Statesman , livre ebook

Pub One Info - Plato

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

74 pages

English

Vous pourrez modifier la taille du texte de cet ouvrage

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

A propos
Informations
Extrait

Description

pubOne.info present you this new edition. In the Phaedrus, the Republic, the Philebus, the Parmenides, and the Sophist, we may observe the tendency of Plato to combine two or more subjects or different aspects of the same subject in a single dialogue. In the Sophist and Statesman especially we note that the discussion is partly regarded as an illustration of method, and that analogies are brought from afar which throw light on the main subject. And in his later writings generally we further remark a decline of style, and of dramatic power; the characters excite little or no interest, and the digressions are apt to overlay the main thesis; there is not the 'callida junctura' of an artistic whole. Both the serious discussions and the jests are sometimes out of place. The invincible Socrates is withdrawn from view; and new foes begin to appear under old names. Plato is now chiefly concerned, not with the original Sophist, but with the sophistry of the schools of philosophy, which are making reasoning impossible; and is driven by them out of the regions of transcendental speculation back into the path of common sense

Informations

Publié par	Pub One Info
Date de parution	06 novembre 2010
Nombre de lectures	0
EAN13	9782819934479
Langue	English

Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,0100€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.

Extrait

STATESMAN
By Plato
Translated by Benjamin Jowett
INTRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS.
In the Phaedrus, the Republic, the Philebus, theParmenides, and the Sophist, we may observe the tendency of Platoto combine two or more subjects or different aspects of the samesubject in a single dialogue. In the Sophist and Statesmanespecially we note that the discussion is partly regarded as anillustration of method, and that analogies are brought from afarwhich throw light on the main subject. And in his later writingsgenerally we further remark a decline of style, and of dramaticpower; the characters excite little or no interest, and thedigressions are apt to overlay the main thesis; there is not the'callida junctura' of an artistic whole. Both the seriousdiscussions and the jests are sometimes out of place. Theinvincible Socrates is withdrawn from view; and new foes begin toappear under old names. Plato is now chiefly concerned, not withthe original Sophist, but with the sophistry of the schools ofphilosophy, which are making reasoning impossible; and is driven bythem out of the regions of transcendental speculation back into thepath of common sense. A logical or psychological phase takes theplace of the doctrine of Ideas in his mind. He is constantlydwelling on the importance of regular classification, and of notputting words in the place of things. He has banished the poets,and is beginning to use a technical language. He is bitter andsatirical, and seems to be sadly conscious of the realities ofhuman life. Yet the ideal glory of the Platonic philosophy is notextinguished. He is still looking for a city in which kings areeither philosophers or gods (compare Laws).
The Statesman has lost the grace and beauty of theearlier dialogues. The mind of the writer seems to be sooverpowered in the effort of thought as to impair his style; atleast his gift of expression does not keep up with the increasingdifficulty of his theme. The idea of the king or statesman and theillustration of method are connected, not like the love andrhetoric of the Phaedrus, by 'little invisible pegs, ' but in aconfused and inartistic manner, which fails to produce anyimpression of a whole on the mind of the reader. Plato apologizesfor his tediousness, and acknowledges that the improvement of hisaudience has been his only aim in some of his digressions. His ownimage may be used as a motto of his style: like an inexpertstatuary he has made the figure or outline too large, and is unableto give the proper colours or proportions to his work. He makesmistakes only to correct them— this seems to be his way of drawingattention to common dialectical errors. The Eleatic stranger, here,as in the Sophist, has no appropriate character, and appears onlyas the expositor of a political ideal, in the delineation of whichhe is frequently interrupted by purely logical illustrations. Theyounger Socrates resembles his namesake in nothing but a name. Thedramatic character is so completely forgotten, that a specialreference is twice made to discussions in the Sophist; and this,perhaps, is the strongest ground which can be urged for doubtingthe genuineness of the work. But, when we remember that a similarallusion is made in the Laws to the Republic, we see that theentire disregard of dramatic propriety is not always a sufficientreason for doubting the genuineness of a Platonic writing.
