Ülevaatelugu Platoni "Politeia" tõlgendamise muutumisest 20. saj algul.
The consensus until the end of the 19th century was that Plato’s thinking and the Politeia did not have any specific real-political implications. His argument in Politeia was characterized above all as a utopian, fanciful vision. At the same time, Plato was discussed mainly with regard to his relationship to Christianity as well as to philosophical systems. The dominant image of the ‘philosopher Plato’ was illustrated indirectly by the fact that the Nomoi and the Seventh Letter, which seemed to describe his political standpoint, were often treated as spurious writings.
"Seadused" ja "Seitsmes kiri", mis on Platoni kirja vormis epistel. Võimalik, et ka ainuke Platoni kiri, mis päriselt tema kirjutatud on. Seitsmes kiri on kirjutatud Sitsiilas ja arutleb sealse türannia üle ning paljuski ka vormiteooria üle. Üks peamisi argumente, miks seda võltsinguks peetakse, seisneb selles, et seal arutletakse tehislike asjade vormide üle, samas Aristoteles väidab Platoni vormiteooria kohta, et vormid on ainult loomulikult esinevatel asjadel. Seitsmes kiri on kirjutatud pärast kui Dion mõrvati Calippuse poolt (353 e.kr). Kõikvõimas Wikipedia toob veel välja, et Julia Annas on leidnud, et Seitsmes kiri on: "such an unconvincing production that its acceptance by many scholars is best seen as indicating the strength of their desire to find, behind the detachment of the dialogues, something, no matter what, to which Plato is straightforwardly committed.*
*Julia Annas, "Classical Greek Philosophy," in The Oxford History of Greece and the Hellenistic World, ed. Boardman, Griffin and Murray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 285.
Since the second half of the 19th century, Western society has faced waves of industrialization and democratization, while feudal hierarchical society was gradually fading. The age of the masses arrived, with its strong flavor of materialism and egalitarianism.
Kuigi "masside ajastu" on üpris harjumuspärane viis sellele perioodile viidata, tahan välja tuua, et tegemist on konservatiivse tõlgendusega. Ohlokraatia, majoritarianism, enamuse türannia, mob rule - laias laastus on kõikide sääraste tõlgenduste levik pärit aristokraatidelt, kes pidid toime tulema asjaoluga, et nende võimutäius laguneb. Iga ühiskond on massiühiskond. Kuigi erinevate vähemuste ja lapseajudega "konservatiivide" türannia vastasseis on 21. sajandi poliitikat defineerima hakanud, siis Tocqueville'i ja muude varaste teoreetikute juurde tagasi pöördudes tasub ikkagi küsida kuivõrd aus on rääkida "kõrgkultuurist" ja selle "allakäigust" või kuivõrd Prantsuse revolutsioon on tegelikult puhas näide "kontrollimatust massist" ja kuivõrd on see võimu kaotanud inimeste tõlgendus sündmustest.
At the time, the ancient Greek classics were still considered as providing the elite with a paradigm of humanity, and the experience of democracy in ancient Greece and its arguments seemed to supply a good example of how to cope with the realities of the 19th and 20th century.
Siit hakkab kooruma üks osa hämmastavast tõest, et antiikautorid ei vaja kriitikat seepärast, et neil midagi häda oleks või meil midagi uut öelda, pigem on probleem selles, et nad õigustavad kellegi võimu ja võivad sellistena olla koletised.
He [Nietzsche] claimed that Plato should not be approached as an other-worldly system builder, but as a political figure, politician, and legislator fighting against the masses. According to Nietzsche, the fundamental duty of a philosopher lies in the ‘creation of value’, which depends on the ‘will to power’, and Plato was a figure who truly practiced this duty and embodied Nietzsche’s ideal of the philosopher.
Kas selle sõnastusega on autor ehk üle pingutanud? Platon on üks kõige eesmärgipäratumaid filosoofe, keda ma kunagi lugenud olen. Ilmselt Nietszche kuulub sinna koolkonda, kes Platonit demokraatia poolt ahelaisse pandud mässajana näevad.
