Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts

On Democracy, Part Four

by Dave Seng

Part three can be found here.

The ancient theorists of political philosophy were, of course, Plato and Aristotle. Plato was no friend of democracy, while Aristotle believed a certain form of democracy was possible (though he rejected what he called “extreme democracy”). Both of these thinkers are important not only for their ideas but how they set the stage for subsequent thought and development about the dream of democracy. Also, these ancient political philosophers were very much concerned with human nature – with the enduring drives, passions, fears, hatreds, and aspirations of human beings (elements of humanity that are true across time and space). For the ancients, these important elements of human nature were the starting point of their political (and ethical) philosophy. This was especially true for both Plato and Aristotle.

Plato wrote one of the most important books in political history called the Republic. It is not only a work on politics and the state, but describes the intricate relationships between political thought and ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, and even art. Plato had a peculiar view of the state but his understanding of the state comes from his theories of knowledge (epistemology) and reality.

In order to understand how Plato’s epistemology influenced his political theory, it is important to see first what forms of government he rejects. Moving from bad to worse, Plato rejected timocracy, by which he meant the rule by those who are primarily motivated by ambition and honor. In such rulers, an inferior part of the soul, the spirited and emotional part, has gained dominance. He also rejected oligarchy or plutocracy, the rule of the (few) rich. According to Plato, a preoccupation with wealth is even more base than a preoccupation with honor, and, moreover, the rule by the wealthy would inevitably bring about class warfare and alienation.1 Next he rejected democracy as yet a further degeneration of government, though what he meant by this word is something different from a modern understanding of it. For Plato, in a smallish city-state like that of Athens, democracy meant the actual and equal participation of every citizen in the affairs of state, rather than participation by representation.2 When one examines Plato’s formation of democracy it is easy to see that democracy has evolved and developed from his conception of it. Plato’s classic critique of democracy is that majority rule ultimately becomes mob rule. Finally, Plato rejected despotism and dictatorships as acceptable forms of government.

Plato’s solution was to create a regime of the best, or better yet – an aristocracy. But Plato didn’t mean rule by the landed nobility. Aristocracy simply means “rule of the best” and for Plato the best were philosophers. And this is where Plato’s epistemology comes into play. Plato believed philosophers were the only ones who have escaped the world of becoming and peered into the transcendent world of pure being. From this, Plato believes philosophers can discover the absolutes of truth, goodness, and beauty. Philosophers are those who have been unchained from the mundane elements of this world and able to discover the ultimate truths of reality. According to Plato, they have escaped the darkness of the Cave and have beheld the Good.3 Plato himself calls this the central thesis of the Republic: “Philosophers must be kings.”4 In the Republic, Plato uses Socrates to explain why a philosopher king would be the best ruler,

Unless either philosophers become kings in their countries or those who are now called kings and rulers come to be sufficiently inspired with a genuine desire for wisdom; unless that is to say political power and philosophy meet together, while the many natures who now go their several ways in the one or the other direction are forcibly debarred from doing so, there can be no rest from troubles, my dear Glaucon, for states, nor yet as I believe, for all mankind; nor can this commonwealth which we have imagined ever till then see the light of day and grow to its full stature. This it was that I have so long hung back from saying; I knew what a paradox it would be, because it is hard to see that there is no other way of happiness either for the state of for the individual.5

Plato believes that the best form of rule is the “philosopher king” and such a person will have the innate qualities of temperance, courage, graciousness, and one who loves truth, justice, and wisdom. Plato rhetorically asks the question “Since the philosophers are those who can apprehend the eternal and unchanging, while those who cannot do so, but are lost in the mazes of multiplicity and change, are not philosophers, which of the two ought to be in control of the state?”6

