The Philosopher as Tyrant

Critias of Athens

Critias

One of the most common conceits among intellectuals is the fantasy / longing by so many of them to rule and to get rid of the “idiots” who actually run the world and thus get stuff done. This fantasy goes back to Plato in his various dialogues in which he indulged in various fantasies about the “ideal” society, which would of course be run by philosophers. Thus Plato’s dialogues, The Republic, The Laws which were in large respects Mary Sue fantasies about how if we (Philosophers.), ran the world how much better things would be. Well we have an idea right at the birth of Platonic philosophizing what would happen if a Philosopher took over a state.

The Death of Socrates

A Note

The Death of Socrates by David

One of the great tropes of the Western Tradition is the Death of Socrates. Mountains of philosophical literature have been written about and it can be argued that Plato’s entire philosophical system was based on it. In the end it boils down to a jury being convinced that the charges were true and convicting him.

Adverso Athens I
Introduction
Statute from the Erechtheion
Acropolis, Athens

One of the great intellectual clichés in the Western intellectual tradition is the anti- Democratic tradition which as it roots in, and is part and parcel of the anti-Athenian mythos, that demonizes Athenian Democracy and celebrates intellectual contempt for it.

Of course up front or barely behind a thin screen the anti-Athenian intellectual tradition can barely hide its utter contempt for Democracy. From Plato to the present day, with Philosophers like Leo Strauss,1 so many cannot hide their contempt if not out and out hatred of Democracy.

Plato, a disciple of Socrates, was clear and above board with his hatred of Athenian Democracy and contrary to popular and intellectual superstition it was not the result of his anger over the death of his teacher Socrates. Rather what infuriated Plato about Athens was that it was a Democracy. The very fact that in Athens a large section of the “unwashed” masses participated in government was anathema to Plato and many of his successors.

The result was the demonization of Athens as an example of corrupt mob rule. Thus the crimes and atrocities of the Athenian Democracy were trumpeted and played up as an example of the weakness of Democracy of the incapacity of the “mob” for self rule; of the inherent wickedness of Democracy.

Thus Plato rated Democracy as the worst form of government except for Tyranny and in fact considered Democracy a form of Tyranny.2 In Plato’s eyes rule by the “mob” was a tyranny over the “best”, who a Democracy treated un-fairly because in a Democracy all were treated alike and of course this is unfair to the “best”. Equal treatment of un-equals was to Plato a self-evident absurdity and not very different from unbridled one man Tyranny.

Thus we have the anti-Athenian tradition which has mutated into so many forms and serves so many needs, but at bottom it is nothing more than contempt for and fear of Democracy.

For centuries after the demise of Athenian Democracy it was transfigured into the great bugaboo of “mob” rule; its excesses, dwelled upon and its memory recalled with horror. It was so obvious to so many intellectuals for so many centuries that rule by the “mob” was a self evident evil of the highest sort to be fought against and crushed if anything like it emerged again.3 Of course the real bugaboo was the terror that various political elites, and their intellectual lap dogs had of losing power to the “mob”.

Of course the emergence of modern Democracy has led to a re-evaluation of Athenian Democracy, but this re-evaluation is only partial, beneath the lip service to Democracy is barely concealed contempt, in some cases amounting to hatred.

Thus we have people like the Philosopher Leo Strauss, whose writings exert a baneful influence on modern day intellectual discourse. Leo Strauss made the usual lip service noise of approval for the modern Democratic state, yet behind his lip service was nothing but derision and contempt.

Leo Strauss was not concerned with Democracy or the rights of the “mob” but with those rare individuals of “special nature”, Philosophers. Leo Strauss was concerned about protecting the interests and protection of this elite which he “knew” was superior to everyone else. Thus the Philosopher must do everything to protect this elite. And what was the chief fear of this elite? Why persecution at the hands of the “mob”. Thus Philosophers must disguise their true opinions, which are only fit for a small superior elite anyway, from the “mob”. Also the “mob” must be deluded, deceived and denied those truths which the Philosopher knows least they rise up and destroy the philosophers and the quiet repose they need. (Much of which seems to consist of contemplating their own superiority)4

Thus Democracy must be emptied of content and the “mob” manipulated and lied too so that the Philosophical elite can have the quiet contemplative life it needs. So the “mob” must be deceived, tricked and manipulated with pious lies like religion, etc, because otherwise if it knows the truth all hell will break loose. To Leo Strauss Religion, God etc, are lies but necessary lies so that society can function, so too is patriotism. All are designed to keep the “mob” at bay so that the Philosopher can contemplate how much better he is than the common man.5