In his work, Wilamowitz visualizes Plato as an active person trying to influence his own society, rather than concentrating on building a philosophical system in an isolated situation. For him Plato was above all a political man, trying to reform the Greek world politically, but political circumstances prevented him from playing a political role, so that he was forced to live and remain as a philosopher. In a word, Plato was an ‘impeded political man’ .
Argumentatsioon oleks siin teretulnud. Ma pole ei Wilamowitzi ega Nietzschet lugenud, siis tekitab natuke segadust, mida üldse on silmas peetud. Kas seda, et Platoni õpetaja eluviis oli midagi, milles võis näha tema praktilist tegutsevat-praktilist loomust? Või seda, et Platonil olid poliitilised eesmärgid, mida ta läbi teiste inimeste saavutada üritas? Siit võib pigem viimast välja lugeda, mida ma ei usu, sest Platoni poliitilised seisukohad tunduvad (vähemalt mulle) olevat eelkõige mõtteharjutused, mis ongi mõeldud nendeks jääma.
In another work published after World War I, Wilamowitz referred to Plato to criticize anarchic egalitarianism, and stressed the necessity of elite rule in order to overcome social dissolution . Here it is not difficult to see that Plato has moved into the 20th century as a contemporary political figure, not as an ancient Greek political figure.
Püsiv probleem, mis mul alatasa selliseid tähelepanekuid lugedes tekib, on see, et see, et mina, kes ma olen antiiki lugenud, peaksin võimul olema, tundub evolutsiooniliselt paratamatu järeldus, millel pole Platoni mõtetega midagi pistmist. Ma ei näe mingit põhjust, miks Platon oma hägususes ei võiks olla toetav ükstapuha, millistele tänapäeva poliitilistele vaadetele. Seda, et vastava hariduse saanud kõrgklass sellest mingit argumenti enda kasuks vormib tundub umbes sama paratamatu nagu joodikust vägivaldse pereisa kohta öeldakse, et vähemalt oli ta kuldsete kätega vmt.
According to their [socialists] perception, Plato conceived of a state independent of class struggle, which enabled social reform from the standpoint of the whole. Plato’s so-called communism was appreciated positively as a symbol intended to assure the independence of state from society.
Nonii… nüüd oleme jõudnud sinnamaani. Pole enam märkigi militariseeritud aristokraatliku mentaliteediga eliidi õigustamisest.
Among the ‘legitimate’ group, George’s circle produced a number of characteristic interpretations of Plato. They were deeply committed to aristocracy and romanticism.
Mõnikord ka "George-Kreis" oli 19. saj lõpust kuni 1933 (Stefan George'i surm) tegutsenud kirjandusrühmitus Saksamaal, mis tegeles müstika ja poliitika teemadega. Suhteliselt tüüpiline kontrarevolutsiooniline liikumine. Paljud ei nõustunud natside totalitaristliku ja antisemiitliku konservatiivsusega, mille natsid kaasa tõid, kuid oli ka erandeid nagu Carl Schmitt. Üldiselt on see igat sõjajärgset Euroopa paremäärmuslikku identiteediliikumist mõjutanud.
Their main interest lay in using biographical research to discover a ‘hero’ who embodied the ideal human being, and in pursuing/rebuilding the ideal of our life (Leben) in this world. While they despised professionalized, positivistic academic discipline (originating from Aristotle) because of its irrelevance to the reemergence of ideal life, they adopted Plato as their ‘hero’, who could provide a total understanding of our life. Plato was named ‘king of the spiritual kingdom (Reich)’.
Siia kommentaariks sobiks Umberto Eco neliteist punkti, mis iseloomustavad fašismi.
An important pioneer of Plato interpretation in George’s circle was Heinrich Friedemann’s book [Platon Seine Gestalt, 1914]. It started out from their harsh antagonism to liberalistic, individualistic, materialistic society, full of decadence and chaos.
Igaühest võib saada kangelane. Ainuke asi, mida Sina vajad, et astuda vastu liberalismile, individualismile ja materialismile on pommivöö.