The search after the Statesman, which is carried on,like that for the Sophist, by the method of dichotomy, gives anopportunity for many humorous and satirical remarks. Several of thejests are mannered and laboured: for example, the turn of wordswith which the dialogue opens; or the clumsy joke about man beingan animal, who has a power of two-feet— both which are suggested bythe presence of Theodorus, the geometrician. There is political aswell as logical insight in refusing to admit the division ofmankind into Hellenes and Barbarians: 'if a crane could speak, hewould in like manner oppose men and all other animals to cranes. 'The pride of the Hellene is further humbled, by being compared to aPhrygian or Lydian. Plato glories in this impartiality of thedialectical method, which places birds in juxtaposition with men,and the king side by side with the bird-catcher; king orvermin-destroyer are objects of equal interest to science (compareParmen. ). There are other passages which show that the irony ofSocrates was a lesson which Plato was not slow in learning— as, forexample, the passing remark, that 'the kings and statesmen of ourday are in their breeding and education very like their subjects; 'or the anticipation that the rivals of the king will be found inthe class of servants; or the imposing attitude of the priests, whoare the established interpreters of the will of heaven, authorizedby law. Nothing is more bitter in all his writings than hiscomparison of the contemporary politicians to lions, centaurs,satyrs, and other animals of a feebler sort, who are ever changingtheir forms and natures. But, as in the later dialogues generally,the play of humour and the charm of poetry have departed, never toreturn.
Still the Politicus contains a higher and more idealconception of politics than any other of Plato's writings. The cityof which there is a pattern in heaven (Republic), is here describedas a Paradisiacal state of human society. In the truest sense ofall, the ruler is not man but God; and such a government existed ina former cycle of human history, and may again exist when the godsresume their care of mankind. In a secondary sense, the true formof government is that which has scientific rulers, who areirresponsible to their subjects. Not power but knowledge is thecharacteristic of a king or royal person. And the rule of a man isbetter and higher than law, because he is more able to deal withthe infinite complexity of human affairs. But mankind, in despairof finding a true ruler, are willing to acquiesce in any law orcustom which will save them from the caprice of individuals. Theyare ready to accept any of the six forms of government whichprevail in the world. To the Greek, nomos was a sacred word, butthe political idealism of Plato soars into a region beyond; for thelaws he would substitute the intelligent will of the legislator.Education is originally to implant in men's minds a sense of truthand justice, which is the divine bond of states, and the legislatoris to contrive human bonds, by which dissimilar natures may beunited in marriage and supply the deficiencies of one another. Asin the Republic, the government of philosophers, the causes of theperversion of states, the regulation of marriages, are still thepolitical problems with which Plato's mind is occupied. He treatsthem more slightly, partly because the dialogue is shorter, andalso because the discussion of them is perpetually crossed by theother interest of dialectic, which has begun to absorb him.
The plan of the Politicus or Statesman may bebriefly sketched as follows: (1) By a process of division andsubdivision we discover the true herdsman or king of men. Butbefore we can rightly distinguish him from his rivals, we must viewhim, (2) as he is presented to us in a famous ancient tale: thetale will also enable us to distinguish the divine from the humanherdsman or shepherd: (3) and besides our fable, we must have anexample; for our example we will select the art of weaving, whichwill have to be distinguished from the kindred arts; and then,following this pattern, we will separate the king from hissubordinates or competitors. (4) But are we not exceeding all duelimits; and is there not a measure of all arts and sciences, towhich the art of discourse must conform? There is; but before wecan apply this measure, we must know what is the aim of discourse:and our discourse only aims at the dialectical improvement ofourselves and others. — Having made our apology, we return oncemore to the king or statesman, and proceed to contrast him withpretenders in the same line with him, under their various forms ofgovernment. (5) His characteristic is, that he alone has science,which is superior to law and written enactments; these do butspring out of the necessities of mankind, when they are in despairof finding the true king. (6) The sciences which are most akin tothe royal are the sciences of the general, the judge, the orator,which minister to him, but even these are subordinate to him. (7)Fixed principles are implanted by education, and the king orstatesman completes the political web by marrying togetherdissimilar natures, the courageous and the temperate, the bold andthe gentle, who are the warp and the woof of society.
The outline may be filled up as follows:—
SOCRATES: I have reason to thank you, Theodorus, forthe acquaintance of Theaetetus and the Stranger.
THEODORUS: And you will have three times as muchreason to thank me when they have delineated the Statesman andPhilosopher, as well as the Sophist.
SOCRATES: Does the great geometrician apply the samemeasure to all three? Are they not divided by an interval which nogeometrical ratio can express?
THEODORUS: By the god Ammon, Socrates, you areright; and I am glad to see that you have not forgotten yourgeometry. But before I retaliate on you, I must request theStranger to finish the argument. . .
The Stranger suggests that Theaetetus shall beallowed to rest, and that Socrates the younger shall respond in hisplace; Theodorus agrees to the suggestion, and Socrates remarksthat the name of the one and the face of the other give him a rightto claim relationship with both of them. They propose to take theStatesman after the Sophist; his path they must determine, and partoff all other ways, stamping upon them a single negative form(compare Soph. ).
The Stranger begins the enquiry by making a divisionof the arts and sciences into theoretical and practical— the onekind concerned with knowledge exclusively, and the other withaction; arithmetic and the mathematical sciences are ex