Plato and the Yahoos Week

¶ … Plato and the Yahoos

Week 2 Discussion Question

To her esteemed majesty, Queen Bellicose of the Yahoos:

As the esteemed philosopher-queen of the Yahoos, Queen Bellicose, you have no doubt asked yourself many times: What is the purpose of human existence? Is it merely to dwell in a state of satiation, living happily because there is enough to eat and drink? If that is the only purpose of human life, the pursuit of pleasure, and that singular state required to enjoy the pursuit of pleasure called 'stability,' then you Queen Bellicose and your subjects the Yahoo are living a fully realized existence, thanks to the bounty of the land where you live and your iron hand through which you exercise a gentle, generous and wise rule. But as you are no doubt aware the Greek philosopher Plato has suggested that there is a higher purpose of human existence. This is happiness, something distinct from animal enjoyment of pleasure.

Happiness is the fulfilling the purpose of the individual's greatest potential -- whether that is to be a great cobbler, scholar, general, or queen. This philosopher would agree with the social structure of your society, noting how well and justly you fulfill your role as ruler, how admirably your military leaders and scholars do their work, and the excellence of your craftspeople. He would say that you are free from the illusions of his allegorical cave because you dwell in a world of Platonic ideals rather than imperfect realities and the individual's best role in society is pre-determined by 'those who know best' such as yourself. But this may be a self-fulfilling prophesy, as the stable, happy but autocratic society sustains itself through the use of autocracy.

The social contract of your society is that the ruler will care for the ruled, provided that everyone performs his or her social function and puts the good of the society over the good of the individual. But another, in my view, greater man than Plato named Pericles, as expressed in Pericles' "Funeral Oration" thought differently -- choice, autonomy, and accepting the imperfect nature of human existence and the joyful messiness of democracy is the higher ideal, according to Pericles. A perfectly engineered society, however functional on its own terms, is not perfect if it does not allow for individual choice, even individual failure. This does not mean that there is no social contract in a democracy -- there is a social obligation to fight for society's survival and good, as was done during the Peloponnesian Wars when Athens was at war against the autocratic, militaristic Spartan society. But how much greater and conducive to true happiness if this fight is conducted willingly, with open eyes about the truth!

According to Pericles, society has to allow for individual freedom because some of the most essential Greek values, such as that of honor and valor are best fulfilled in a democratic context. The ideal of perfection and Platonic suiting to what does 'what one is best fit for' -- harmony and symmetry -- must be chosen with a free will. Yahoo society shares these Greek values of aspiring to perfection but it must also incorporate Pericles' ideal of allowing choice, and fostering rational intelligence in every individual. In Pericles' classical Athens, rigor and discipline was combined with openness to the world -- people made choices to serve the state with their hopes, not their fears and thus they are better soldiers and also better self-governors. The citizens sought out happiness, not mere pleasure, and did not seek out happiness by compulsion under the strong armed rule of Platonic philosopher king. The Athenians learned to love honor. They were not subject to propaganda about honor and censorship, as advocated by Plato. Pericles said of the Athenian dead, noting that they did not need to be compelled to give up their lives to serve the state: "deeming that the punishment of their enemies was sweeter than any of these things, and that they could fall in no nobler cause, they determined at the hazard of their lives to be honorably avenged, and to leave the rest." Pericles said that Athenians did not have to be forced to chose the lot of the soldier, they loved the land that gave them the freedom to chose to live the way they wanted, rather than to fulfill a predetermined ideal and thus, when necessary: "They resigned to hope their unknown chance of happiness; but in the face of death they resolved to rely upon themselves alone." In a democracy, the citizen's sense of self-reliance is its life-blood. Values are created and chosen by consensus and the consent of the governed, not by a single, 'philosophical' intelligence and thus the values are more enthusiastically believed, and because they exercise choice from birth, people more able to undertake creative intellectual change, as they did in ancient Athens. The limits of Yahoo society, although it seems to be more socially stable than most democracies, is that people will not believe in the value of the choices of a ruler, no matter how wise, because they have no personal investment in those decisions.

And what happens when circumstances change, as change is inevitable, even for the Yahoos? If and when the material prosperity of your country is eliminated, either through natural or man-made catastrophes and resources are limited -- the question arises of how they will they be allocated -- will the higher powers want more if things grow more scarce? What if a bad ruler comes to power, as occurred with the shift from republican ideals in Rome to an empire? Not ever ruler is a Claudius or Marcus Aurelius or Queen Bellicose in their objectivity and wisdom. What if there is a Nero? As exemplified in David Lind's "The Second Fall of Rome," the greatness of the Roman republic and its ideals has been lost, because of the memory of what followed when totalitarian rule was so awful. An autocracy can less creatively adapt to new circumstances, when so many decisions are imposed from above, when people do not know how to make decisions. Of course, giving power to the people and rational democracy has many flaws -- because it is a more responsive and flexible form of government, people can make mistakes. "Power to the people" means the popular will is more easily transmitted into a "siege" (Hanson & Heath 119). Totalitarian governments can more easily 'get things done,' as evidenced in the Roman Empire vs. its republican incarnation. But these social and political benefits quickly end with a change in circumstances, such as a famine, a cruel (and stupid) leader, or simply a change in technology that makes, for example, manual labor less necessary.