Edgar Salin describes the ‘spiritual kingdom’ as an embodiment of spiritual order/hierarchy, which should be definitely distinguished from the state as a power-relation.
Suht LARP.
[Kurt] Singer describes the fundamental difference between Plato and Aristotle in the following way. Plato had no interest in exploring a highly professionalized academic discipline. His main interest lay in reforming the social system drastically according to the idea of the good. Plato concentrated on how human beings can live following the noble principle, and he was never hostile to eros, inspiration or the body
Kõlab natuke nagu "mulle meeldis, sest arusaamiseks polnud pingutada tarvis", mis on alati väga hea argument.
Singer discusses the interesting issue of who can be the bearer of the Platonic-Greek ideal in the contemporary era. His answer is very simple: only Germany can do so, while the liberal and utilitarian western countries cannot.
Eelmine argument areneb edasi "Ma loodan ainukese asja peale, millest aru saan" argumendiks.
Here I would like to refer to a Japanese scholar who criticized the Plato-interpretation of George’s circle. Professor Shigeru Nanbara discussed this group in his book State and Religion (1942), where the understanding of Plato is mobilized as a good paradigm of the ‘total state’. At the same time he accused their interpretation of an inclination toward anti-rationalism and mythological argument. He indicates that their interpretation reduced Plato to the argument that while there is a mysterious intuition on the side of the ruling minority, there is simple subjection to it on the side of the majority. This kind of interpretation of Plato seems to be an extreme case of anti-rationalism. According to Nanbara, both the ‘hatred of scientific activities’ and the ‘contempt for knowledge’ originating in Nietzsche brought about a flood of mythological/anti-rationalistic arguments and political naturalism concentrating on power relations.
Intuitsioon ja poliitiline naturalism kui ühiskonna vajalikud tugisambad muutuvad konservatiivse revolutsiooni käes vabanduseks, miks teadust vihata ja kohaks, kus leida põhjuseid, miks just mina peaks võimul olema.
It is said that Stefan George despised the Nazis as a caricature of his abstruse ideal, and died in Switzerland as an exile after refusing to support the Nazis. But some of his disciples became supporters of the Nazis, while others were victimized by the Nazi-regime
Võib-olla ühel päeval kui ma originaalallikaid loen, siis avastan, et Stefan George on täitsa tore mõtleja, aga praegu tundub mulle, et natsid on talle peegliks ja peeglit pole mõtet süüdistada...
Kurt Hildebrandt inherited the circle’s view that Plato discloses the way of life appropriate to eternity, yet on the other hand he began to incorporate the factor of nationalism and racism into the ideal community. Initially George’s circle tried to use Plato’s arguments as the revelation of a ‘spiritual kingdom’, but the Nazi’s basic dogma, ‘purity of blood’, began to invade the ‘spiritual kingdom’.
Ei ole midagi üllatavat, et aristokraatlikult meelestatud valitsuse joonte järgi kujundatud massiühiskonna massihariduse tagajärjeks on hariduslike argumentide ära kadumine ja asendumine rassismiga vmt argumendiga, mis väidab, et keegi on teistest lihtsalt parem. Võim vajab õigustamist. Tundub, et 20. sajandi alguseks oli lihtsalt kogu Euroopa jõudnud aristokraatliku seisuseni. Kusjuures reaalselt paljud "iidsed perekonnad" on tekitatud 19. sajandi lõpul lihtsalt igaks juhuks. Võrreldav protsessiga, mida kirjeldab Foucault, kes leiab, et 20. teiseks pooleks käsitletakse iga liigi esindajat valdavalt inimesena ning lagunemisega, mille see kaasa toob.
In the Nazi era it is quite easy to see that Plato was understood as a saviour of the Volk, and the Politeia was read as a text to legitimize racism. This meant a concord between Plato and Hitler. In particular, the education system of the leader group in the Politeia was often interpreted as a good symbol of ‘aristocracy of spirit, character, blood and race’. Racists such as Hans Friedrich Karl Guenther referred to Plato quite often in order to justify their own arguments. In this way, the concept of romantic community of George’s circle was replaced by cold-blooded racism under the Nazi regime
Lohutuseks võib öelda, et fašism ei ole midagi, millel oleks sisu või struktuur nagu koherentsusetaotlusega poliitilistel ideoloogiatel ja seega igaüks võis ennast ükstapuha milleks pidada. Eks fašism olegi üks suur LARP.