Plato did try to install a philosopher kingship in Syracuse but was asked to leave when his project failed. It is difficult to conceive of such a regime in the twenty-first century. It is unlikely that, today, many will accept the idea that philosophers should rule over the masses. Not everyone holds to Plato’s metaphysics of truth and reality and it would be difficult to find a Platonic philosopher-king today that will appeal to a majority of people. History has rarely seen a philosopher given to political pursuits, or a politician given to philosophical investigation. While there have been many political philosophers throughout history, few have been able to combine a genuine pursuit of philosophy with the pragmatic, consensual, and daily concerns of political life. (A couple of rare exceptions would be Marcus Aurelius and perhaps Vaclav Havel in the twentieth century.) Nonetheless, any form of intellectual aristocracy would fail to gain the consent of a large segment of a society that is always suspicious of intellectual or philosophic elites. Furthermore, not everyone would like other features of Plato’s social-political program. While it is true that he was one of the earliest advocates of women’s rights (the philosopher-king could easily be a woman for Plato), he also proposed a full-scale social program of shared community property and children, eugenics, arranged marriages, and censorship. While Plato was no friend of democracy, his critiques of shared rule have shaped the discussion of democracy for thousands of years. It was Plato’s student Aristotle that is among the first of the ancient theorists to give a presentation and defense of democracy. The next post will explore the political contributions Aristotle makes to political thought.

1 Miller, 494.

2 Ibid.

3 In the Republic, book seven, Plato gives his analogy of the cave. Plato argues that most people take this world for ultimate reality when in fact the particulars of this world actually reflect transcendent reality that is more real than this world. Only by escaping the embodied reality of this world – the cave – and peering into the transcendent realm can one find truth and ultimate reality.

4 Miller, 494.

5 Plato, The Republic, 473C – E, tr. Francis MacDonald Cornford (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945).

6 Ibid., 484B.

Consensual Government, Intellectual History

On Democracy, Part Three

by Dave Seng

Part two can be found here.

The sovereign authority in classical Athens was the Assembly (ekklesia – people’s assembly). This Assembly would debate important issues of the polis and vote on decisions relating to foreign and domestic policy. The people in the Assembly were empowered to elect military and financial magistrates. The Assembly also had the power to appoint a panel of legislators to initiate legislation and to appoint judges for political trials.1 Decisions made by the Assembly were done by majority vote – usually a show of hands.

The Assembly met forty times a year on a hill called the Pnyx (just outside the Acropolis) and consisted of 6,000 male citizens. Any adult male citizen could take part and if numbers were wanting, the magistrates ordered a sweep of public places with a scarlet rope, which brought in enough people for business to be transacted.2 Pericles introduced payment for duty in the Assembly and although it was less than a days wage it was attractive enough that the magistrates had to keep people out. Pericles introduced pay to allow the poorer citizens a chance to participate in the governing body of Athens. Any adult male citizen could speak in the Assembly; the right to speak openly and freely was known as parrhesia – the most precious right of all Athenians. Nonetheless, this right was sometimes given over to rhetors, those who could sway the assembly by their powerful speaking abilities. In contrast, Sparta allowed its citizens the right to vote, but speaking was restricted only to the kings, magistrates, and senior council members.3

The Assembly worked in conjunction with the Council. The Council served as a check on the majority rule of the Assembly. The Assembly could only vote on proposals that had first been approved by the council. In this sense, the council served as our legislative bodies do today.4 The council was appointed annually by lot, equally from the ten tribes. It represented a cross-section of Athenians, and would normally keep illegal proposals from coming to a vote. All laws had to be consistent with the Athenian constitution. If someone put a law or proposal forward that was counter to the constitution they would be charged with violating the law, and if found guilty, charged a heavy fine.5

Legislation could be framed only by a representative body chosen by lot; this legislative panel was known as the Nomothetai. If the Assembly wished to modify the laws, it would have to refer the matter to this body. If the legislative panel approved a modification to the laws, that would then come to the Assembly for a vote.6

The Athenians did not employ professional judges or prosecutors. The popular courts (dikasteria) met on roughly 200 days in a year. On a court day members of the panel of 6,000 jurors showed up in the morning in the Agora (a sacred meeting area for political purposes) and a number of jurors were selected by lot in order to discourage any jury tampering and bribery. These courts consisted of 201 or 401 judges (the Athenians did not make a strong distinction between jurors and judges) for private actions and 501 or more in public actions.7 (Socrates’ trial contained 501 jurors. Again, the reason for the large juries was to discourage those who wanted to bribe the jury. The 501st vote was given to Athena in the case of a tie and would always vote for acquittal.) Each court was presided over by a magistrate and in a session of some eight hours, the judges had to hear and decide either one public action or a number of private actions.8