Other variations of this hatred of Democracy involve such things as certain types of Libertarianism, whose radical individualism contemplates giving to courts enormous power and a radical distrust of humans doing things collectively. It is remarkable that whereas some Libertarians believe that people acting collectively in the form of government is almost always Tyranny, decisions made by courts to settle disputes in the anarchic, Darwinian world they favour is just peachy. The fact that if anything Judicial Tyranny under those sorts of arrangements, to say nothing of Economic Tyranny, would be both unbridled and unchecked.6

Another example of the hatred of Democracy is the nostalgia for a rural Democracy. This is evident in the works of Victor Davis Hansen. Victor Davis Hansen is a Classicalist of some renown and the author of several fairly good books about the Classical world. He is however also an intellectual fool when it comes to Democracy. Strong in his writings about Ancient Greece is contempt for Athenian Democracy because it involved, horror of horrors!, City dwellers, Artisans, Day labourers, the great unwashed city “mob”. Victor Davis Hansen’s ideal Democracy is of stout Yeoman Farmers, who are models of integrity and self-reliance.

One doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry at the simple-minded country nostalgia of this image. It is a fantasy constructed out of late twentieth and early twenty-first century fantasy about country life combined with the hoary myth of the corruption of city life. It is simply reactionary wish fulfillment. Thus Victor Davis Hansen is not impressed at all with Athenian Democracy, it is too commercial, too urban for him, instead he fantasizes about ancient Thebes in Greece as a sturdy farmers Democracy. The climax of this fantasy is Hanson’s opinion that the foundation of American Democracy is stout, self reliant farmers. Victor Davis Hansen owns a farm and considers himself a farmer. Of course he is basically just a businessman running an enterprise, not the mythical sturdy farmer Yeoman. That is pure illusion. Of course Victor Davis Hansen forgets that farmers make up less than 2% of the work force in the United States. He also forgets that the self-reliance of the American Farmer is a joke, in that they benefit from subsidies etc., galore. Many of them are in fact massive suckers on the public teat. Another subsidy is of course the massive use of foreign labour, both legal and illegal. Victor Davis Hansen does mention the foreign workers he exploits, but only to disparage them.7

Another variation of the anti-Athenian tradition is the one that concentrates on Athens being male dominated, macho and oppressive to women and others. Unlike the other variation on this tradition this one has the virtue of actually having some truth in it. Yes Athenian society was very oppressive to women. It was not particularly pleasant being a woman in Classical Athens. Exactly how this translates into a condemnation of Athenian Democracy is beyond me.8

The sins of Athens are not forgiven or excused or even understood in this tradition they are simply condemned. The terrible fear of “mob” rule is behind all that. Athens is the example of Democracy out of control or unbridled “mob” rule. It is a warning that Democracy must be contained and channelled so that it does not get out of control and do terrible things.

Thus we read that Athens is a living example about the dangers of Democracies going to war and how they are generally “incompetent” at it.9

All in all the anti-Athenian tradition as many variations but at bottom it is contempt for Democracy. Later in other postings I will discuss other aspects of the anti-Athenian tradition.

1. The best overview of the Political opinions of Leo Strauss that indicate his profound contempt for Democracy is Drury, Shadia, B., The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, Updated Edition, Palgrave, New York, 2005, see pp. 90-113, 170-181.

2. Popper, Karl, R., The Open Society and Its Enemies, v. 1: The Spell of Plato, pp. 35-56, see also Plato, Great Dialogues of Plato, The Republic, Mentor Books, New York, 1956, pp. 118-422.

3. Roberts, Jennifer Tolbert, Athens on Trial, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1994, pp. 97-118, 137-155.

4. Drury, pp. 193-202.

5. IBID, pp. 151-181.

6. There are many Libertarian Websites see for example the Cato Institute Here. For a brief Critique of Libertarian ideas see Chomsky, Noam, Understanding Power, The New Press, New York, 2002, p. 200.

7. Hanson, Victor Davis, The Western Way of War, Second Edition, University of California Press, Berkeley, 2000, The Soul of Battle, Anchor Books, New York, 1999, Fields Without Dreams, Free Press, New York, 1997.

8. See Keuls, Eva C., The Reign of the Phallus, Second Edition, University of California Press, 1993.

9. for examples of the idea that Democracies are incompetent at war making see Kagan Donald, The Fall of the Athenian Empire, Cornell University Press, Ithaca NY, 1987. Kagan believes that Athens was at its best when it was ruled by Pericles so that it was in effect ruled by one man, or so he thinks. See also Fuller, J.F.C., A Military History of the Western World, v 1, 3, Da Capo Press, New York, 1954, 1956, v. 1 pp. 53-80, (The siege of Syracuse 415-413 B.C. E.) v. 3, pp. 229-264 (Gallipoli 1915-1916 C.E.). Fuller believes that Democracies are incompetent in waging war. Fuller does not explain how then Democracies managed to win both the First and Second World Wars.

