Platonism and Nazism: Are Both Totalitarian?

[Petr]

The reason why I am interested in this book is because I also consider myself an enemy of the 'open society'. Popper argues in the book that Plato was a racialist, totalitarian, and supporter of eugenics. Sounds interesting.
May I recommend this online essay:

UNDERSTANDING AND INDIVIDUALITY IN THE THREE CITIES:
AN INTERPRETATION OF PLATO'S LAWS

http://www.swgc.mun.ca/animus/2002vol7/diamond7.htm


This piece approaches Plato from a somewhat Straussian-esoteric viewpoint.

Shadia Drury put the difference between the Platonic interpretations of Karl Popper and Leo Strauss in this way:

"For many commentators who (like Karl Popper) have read Plato as a totalitarian, the logical consequence is to doubt that philosophers can be trusted with political power. Those who read him this way invariably reject him. Strauss is the only interpreter who gives a sinister reading to Plato, and then celebrates him.

...

"Like Plato, Strauss believed that the supreme political ideal is the rule of the wise. But the rule of the wise is unattainable in the real world. Now, according to the conventional wisdom, Plato realised this, and settled for the rule of law. But Strauss did not endorse this solution entirely. Nor did he think that it was Plato’s real solution – Strauss pointed to the “nocturnal council” in Plato’s Laws to illustrate his point.

The real Platonic solution as understood by Strauss is the covert rule of the wise. This covert rule is facilitated by the overwhelming stupidity of the gentlemen. The more gullible and unperceptive they are, the easier it is for the wise to control and manipulate them. Supposedly, Xenophon makes that clear to us.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm



I myself oppose both modern anarchistic individualism as well as totalitarian collectivism presented by Plato. Like R.J. Rushdoony put it:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2642&highlight=supernatural

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2171&highlight=bakunin

"Anarchism or totalitarianism, these are the alternatives. Either people, after Plato's hope, who do "not even ... consider acting as an individual or know how to do it," or individuals who are an absolute law unto themselves - these are the alternatives humanism offers to man."

"The chronic humanistic quarrel between statism and anarchism cannot be resolved except by the rejection of both alternatives in favor of the triune God and His supernatural law."



Petr

[Petr]

In his last dialogue, Laws, Plato went all the way with his hyper-reactionary theorizing, and specifically cited Egypt as his inspiration:

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/laws.2.ii.html


Ath. Then in a city which has good laws, or in future ages is to have them, bearing in mind the instruction and amusement which are given by music, can we suppose that the poets are to be allowed to teach in the dance anything which they themselves like, in the way of rhythm, or melody, or words, to the young children of any well-conditioned parents? Is the poet to train his choruses as he pleases, without reference to virtue or vice?

Cle. That is surely quite unreasonable, and is not to be thought of.

Ath. And yet he may do this in almost any state with the exception of Egypt.

Cle. And what are the laws about music and dancing in Egypt?

Ath. You will wonder when I tell you: Long ago they appear to have recognized the very principle of which we are now speaking-that their young citizens must be habituated to forms and strains of virtue. These they fixed, and exhibited the patterns of them in their temples; and no painter or artist is allowed to innovate upon them, or to leave the traditional forms and invent new ones. To this day, no alteration is allowed either in these arts, or in music at all. And you will find that their works of art are painted or moulded in the same forms which they had ten thousand years ago; - this is literally true and no exaggeration - their ancient paintings and sculptures are not a whit better or worse than the work of to-day, but are made with just the same skill.

Cle. How extraordinary!

Ath. I should rather say, How statesmanlike, how worthy of a legislator! I know that other things in Egypt are not so well. But what I am telling you about music is true and deserving of consideration, because showing that a lawgiver may institute melodies which have a natural truth and correctness without any fear of failure. To do this, however, must be the work of God, or of a divine person; in Egypt they have a tradition that their ancient chants which have been preserved for so many ages are the composition of the Goddess Isis. And therefore, as I was saying, if a person can only find in any way the natural melodies, he may confidently embody them in a fixed and legal form. For the love of novelty which arises out of pleasure in the new and weariness of the old, has not strength enough to corrupt the consecrated song and dance, under the plea that they have become antiquated. At any rate, they are far from being corrupted in Egypt.