[The Platonic Legend (1934) Warner] Fite affirms that Politeia should be understood not from the viewpoint of abstract philosophical interest, but from the standpoint of class interest as well as party interest, because Plato continued to be a friend of his distant relatives such as Critias and Charmides who played a key role in destroying Athenian democracy and in replacing it by oligarchy. According to Fite, Plato’s ultimate interest was to reestablish the rule of gentlemen in Athens, but he correctly recognized that it was impossible simply to reintroduce the old aristocracy. Thus, the basic idea of the Politeia was to establish a ‘new aristocracy based on scientific arguments’ and to create a new ruling class.
See paneb mind jälle natuke rohkem Popperit uskuma. Üldse Popperi seisukohtade kajastamise juures tundub see "väärtõlgenduse" jutt kuidagi veidrana, sest nagu me teaks, milline see õige Platoni tõlgendus on. Aga Fite tundub ise kahtlane. Ühes kohas mainib see sama artikkel ka asjaolu, et tema nägi valitsemist kui eksperttööd Lenini ja Stalini valitsejaideaalides. V-b mingi mitte-soovitud idaeurooplase vaatenurk siinkohal, aga Leninit ja Stalinit teaduslikku ekspertiisi hindavate utilitaristidena nägemaks peab ikka suhteliselt pime olema.
R.H.S. Crossman’s Plato Today (1937) was originally broadcast by the BBC, so the book was published for a large audience
Seda ma mõtlesin, kust jõuavad kirjandusse Platoni kohta need veidrad küsimused nagu "Kas Kolmas Reich on Platoni ideaalriik?" ja "Kas Lenin on tõeline filosoof-kuningas?" Tegemist on brittide meelelahutusega. Sakslased ja venelased õppisid ilmselt samal ajal padruneid salve panema.
For Crossman Platonic philosophy is “the most savage and the most profound attack upon liberal ideas”. It denies every basic axiom of ‘progressive’ thought and challenges its ideals. Equality, freedom, and self-government are condemned as illusions.
Platoni kaitseks võib öelda seda, et erinevalt natsidest räägib Platon teatavatest loomulikest annetest, mida valitsejal tarvis läheb egalitaarses kontekstis, st kõigil on võimalus. Võrdsusest, vabadusest ja demokraatiast rääkides alahindame me, et igasuguse demokraatia vastasuse keskne tees seisneb ju peamiselt selles teatavate ühiskondlike ebavõrdsuste tunnustamises. Igasugune demokraatlik liberaalsus toodab võimete ja rikkuse ja sugulussidemete põhjal ebavõrdsust, tihti isegi effektiivsemalt kui mõningad režiimid, mis on teatavaid ebavõrdsusi silmas pidades disainitud. Platon kirjutab Politeia ajal, mil erinevus demokraatia ja valitud grupi (nt enamuse või aristokraatia) türannia vahel on väga laialdaselt mõistetud ja mõned eristused, mis 20. sajandi algul segapudruna sassi lüüakse tunduvad Platoni jaoks ilmselt iseenesestmõistetavad. Ma kahtlen, et Platonist natsina asja saaks, mõtleb liiga palju.
Half of his book is allocated to a fictional account of how Plato would view the contemporary European political regime. Plato begins his visit with Great Britain. He is troubled by the different meaning of the concept of democracy, but soon he recognizes that British regime is in fact an aristocracy depending upon the natural submissiveness of the poor, and that good government is preferred to self-government there.
Siin tundub ikka veel olevat elemente, mis seavad Suurbritannia võrdlusaluseks Prantsuse revolutsiooni.
