Physis and nomos: the nature of equality in Popper's and Strauss' readings of Plato

PHYSIS AND NOMOS: THE NATURE OF EQUALITY IN POPPER’S AND STRAUSS’ READINGS OF PLATO José Colen* [email protected] Striving for equality has been oft en, if not always, at the heart of the ethos of democratic regimes, even when practices fall short of such ambitious goal. Th e trend towards an ever increasing equality still faces an important and pervasive limitation, i.e. citizenship is not a right shared by all, but a privilege of birth, or descent, or autochthony. Th is problem was voiced in Plato’s dialogue Menexenus: is democracy viable if no historical ties or common culture justifi es solidarity and bearable sharing democratic burdens? Is social equality of the citizens a condition forcing to seek legal equality or an enemy of excellence? In spite of the enormous diff erences between Popper’s and Strauss’ agendas and even their ideals, both chose to explore the normative foundation of democracy by confrontation with Plato and his predecessors. Karl Popper in Th e Open society criticized Plato’s arguments against equality proposing an idiosyncratic interpretation of the controversyon Nature and Convention. Leo Strauss in his conferences on Natural right and history also elaborated on the emergence of the concepts of Physis and Nomos confronting Plato against “classical conventionalism”. Th is paper engages Popper and Strauss in a fi ctive debate on the foundations of political equality. Keywords: Karl Popper, Leo Strauss, equality, convention, nature, Plato’s Menexemus. Buscar arduamente a igualdade tem estado muitas vezes, senão sempre, no coração do ethos dos regimes democráticos, mesmo quando as práticas fi cam aquém dessa meta ambiciosa. A tendência para uma cada vez maior igualdade enfrenta todavia uma limitação importante e generalizada, ou seja, a cidadania não é um direito * Minho University, Institute of Arts and Humanities, Centre for Humanities Studies, 4710- -057 Braga, Portugal. diacrítica 27.indb 87 18-12-2013 12:45:34 88 JOSÉ COLEN partilhado por todos, mas um privilégio do nascimento, descendência ou ligação à terra. Platão deu voz a este problema num diálogo intitulado Menexeno: é a democracia viável se não há vínculos históricos ou uma cultura comum que justifi quem a solidariedade e tornem suportável a partilha dos fardos democráticos? É a igualdade social dos cidadãos uma condição que força a busca da igualdade legal ou um inimigo de excelência? Apesar das enormes diferenças entre as agendas de Strauss e Popper e mesmo dos seus ideais, ambos optaram por explorar a base normativa da democracia por confronto com Platão e seus predecessores. Karl Popper em A Sociedade aberta criticou os argumentos de Platão contra a igualdade propondo uma interpretação idiossincrática da controvérsia sobre Natureza e Convenção. Leo Strauss nas suas conferências sobre Direito natural e história também discorreu sobre o aparecimento dos conceitos de Physis e Nomos, confrontando Platão com o “convencionalismo clássico”. Este artigo envolve Popper e Strauss num debate imaginário sobre os fundamentos da igualdade política. Palavras-chave: Karl Popper, Leo Strauss, igualdade, convenção, natureza, Menexeno de Platão. 1. Introduction Striving for equality has oft en, if not always, been at the heart of the ethos of democratic regimes, even when practices fall short of such ambitious goals. Th e trend seems to move in the direction of expanding equality and abolishing all barriers to its spreading: abolition of literacy or property requirements for political participation, female suff rage, lowering of voting age, proportional representation, etc.. Th is ever increasing equality still faces an important and pervasive limitation, i.e. citizenship is not a right shared by all, but a privilege of birth, or descent, or autochthony, as if some last trace of aristocracy persisted. Th e use of descent as a title to citizenship is very ancient. Let us recall for a moment a short and almost forgotten dialogue by Plato, who comically describes Athenian democracy, saying that some call it democracy, but whatever name we use, it really is an aristocracy with the consent of the majority (Plato, Menexenus, 238 b-d). At the center of the dialogue is a Funeral Oration, a prayer for the dead in battle presented to the young Menexenus by Socrates, composed of two parts: an encomium of the deceased and a consolation of their families. In the encomium Socrates engages in praising Athens, claiming the autochthony of its citizens. In Plato’s Eulogy, Socrates also explains the basis of Athens’ democratic system: diacrítica 27.indb 88 18-12-2013 12:45:34 89 PHYSIS AND NOMOS Th e basis of our government is equality of birth; for other states are made up of all sorts and unequal conditions of men, and therefore their governments are unequal; there are tyrannies and there are oligarchies, in which the one party are slaves and the others masters. But we and our citizens are brethren, the children all of one mother, and we do not think it right to be one another’s masters or servants; but the natural equality of birth compels us to seek for legal equality, and to recognize no superiority except in the reputation of virtue and wisdom. (Menex. 