Federalist Papers Governing One\'s Own

Federalist Papers

Governing one's own bodily lust in Plato and governance and the legislature in Publius -- justice in the American Constitution and Classical Greece

To compare the conception of justice in the Federalist Paper 51 with Plato's in the "Phaedo," might seem to be an exercise in injustice, as the two works have such different aims. Hamilton/Madison, otherwise known as 'Publius' was attempting to create a more unified form of government than the Articles of Confederation which then governed the American nation, before the ratification of the American Constitution that governs the country today. Regarding the then-current Confederation, Publius said that "the only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places."

The true Greek Plato, speaking as the dying Socrates, had different concerns than the faux Greek Publius. Plato's concerns were more abstract than Publius. He wished to create a philosophical kingdom of oligarchic leadership where every person perfectly and justly fulfilled his or her function according to his or her abilities, where no shoemakers ruled nor no philosophers must made shoes. For Plato, the purpose of government was to create a way of enabling a higher philosophical consciousness in the citizens, not enabling them to obtain the economic and physical means to enjoy a better bodily life.

For instance, in the "Phaedo" dialogue that is a chronicle of the death of Socrates, the philosopher Socrates openly despises in his rhetoric all worldly, political matters and concerns that matters of governance are intent upon expediting: "being dead is the attainment of this separation; when the soul exists in herself, and is parted from the body and the body is parted from the soul-that is death... Do you think that the philosopher ought to care about the pleasures-if they are to be called pleasures-of eating and drinking? And will he think much of the other ways of indulging the body-for example, the acquisition of costly raiment, or sandals, or other adornments of the body? Instead of caring about them, does he not rather despise anything more than nature needs?" Socrates allows himself to die because he believes that he allowed the state to protect his body, thus it can do with his inferior, physical essence.

But the pleasures of the body, of food, and nature are what a better form of earthly government allows individuals to choose in a republic or a democratic environment. In American society, even the early American society of Hamilton and Madison, did not decide the just purpose of life for every individual, as in Plato's philosophical dictatorship. Rather, in Publius' government the individual could choose to indulge him or herself or not to indulge. Publius was attempting to create a functional government where both minority and majority rights could coexist.

For Madison/Hamilton/Publius, justice was synonymous with laying a "due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government." A separation of powers, in other words, was key to and "essential to the preservation of liberty." Each department was to have a will and function of its own. In contrast, in Plato's "Phaedo," the main division stressed is that within the person, of the individual human soul and body. The soul despises and leaves the body upon death, but while on earth the philosopher obeys the consequences of the society he or she lives in, that protected the philosophy espoused by the philosopher, and hence, the philosopher physically obeys the laws of his society without question, although his soul may resist them. Divisions in government will not achieve justice in Plato's thought as in Publius. Rather Socrates stresses the striving of the soul for unity with the perfect forms of heaven as what is important -- civic government matters less than self-government.

Publius would suggest that such a view of government is overly idealistic, and does not realize the purpose of governance, which is to create a just society on earth, rather than purely in heaven. "But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." In other words, in government the 'inmates' are always in control of the asylum. Publius knows that citizens and leaders alike are imperfect, philosophers or not. Plato may encourage individuals to strive for perfection, but until them, Publius stresses, one must find a way to create a functioning world to enable human beings to live intellectual and economic lives.

Thus, suggests Publius, thus in the real world of governance, to create a just society, one must have concern for creating governing frameworks and institutions that check one another in the abstract realm of laws, that are neither to be obeyed or disregarded without question according to the changing whims of the governed or governing. True, it may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices as laws, jails, juries, and legislatures, should be necessary to control the abuses of government and the governed, notes Publius, in a kind of Hobbes-like sigh about the rapacious and acquisitive nature of the human mind and economy. But this is a fact that one must deal with, rather than morn or propose purely personal and philosophical solutions to solve for all time.

In contrast, Plato hopes, in his idealized depiction of Socrates to rise above such worldly concerns. "Is there or is there not an absolute justice?" As Socrates. His disciple answers, "assuredly there is." Socrates continues, "did you ever reach them with any other bodily sense?" Which, of course the student agrees is not "perceived by you through the bodily organs," rather, "is not the nearest approach to the knowledge of their several natures made by him who so orders his intellectual vision as to have the most exact conception of the essence of that which he considers" -- by having a perfect and unified conception of the essence of the abstract notion of justice, states Plato, then justice is achieved.

Socrates states that justice is attained by the knowledge of justice in the abstract, "in their highest purity" by he who "goes to each" of the heavenly, abstract forms of perfect justice of the mind, "with the mind alone." But Publius does not deal with the abstract, rather, "experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions," in the governance of human life. Justice in life is attained by separating power and influence through institutional frameworks, rather than striving for unity on an individual or collective level.

Granted, Publius allows for the need of some abstractions, as 'law' and 'governments' are abstract entities, neither human, but invested with power because of the significance attached to them by particular human societies. Moreover, particularly in the realm of the laws and constitutions, "some deviations, therefore, from the principle" of division "must be admitted," as "in the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications," but this is a peculiarity, not a general rule of governance.

But the adherence to principle that Publius sees as a unique attribute of the judiciary, Socrates reads as the primary purpose of governance, the devotion to justice in the abstract rather than in its functioning, bodily reality. Divide power, to achieve justice, as it is "equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices," to disperse the power of individuals. This discernment is to diminish the concerns about factionalism that were held by the founding fathers, which could result in one branch subsuming another branch.