At the same time Plato utters a harsh critique of German philosophers, insofar as in Germany the ‘noble lie’ was assumed to be superior to philosophical truth, and philosophers were flattering politicians rather than being leading politicians. If this tendency were to continue, Plato predicts, the ‘noble lie’ would dominate without limits, and Germany would be thrown into tyranny rather than regenerate. The basic motives of the new rulers are ambition and power, so that Plato tells Aristotle that the National Socialist State seems to be ‘a mixed constitution containing elements of both timocracy and oligarchy.’
Platon Natsi-Saksamaal - pole ime, et kõik väärt televisiooniformaadid tulevad Suurbritanniast. Aga selleks pole Platonit vaja, et mõista, et kõik langevad lõpuks ka iseenda propaganda ohvriks.
The controversy about Plato is a historical product of the era in which people could no longer understand the tradition of Western intellectual history as a harmonious and seamless development. In fact, this kind of controversy was repeated many times in Western intellectual history. Friedrich Nietzsche, a symbol of the rejection of harmonious development, set the basic standard by mobilizing Plato against liberalism and democracy (egalitarianism) as the glorious achievement of the modern era. The clash between tradition and modernity is revealed.
Tahaksin tähelepanu juhtida, et tegelikult on küsitav, kas mingisugune traditsiooniline Politeia tõlgendamine üldse eksisteerib. Lihtsustatuna võiks öelda, et Platoniga seotud vastuolu tekib lihtsalt asjaolust, et esimest korda lääne ajaloos pärast antiiki, on meil võimalik ja vajalik poliitilise filosoofia üle argumentaarida. Aristokraadid olid seni ainult enda naba imetlenud, nii palju siis eliidi valitsusest.
After WWII a number of books were written in order to defend Plato. One of the interesting responses claims that totalitarianism is a product of the modern philosophy revolting against the tradition of classical philosophy as represented by Plato [J. Wild 1946; id., 1953. L. Strauss 1959]. Modern philosophy brings about relativism, materialism, historicism and positivism, which eventually provide totalitarianism with a good springboard. Here, the assessment of Plato is totally different from that of Popper and his followers.
Nii mõnegi neist-ismidest võib ka Platonini tagasi viia. Ei taha vahendatud seisukohta labastada, aga mõneti annab sellist "vanasti oli kõik selge ja relativism ei tulnud kõne allagi" vaibi edasi.
In fact one of the founders of American Political Science, Charles Merriam, said that it was time to discuss education and eugenics in relation to the problem of ‘what kind of person should be produced’, and referred to Plato as the great pioneer of this kind of thinking. [C. E. Merriam 1925] This phenomenon illustrated how liberals in the first part of the 20th century were still deeply involved with the problem ‘what kind of people should be produced’. In this sense it is not difficult to identify some common ground with communism as well as fascism.
Kõik need inimesed käsitlesid Platonit kui kaasaegset, aga ainuke asi, mis neid Platonist eristas oli arrogantne soov kõiki utopistlikke plaane päriselt ellu viima hakata.
The intimate relationship between philosophical truth and political power is discussed and reexamined closely by Hannah Arendt. [H. Arendt 1958; id. 1963.] She classifies human activities into three categories, namely labor, work and action. [...] According to Arendt, this frustration seduced Plato to replace politics by the model of work. His philosopher-king is a typical case of this replacement, and he tries to fabricate an everlasting polis according to the idea of the good. It is natural for the work model to treat its materials freely, but if its model is introduced in the human area, it can justify the violent treatment of human beings. Moreover the truth is monopolized by the ruler, so that there is no room for action consisting of plural subjects. If a political system were fabricated according to the model of work, the role of violence would inevitably increase.
Kõik need Stalinid ja Hitlerid väidetavalt tegid oma rahva heaks 20 tundi päevas tööd vmt. See juhib ka tähelepanu sellele, et see, mis Kallipolises tegelikult puudub, on võimukate inimeste meelelahutus. Platon ilmselt arvanuks, et filosoofia on neile piisavaks meelelahutuseks. Ma jään seisukohale, et kokaiin ja prostituudid hoiaksid paremini kurje vaime eemal.