238e and ff .) Plato’s Menexenus is a complementary piece to the Gorgias (cfr. Schofi eld, 2006, Dodds, 1959), a caricature of democratic rhetoric, where any audience of «children» and children-like adults is convinced by a confectioner to choose healthier foods. Th e narrative context of the dialogue leaves no doubt in the reader about the nature of the deeply ironic Funeral Oration (cfr. Méridier, 2003, Kahn 1963), but it is possible to talk about very serious matters in a comic way. 2. Platonic Readings Karl Popper was outraged by this dialogue, guilty of trying to demolish Pericles’ funeral oration, a democratic cornerstone laying the foundation of the symbolic world of Athenian democracy: the virulence of the Platonic attack on democracy reveals itself in the obvious parody contained in his dialogue (cfr. Popper, 2009: 211). In a footnote, he adds that if some hold the Menexenus to be spurious, this merely shows their tendency to idealize Plato (Ibidem). On the contrary: Menexenus, a searing reply to Pericles’ Funeral oration, is the dialogue that hints at Plato’s true intentions and reveals his own seduction by the ideal of an open society: In spite of his attempt to hide his feelings behind irony and scorn, he cannot but show how deeply he was impressed by Pericles’ sentiments. Th is is how Plato makes his ‘Socrates’ maliciously describe the impression made upon him by Pericles’ oration: ‘A feeling of exultation stays with me for more than three days, not until the end of the fourth or fi ft h day, and not without an eff ort, do I come to my senses and realize where I am’. Who can doubt that Plato reveals here how seriously he was impressed by the creed of the open society, and how hard he had to struggle to come to his senses and to realize where he was – namely, in the camp of its enemies (Popper, 2009: 211, quoting Menex. 235b cfr. Idem: 355, note 61). diacrítica 27.indb 89 18-12-2013 12:45:34 90 JOSÉ COLEN Karl Popper argues that it is urgent to bury Plato, because great men make great mistakes. Th is is necessary to maintain progress towards an «open society». His modern interpretation of Plato is still among the most famous, although classical scholars tend to consider it marginal, if not anachronistic (cfr. Bambrough, 1962 and Idem, 1967; Field, 1944; sed Ryle, 1948). I will not argue here for the impartiality of Karl Popper’s contribution to the «war eff ort», since that contribution has the form of a political manifesto against the enemies of the open society, more harsh and emotional in tone than Popper desired (Popper, 2009: xi). Besides, he states, again and again, that he never intended to be neutral against Plato and his totalitarian model of a «well organized state», and that it was only an interpretation, although a serious one, which he would like to see refuted (cfr. Idem: 372). But it is important to clarify the implicit assumptions of this interpretation, before proceeding to its content. Th ese are of two diff erent kinds: some are hermeneutic assumptions about the interpretation of Plato’s dialogues, while others consist of political (and epistemological) theses that Popper wants to present a contrario at Plato’s expenses. Some of the latter are already well known and justify the status of bestseller (and «longseller») that obviously does not apply to most of the academic literature on Plato: the defense of piecemeal social engineering, the protective state, equality before the law and humanitarianism – even his theory of democratic leadership, based on Th ucydides’ formula, is no longer unnoticed (cfr. Idem: 199). His interpretation of Plato, however, is no less famous and infl uential, although not all of it equally original (cfr. e.g. Gomperz, 1902; Crossman, 1937). But in order to evaluate the assumptions in his interpretations of Plato’s dialogues, the target of a hot debate, a critical reader should engage in the lengthy reading of the notes – as a whole, a longer text than the main body of the book. Besides, Popper’s reading intertwines Plato’s doctrines and a review of his own ideas around pairs of concepts: individualism versus «holism», nominalism versus conceptual «realism», protective versus totalitarian state, democratic sovereignty versus theory of checks and balances, institutionalism versus personalism, etc.. Even so, I think it fair to enumerate the main theses on interpretative issues