Other Sources, including Information on Athenian Democracy and how it worked see:

Aristotle, (Attributed too), The Athenian Constitution, Penguin Books, London, 1984. The primary ancient source on Athenian Democracy.

Finley, M. I., Democracy Ancient and Modern, Second Edition, The Hogarth Press, London,1985, Aspects of Antiquity, Second Edition, Penguin Books, London, 1977, pp. 60-87.

Ober, Josiah, Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1989.

Rhodes, P. J., (Editor), Athenian Democracy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004.

Wiseman, T. P., Classics in Progress, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002.

De Ste. Croix, G.E.M., The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World, Cornell University Press, Ithaca NY, 1981, pp. 284-288, 300-326.

Ehrenberg, Victor, From Solon to Socrates, Second Edition, Routledge, London, 1973, pp. 90-102, 209-231.

Davies, J. K., Democracy and Classical Greece, Second Edition, Fontana Press, London, 1993, pp. 87-116.

Buckley, Terry, Aspects of Greek History: 750-323 BC, Routledge, London, 1996, pp. pp. 126-143, 241-273.

Powell, Anton, Athens and Sparta, Second Edition, Routledge, London, 2001, pp. 271-347.

Pierre Cloutier

Note on Thucydides

Thucydides

Thucydides was a an Athenian writer of the fifth and early fourth century B.C.E., he is best known for his book The Peloponnesian War, which was described and recounted the war between Athens and Sparta between 431 - 404 B.C.E. This war ended with the defeat of Athens and the triumph of Sparta.

Thucydides is our primary source for the war and in fact it appears that other ancient accounts relied largely on him making his account, by far, the main source.

Thucydides wrote what we would consider a typical war and politics type of history and in many respects nothing unusual. This is however rather distorted for what is forgotten is that Thucydides was an innovator in so many ways.

About Thucydides we know very little, and apparently little was known in antiquity also. Thucydides does tell us some pertinent details in his history but such comments are few brief and in many cases enigmatic. He seems to have been of Thracian descent and had some right to work gold mines in a part of Thrace.1

Thucydides apparently decided shortly after the war began to become the historian of the war because he very quickly recognized the wars importance. As he says:

The Median war, [Persian war] the greatest achievement of past times, yet found a speedy decision in two actions by sea and two by land. The Peloponnesian War went on for a very long time and their occurred during it disasters of a kind and number that other similar period of time could match. Never had so many cities been taken and laid desolate, here by the barbarians, here by parties contending ( the old inhabitants being sometimes removed to make room for others); never was there so much banishing and bloodshedding, now on the field of battle, now in political strife. Old stories of occurrences handed down by tradition, but scantily confirmed by experience suddenly ceased to be incredible; eclipses of the sun occurred with a frequency unrecorded in previous history; there were great droughts in sundry places and consequent famines, and that most calamitous and awfully fatal visitation the plague. All this came upon them with the late war.2

His ability to do so was rendered problematic because he was an active politician and at times a general in the Athenian armed forces. However in 424 B.C.E. Thucydides was exiled over recriminations concerning the loss of the Athenian settlement of Amphipolis. Amazingly Thucydides records all of this in the third person in a very laconic manner that a reader unless he/she knows Thucydides had written it would never guess that the author is describing his own doings!

In this way they gave up the city, and late that same day, Thucydides and his ships entered the harbour of Eion.3

Now Thucydides faced a series of very formidable problems in writing his history. Let us examine a few.

One serious problem was chronology. Each Greek city state or polis had its own calendar and therefore way of reckoning the years. So just what date could be used? Thucydides decided to use as the basis for reckoning the time of his war by using the Persian wars has his fixed date. Using that date has his starting point he stated that the war began 50 years after the Persian Invasion that we date to 480 B.C.E. This seems like not much of an accomplishment, but in world of myriad calendars and therefore calendrical confusion that was one very clever brain wave.

Having thus fixed the date of the start of his war Thucydides refused to use any of the local city state calendars instead he dated his war by using the term year one of the war year two etc. To further specify his dates he divided his war years into winter and summer and specified events as occurring within each division. This further allowed him to avoid using a city based calendar. Further this allowed him to avoid the tiresome task of converting the dates that his informants would give him in their local calendars into a city based calendar if he had used one.

Thucydides solution was very simple but it was also brilliant. Even today we can with great confidence date the events mentioned by Thucydides.

