move that kept the city's values whole even when the democracy fell.
ReplyDeleteRose's point is well taken, when we consider that the rise of Athenian democracy was a creative response to the need for many more hoplites and trireme rowers. By widening the franchise, they found that people would be more nationalistic -- more ready to train, fight, and die for Athens -- since they felt it belonged to them.
ReplyDelete