as follows: 1) In the dialogues Socrates is Plato’s mouthpiece, but the two are almost opposite, until Plato’s fi nal betrayal of his master, proposing laws that would lead to a new condemnation of Socrates; 2) Plato is a «dogmatic» and not skeptical philosopher; 3) he deliberately «distorts» the most fundamental concepts such as justice, equality or democracy as compared diacrítica 27.indb 90 18-12-2013 12:45:34 91 PHYSIS AND NOMOS to how they are commonly used by his contemporaries; 4) his work is essentially an intervention program; 5) his theories defended class interests, the interests of a class to which he belonged by family; 6) the Republic and the Laws (in particular) present a blueprint for a totalitarian society, whose corollaries are a caste system, an educational and eugenic program for the guardians and the expulsion of poets; 7) It is Plato’s contempt for the truth that leads him to resort to pious myths and lies as an ideological cover. It is characteristic of Aristotle that he presented the debate between egalitarianism and the oligarchic conception of justice as a conversation between two factions or parties, both of them with an incomplete vision of justice. He situated himself above these incomplete opinions like an umpire. It is, in fact, sometimes benefi cial to resort to a contrasting view in order to clarify the issues in question. Although it is not always easy to fi nd a deserving opponent who shares the same approach, in this case we can fi nd such an opponent in Leo Strauss. His work could be described as a kind of «platonic political philosophy». Strauss, however, barely mentions the Menexenus once, and only briefl y, recalling that the fi rst attempt to systematize political experience was made by the rhetoricians, but that their vision was obviously limited (cfr. Strauss, 1971: 34). Th is dialogue was, in his view, a proof or a playful demonstration of the transferability of political knowledge, for Socrates borrowed his speech from Aspasia, who was ironically assumed to be the real author of Pericles’ speeches. Th e problem of «autochthony», the main motive of pride for Athenians in Menexemus’ encomium, is notwithstanding mentioned in the context of the problem of natural right and this goes to the heart of Leo Strauss’ concerns. Every ideology, he comments, is an attempt at justifi cation, against oneself or against others, in the face of certain lines of conduct the righteousness of which is not evident (as Hindus use karma to justify the caste system). For example, the Athenians proclaim that they are native born and borne of the earth, and so their city is not founded on crime. Th is is a proof of the existence of a sort of intuition of natural right: thanks to reason, man has available a wide range of alternatives, but he is aware that the full and unrestricted exercise of freedom is not just. Freedom is accompanied by a natural feeling that not everything is allowed, not unlike the «natural conscience» that Cicero mentions. Until cultivated, natural conscience feeds absurd taboos, but what guides the savage or the tribe is an inkling of what is right (Idem: 130). Strauss’ interpretation of the Platonic texts could not, at fi rst glance, be more contrary to Popper’s. In Strauss view, Plato is fundamentally true to diacrítica 27.indb 91 18-12-2013 12:45:34 92 JOSÉ COLEN the Socratic program, but Socrates cannot be considered Plato’s spokesman, because the dialogues are really like dramas and any playwright speaks both through the voice of his various characters and through their actions in the drama. In any case, Socrates was famous for his playful irony, and is therefore a problematic mouthpiece, since he oft en says diff erent things to diff erent interlocutors (cfr. Zuckert, 2011). Plato does not distort, but certainly questions the meaning of words like justice, truth or excellence, as a pedagogical device, even if opinion and not truth is the essence of politics. Any government needs salutary myths because what is by nature just is likely, without dilution, to shake the foundations of society. Plato, in any case, is not a systematic philosopher, nor are the dialogues entries in an encyclopedia of philosophical sciences and the Republic doesn’t present concrete politic proposals – «the Laws is the only political work proper of Plato» (Strauss & Cropsey, 1963: 231). He certainly did not want to abolish poetry, but argued that all poetry serves philosophy. Interestingly, Strauss’ «architectonic» ideas are also known through pairs of concepts in a never resolved tension: Ancients versus Moderns, Athens versus Jerusalem, Philosophy versus Poetry, Reason versus Revelation (or Law), facts and values, etc.. But his political ideas and his art of writing lead to a very diff erent evaluation of Plato political thought. In short, Popper