Some important positions were filled by election. Athens had about 1,200 magistrates (archai), elected from among citizens over 30 who presented themselves as candidates. About 100 were elected by the Assembly whereas the 1,100 were chosen by lot, often organized in boards of ten with one representative from each tribe. The period of office was restricted to one year and a magistrate selected by lot could only hold the same office once whereas elected magistrates could be re-elected.9 Before entering office magistrates had to undergo an examination before a board and, at the end of their term of office, to render accounts before another board. This was done to provide public accountability of elected officials. The magistrates’ principle tasks were to summon and preside over the decision making bodies, and to see the execution of the decisions made. Of the other boards of magistrates the most important were the ten generals (strategoi) who commanded the army and navy and oversaw the financial obligations of the polis. They also worked with the nine archons to supervise the law courts and major festivals.10

This picture of Athenian democracy is a very different one from contemporary understandings of democracy. In the Assembly and popular courts almost the whole people participated (or at least all present citizens), and as council and magistracies were continually changing their personnel, the people really did become the ruler.11 The Athenians were ruled by assemblies and councils and it is amazing to think that they had no professional judges and prosecutors, relying solely on lot to find individuals to fill important judicial positions. But the Athenians actually believed all educated citizens were equal for such tasks, and formed a much more democratic system than we have today which relies on a professional class of judges, lawyers, and publicity managers. The Athenian system worked as well as it did because it relied on citizen participation, common education, and common traditions, customs, and culture – Pericles himself refers to a common ethical code “which although unwritten, yet cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace.”12 The Athenians had a profound respect for their community and life together. Furthermore, the ancient Athenians really believed in the institutions of law and consensual rule – institutions they helped discover and form through trial and error. However, democracy was not always popular even among the Athenians. Plato was among the first ancient theorists to express doubts about democracy as the best form of government.

1 The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization. Ed. by Hornblower, Simon and Anthony Spawforth. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998), S. V. democracy, Athenian.

2 Woodruff, Paul. First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 33.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid., 34.

6 Ibid.

7 The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization. S. V. democracy, Athenian.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Ed. Hammond, N.G. L. and H.H. Scullard. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.), S.V. Democracy.

12 Thucydides, 396.

Ethics, Intellectual History, Metaphysics

John Locke, Metaphysics, and Ethics.

by Dave Seng

The true is what is. – St. Augustine.

In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, John Locke makes this curious statement, “Our business here is not to know all things, but those which concern our conduct.”1 Why would Locke make such a statement in a work about the sources, nature, and validity of human knowledge? What, if any, is the connection between ethics and epistemology? Anyone familiar with Locke’s essay knows that ethics is not his central concern and yet he makes this statement which seems to put human conduct at the center of his inquiry.

A correct understanding of metaphysics will help us understand the relationship between how we know things and how we should behave but first we should look at the classical distinction between theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge. Although he does not exactly say this, Locke is getting at the distinction between theoretical and practical knowledge and how they might be related. These categories come to us from Aristotle. According to Aristotle, theoretical knowledge has to do with investigating things like metaphysics, the nature of the person, whether or not there is a God, the ultimate causes of reality, and transcendent truth such as the good, true, and beautiful. Practical knowledge includes pursuing life deliberately towards a good end (ethics), fulfilling one’s vocation wisely, and knowing how to do basic things like changing a tire on a car, building a house, or engaging in a craft.

While I think important connections exist between particular beings (automobile tires) and Being itself, I believe Locke is pointing us to the epistemological aspect of metaphysics and human conduct. After all, if ethics and human conduct is an important concern in our lives (and I believe it is), we must first understand the nature of human beings and the world we live in. If we do not understand the metaphysical nature of what it means to be human, we are likely to get what it means to live correctly wrong. This is one area where theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge go hand in hand.

Philosopher Daniel Sullivan puts it this way, “To judge rightly of human actions, therefore, we have to know what human nature is and its place in the scheme of things. Human nature, then, as seen by reason in its right relation to all reality, will be the test or standard by which we judge the morality of our actions.”2

Locke, therefore, wants us to understand that if we know the structure of reality correctly, we will have a better chance of discovering correct human conduct. I believe that metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics are related. Metaphysical knowledge is not entirely theoretical and ethics is not completely practical (it rests on prior and more ultimate concerns). What Locke helps us to understand is that even knowledge and ethics must have a metaphysical foundation.