Having solved the chronology problem to his satisfaction. Thucydides faced the problem of sources from which to write his history. This was too put it mildly a task of almost awesome scope, because for all practical purposes there were no written sources at all. A few degrees and perhaps some lists, maybe a few letters and reports but for all practical purposes written information the bread and butter of history writing was non existent!

So what did Thucydides have? Well what he had were witnesses to events. So if he made the effort he could go about and interview witnesses. This is why his exile helped him immensely in his writing of his history along with the income from his gold mines in Thrace which gave him a living while he pursued writing his history.

Thucydides says the following about his methods and the difficulty he had putting together his history.

And with reference to the narrative of events, far from permitting myself to derive it from the first source that came to hand, I did not even trust my own impressions, but it rests partly on what I saw myself, partly on what others saw for me, the accuracy of the report being always tried by the most severe tests possible. My conclusions have cost me some labour from want of coincidence between accounts of the same occurrence by different eyewitnesses, arising sometimes from imperfect memory, sometimes from undue partiality for one side or the other.4

This left Thucydides with the nightmare of trying to reconcile conflicting accounts and evaluating them. Thucydides must have compiled a massive collection of notes and probably had an excellent memory. After all this was an age when there were no ball point pens and paper was expensive and writing a good deal more laborious then it would be now. It is quite easy to picture Thucydides working by flickering lamp light well into the night making notes from what the people had told him during the day.

Thucydides was also a very rational man. The section book 1 that gives a sort of pre-history of the Greeks, and which is called The Archaeology which is almost relentlessly rational. For example:

What enabled Agamemnon to raise the armament was more, in my opinion, his superiority in strength, than the oaths of Tyndarus, which bound the suitors to follow him.5

Further, given the temper of his times, Thucydides was unusually rational in not taking seriously omens or soothsaying.

The result was perhaps the greatest single work of history ever written but it does have its quirks and lacunae. The chief example is Thucydides speeches. This is what Thucydides says about his use of speeches:

With reference to the speeches in this history, some were delivered before the war began, others while it was going on; some I heard myself, others I got from various quarters; it was in all cases difficult to carry them word for word in one’s memory, so my habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by the various occasions, of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said.6

There as been a long standing debate about whether or not Thucydides speeches can be taken to be something like what the people involved actually said. The debate is fruitless because although Thucydides says he tries to be as close has possible to what they really said he also states “my habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by the various occasions,..”. Given this there is no way of telling by reading the speeches what they actually said and what Thucydides thought appropriate for them to say. Thucydides certainly deserves kudos for honesty though.

This is certainly not a modern day way of writing history, but is was very common among Greek and Roman historians and with the exception of Thucydides and Polybius no one thinks that the speeches or something like them may actually have been spoken. In my opinion Thucydides speeches are not reliable indicators of what was actually spoken. Thucydides honesty precludes that conclusion. Amazingly though the speeches in Thucydides account make up c. 25% of the total work!

The other problem is that Thucydides by his relentless shifting left out alternative versions of events. His history is a cleaned up version with all the messy ambiguity removed. Unlike Herodotus who frequently gave alternative versions of events Thucydides gives us one account, which seems to be the “true” account but since we don’t have the alternatives how can we be sure? Other Greek accounts of the war relied heavily on Thucydides so that there is basically no alternative to him. What evidence we do have would seem to indicate that Thucydides is indeed very reliable but still there is a sense of unease about him and his account. It would be nice to have a real alternative account.

Although Thucydides continued working on his history after the war ended in 404 B.C.E., with the defeat of Athens. The history stops in the year 411 B.C.E.. So it appears that the Thucydides never completed it and was working on it until his death. It is not known when Thucydides died although it was probably in the early 4th century B.C.E.

Thucydides also left one very surprising legacy. The war he described is very much his war. The names of the actual, principal participants in the war are nothing but pale shadows compared to the historian of the war. It is Thucydides' war and no other historian who has ever lived has matched that feat.

1. Thucydides, The landmark Thucydides, Touchstone Books, New York, 1996, Book 4, s. 105.

2. Thucydides, Book 1, s. 123.

3. Thucydides, Book 4, s. 106.

4. Thucydides, Book 1, s. 122.

5. Thucydides, Book 1, s, 9.

6. Thucydides, Book 1, s. 22.

Bibliography

Grant, Michael, The Ancient Historians, Charles Scriber’s Sons, New York, 1970.

Grant, Michael, Greek and Roman Historians, Routledge, London, 1995.

Finley, M. I., Aspects of Antiquity, Second Edition, Penguin Books, London, 1977.

Finley, M. I., Ancient History, Chatto & Windus, London, 1985.

Powell, Anton, Athens and Sparta, Second Edition, Routledge, New York, 2001.

Pierre Cloutier