regarded the Republic as a totalitarian utopia; Leo Strauss thought it was the best cure against totalitarian ambition in politics. Indeed, both Leo Strauss and Karl Popper discussed or criticized Plato’s ideas as if he was a contemporary, without too much concern for his «being a man of his time». He is very much alive in their analyses. Th eir interpretations continue to surprise us and to be read, however, not for the merits of the interpretation itself – for all its charm – but because they are important in current political debate. At fi rst sight, they only share their admiration for Socrates and the Socratic ideal, which they both kept to the end of their own lives, and an essentially political reading of Plato. Th e two interpretations cannot, of course, both be true to Plato political thought. But if, in general, the accusatory tone, a bit crude, in Popper’s text outraged Platonists, even if they sometimes recognized its suggestive or provocative power, Strauss’ teachings on Plato also annoyed and made academics suspicious (e.g. Pangle 2006, Drury, 1988, sed contra Minowitz 2009). We should not, however, ignore either of them altogether, for they are both extraordinary thinkers, even if idiosyncratic. It is not diffi cult to engage them in a fi ctitious conversation on the subject of the philosophical foundation of political equality. diacrítica 27.indb 92 18-12-2013 12:45:34 93 PHYSIS AND NOMOS 3. Nature and convention In Karl Popper’s text dedicated to Plato’s «descriptive sociology», in his Open Society, he makes a careful presentation of the ancient Greek debate between «nature and convention». Such a debate precedes Plato: the approaching of social phenomena with a scientifi c spirit is not new to Plato (cfr. Popper, 2009: 58) and the previous generation of Sophists distinguished two elements in the human environment, a natural one and a social one – a diffi cult distinction since we tend to take our own environment for granted. However, distinguishing phisis and nomos, they broke with the tribal and magical attitude, characteristic of closed societies living in a charmed circle of laws, taboos and immutable customs (Cfr. Ibidem). Karl Popper however further clarifi es this distinction by asserting the enormous diff erence between natural laws, such as those that describe the motion of the planets, and normative laws that prescribe or forbid, whether the Ten Commandments, a set of parliamentary election rules or – the relevant case – the laws in the Athenian constitution. Th e former are invariable regularities that do not allow changes or exceptions, but only falsehood, and are out of human control, even if they can be used for technological purposes. Th e latter are enforced by man and may change, but it cannot be said of them – except metaphorically – that they are true or false, only good or bad, right or wrong. Certainly, some think there are «natural» standards, because they are in accordance with human nature, or psychological laws of human behavior. But the two kinds of laws have little more in common than the name and a debate presupposes the clarifi cation of the diff erence, in order to avoid misunderstandings due to poor terminology (Idem: 60). To understand Plato’s sociology, Popper considers it necessary to explain how this distinction between natural and normative laws was developed. Th e starting point is what he designates as «naive monism» typical of closed societies, where the distinction was ignored, and this could appear in two ways: «naïve naturalism», a belief that social regularities seemed impossible to change, and «naïve conventionalism», the assumption that everything that goes on in nature seems to result from the arbitrary decisions of men and gods, and can be changed in a magical way (Idem: 61, cfr. 254 n.3). Th e historical fact that breaks magic tribalism is the clash of cultures, the fi nding that there are diff erent taboos in diff erent tribes and that these can be disobeyed without unpleasant consequences, because laws are made diacrítica 27.indb 93 18-12-2013 12:45:35 94 JOSÉ COLEN by man, either the Solon code or the democratic laws of the city. Th is gives rise to what he calls a «critical dualism» of facts and values, or a «critical conventionalism», which is announced in terms of the opposition between nature and convention. Th is is the position taken by an older contemporary of Socrates, Protagoras. Such a dualism, according to Popper, does not necessarily imply a theory of the origin of the laws, i.e. that these were introduced consciously rather than discovered, or came from God or man (Idem: 62). But neither minimizes the importance of standards and even less implies that laws are merely arbitrary because they are the works of men. Th e theory implies only that laws may be amended by a decision or