//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


So, to put it succinctly, it would look like Plato wanted to introduce Egyptianesque totalitarianism to Hellas in order to counter the effects of Sophistic individualism, much like Nazis later wanted to introduce to Europe anti-Christian and Asiatic concepts of an allmighty state and divine, infallible rulers - all in the name of defending Western civilization.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

So, to put it succinctly, it would look like Plato wanted to introduce Egyptianesque totalitarianism to Hellas in order to counter the effects of Sophistic individualism, much like Nazis later wanted to introduce to Europe anti-Christian and Asiatic concepts of an allmighty state and divine, infallible rulers - all in the name of defending Western civilization.Plato sought to create a perfect state in reality modeled after the Form of the state which could only be perceived by his philosopher-kings. The philosopher-kings are "painters" of constitutions. From this idealist perspective (the intelligible world of forms being the true reality), change can be seen as degenerate, as the citizens of such a polity would be moving away from the highest level attainable towards a lower one. It isn't possible to progress beyond perfection. It thus makes sense to take measures to arrest all change.

This is a far cry from Nazism, Petr. The 'totalitarian' label is a spurious ad hominem attack that attempts to discredit Platonism through guilt by associaton and superficial appearances on the mere basis of shared authoritarian typology. Nazism is based on the idea that the extralegal office of the Leader embodies the will of the volk. The telos of the Leader is to guide the volk towards the actualization of its historical mission. The influence of Rousseau, Hegel, and Fichte should be obvious here.

How does this even remotely resemble Platonism? Platonic idealism is a radical critique of such historicism. Plato taught that the true reality was the timeless intelligible world of forms from which we can derive objective knowledge. The thrust of Platonic political theory is to arrest history. The authority of the philosopher-kings is justified by their communion with the true reality of divine, timeless, unchanging Forms. The authority of the leader in Nazism is justifed by his historical mission. His knowledge is intuitive and ultimately subjective.

Nazism is based on bounded egalitarianism and in group altruism (all Germans partake in the substance of the nation). The Leader is a populist; the representative of the volk. The philosopher-kings are an elite that rule over an inferior caste of laborers whom they are racially distinct from. The model Plato had in mind was Sparta and its helots. The mixing of blood between the different castes is identified as the source of corruption and the precipitator of change.

[Ahknaton]

IMHO, the Founding Fathers of the American Constitution are the closest we've come in the modern era to "philosopher kings" (which still isn't very close). Recognising universal "self-evident truths" regarding the relationship between the individual and the sate is roughly analogous to perceiving timeless "divine forms" of government.

Even though they instituted a democracy, suffrage was highly restricted, and the republican model put limits on how far the state could diverge from the ideal form, as they saw it.

[Kodos]

Plato sought to create a perfect state

Always comes out very very bad... I think a "pretty good" state would prosecute any form of secular utopianism as a kind of intellectual heresy.



No Plato was a strict totalitarian, Nazi Germany was merely authoritarian bordering on totalitarian.

[i]The model Plato had in mind was Sparta and its helots

LOL you don't think Sparta was totalitarian with 90% of the population being slaves de jure and the rest being slaves de facto( with compulsory military service till they were old men).

[Fade the Butcher]

Always comes out very very bad... I think a "pretty good" state would prosecute any form of secular utopianism as a kind of intellectual heresy. What would you consider a "pretty good" state?No Plato was a strict totalitarian, Nazi Germany was merely authoritarian bordering on totalitarian. Define 'totalitarian'.LOL you don't think Sparta was totalitarian with 90% of the population being slaves de jure and the rest being slaves de facto( with compulsory military service till they were old men).See above.

[Kodos]

It very much depends on the historical context the country the state presides over is in. For instance a continental country surrounded by strong enemies( Byzantium Prussia Israel) would nessecarily have to be more militarized( which would require a more active government) then Britain historically has been.

The US met the criteria of a good state up till Wilson's time( and was still pretty good up till LBJ, I give FDR a pass on the New Deal because of an unprecedented crisis not really of his making... except on Social Security).

[Kodos]

Define 'totalitarian'.

I admit I can't directly anymore then I could define life( there is still a debate as to whether viruses are "alive" or not) but any state without private property fits the bill.