convention and that only man is morally responsible for their formulation or acceptance, or for improving them, following patterns that are not found in nature, since nature is neither moral nor immoral. Men are products of nature, but nature gave men the power to predict, plan or change the world. Th ese decisions or values are not derived from facts. We are not opposed to slavery because no man is born with chains: some may want to put other men in chains, and others freed them. We can change or resist change, or not act at all, but no decision can ever be derived from facts (cfr. Idem: 63). Such is the doctrine of the «autonomy of ethics, fi rst advocated by Protagoras and Socrates» (Idem: 68). Leo Strauss also dedicated a long chapter in his Natural Right and History to the emergence of the idea of phisis that disturbs the identifi cation of the ancestral and the good, and leads to philosophy (Strauss, 1971: 90 and ff .). But, of course, the only sense of the expression «natural right» or «natural law» in which he was interested was the possibility of the existence of «natural» standards for human action, or the foundation of ethics and politics in accordance with human nature. Let us call these standards psychological laws of human behavior, using Popper’s expression, and avoid verbal disputes (cfr. Popper, 2009: 63-68). For Strauss, however, the mere diversity of opinions about justice or right is not an argument against the existence of such standards. Th e existence of diff erent taboos in diff erent tribes is not only compatible with, but a precondition for the discovery of natural right. Th e diversity of conceptions of justice would only be incompatible with natural right if unanimous consent was required and not merely potential consent (Strauss, 1971: 125). As Plato asserted, even the most primitive and bizarre view points beyond itself, because people’s opinions come into confl ict and a philosopher guides them above opinions, in the direction of truth. Of course, no assurance can diacrítica 27.indb 94 18-12-2013 12:45:35 95 PHYSIS AND NOMOS be given that a philosopher can do more than identify fundamental alternatives or that philosophy goes beyond the stage of debate (Ibidem). Strauss does not disagree with Popper that classical conventionalism does not imply that laws are merely arbitrary because they are the works of men, but they did not formulate a coherent political theory. A conventionalist, as appears to be the case of Protagoras or Antiphon, disregards the truth embodied in opinion and appeals to nature and this is why Socrates was forced to demonstrate what is naturally just in terms of conventionalism, appealing to facts as opposed to speeches – the Republic is such an appeal put in a document. Th e basic premise of conventionalism was the identifi cation of good with pleasure, and so the proponents of classical natural right are critics of hedonism. What is good for them is more fundamental than pleasure: diff erent needs explain the diff erences between pleasures, but needs are not a bundle of desires, because there is a natural order of needs, which are different according to each being. What is good refers to the natural constitution or quid, which determines the hierarchy of a being’s goods (Strauss, 1971: 127). Each specifi c constitution corresponds to a specifi c operation: if something is good, it does the work that corresponds to its nature. To know what is good for man, we need to know man’s natural constitution. All animals have a soul and the human soul is distinguished by speech or reason (logos), and so what is good for man is to live thoughtfully. Life is good if it is the perfection of human nature (Ibidem). A life of excellence can be defended in hedonistic terms rather than per se, but this view distorts phenomena as understood by impartial and competent, i.e. not morally obtuse, men (Idem: 128). Everyone admires a harmonious soul, regardless of the benefi ts. Th e utilitarian or hedonistic logic can only be explained with an ad hoc hypothesis (good is a refi ned calculation of pleasures, etc.). Ancient hedonism is, however, mainly a private stance, without political doctrine. Karl Popper questions any laws of «human nature», which he reduces to mere sociological and psychological regularities of human behavior. He considers them connected to the functioning of social institutions (Popper, 2009: 69). Plato formulated a theory of «psychological or spiritual naturalism» combining elements of Antiphon’s or Pindar’s biological naturalism with elements of ethical positivism (Idem: 70, cfr. 70-75). Plato’s vague spiritual naturalism surprisingly, however, according to Popper, had no great consequences – as opposed to the priority of the state over the imperfection of individual men. diacrítica 27.indb 95 18-12-2013 12:45:35