Of course, Locke was not completely right in his epistemology and he makes mistakes. His rejection of innate ideas puts him at risk of being an anti-essentialist. Locke was a much better political philosopher than an epistemologist. However, he raises important concerns about what it means to be human and how one should interact with the world.

To read more deeply on this topic see:

Daniel Sullivan, An Introduction to Philosophy: Perennial Principles of the Classical Realist Tradition. TAN books, 2009.

Ed. L. Miller, Questions That Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy (any edition is fine).

Louis Pojman, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. Wadsworth, 1995.

1. John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Great Books of the Western World, vol. 33 (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1993), 95.

2Daniel Sullivan, An Introduction to Philosophy: Perennial Principles of the Classical Realist Tradition, (Charlotte, North Carolina: TAN Books, 2009), 150.

Consensual Government, Intellectual History

On Democracy, Part Two

by Dave Seng

This is part two in a series on the history of consensual government as it developed in the West. We will spend the next couple of posts looking at ancient Athens. Click here for part one.

This ideal, or dream of democracy, was given to us by the ancient Greeks. The thought of sharing power among the many rather than the few never even occurred to the Sumerians, Hittites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, or the great enemy of Greek freedom – the Persians. Consensual government is a product of Western civilization and finds its starting point among the ancient Greeks.

The shape of Athenian democracy, however, was very different from modern liberal democracies. During 507 – 321 B.C., Athens was the closest thing this world has seen to a direct constitutional democracy. For this to be possible, certain social structures, customs, and institutions had to be in place – unique conditions rarely experienced in human history. The entire population of Attica, the surrounding area of Athens, was probably between 200,000 and 300,000.1 Athens itself had about 30,000 enfranchised adult male citizens. Slaves and women were not allowed to vote. (Slaves alone may have been a quarter of the population of Athens.) Nonetheless, because the voting population was so low, they could all assemble in one place, listen to speeches and debates, and make important decisions for the polis. This form of direct democracy is not possible in any contemporary democracy. Athenian democratic success largely owes its achievement to outstanding and talented leaders such as, Solon, Cleisthenes, and Pericles – men who were articulate and could balance the rule of law with pragmatic, political, and economic concerns for both the aristocracy and “mesoi” – the emerging middle class. The strength of democracies rests equally with leaders that work towards the common good and the average citizen.

In addition, Greece was culturally unified. Herodotus speaks of the unity during the Persian wars between Sparta, Athens and the rest of Greece of their unity against the hated “barbarian” Xerxes,

Again, there is our common brotherhood with the Greeks: our common language, the altars and the sacrifices of which we all partake, the common character which we all bear – did the Athenians betray all these, of a truth it would not be well. Know then now, if ye have not known it before, that while one Athenian remains alive, we will never join alliance with Xerxes.2

The ancient Greeks would find cohesion in the same language, customs, and traditions. They shared a common belief and reverence in the gods of Homer. Family piety was common as they sought to honor their ancestors who were born from the land that they worked and died for. Sports played an important role in every polis and even wars were stopped so the soldiers could participate in the games that would involve all of Greece. They also shared a common interest in art, philosophy, literature, and history – human pursuits that sparked a love for beauty, discussion, rationality, and free inquiry. Though there were ethnic differences between Dorians, Ionians, and Phrygians there was much more to unite them as well. Common institutions held the Greek spirit together.

Athenian direct democracy simply would not be feasible in today’s contemporary political situation. The ancient Athenians were particular to their own time and place and to try to recreate what they achieved 2,500 years ago in today’s world would not be wise. Since the rise of the nation-state during the nineteenth century modern democracies have become too large for direct participation. An examination of Athenian democracy is still valuable, however, as an aid in discovering ideas and clues that would help us understand our own time, how democracies work, and how to improve them. No democracy is perfect but a study of the past can give us ideas that we can apply today. Western civilization should not be seen as static, either. It is evolving, changing, adapting, and growing. The Greeks were fascinated with other cultures and implemented what was useful and seemed good to them. Herodotus admired elements of Egyptian and Persian culture. Thucydides had an affinity to Spartan society. Democracy itself is an evolving concept and the twenty first century brings a whole set of different challenges and opportunities to consensual rule that the Greeks never faced. By carefully studying the past we can learn how to adapt and incorporate ideas that may be helpful today. On the other hand, the Athenians did make mistakes. But they made different mistakes than we are making today. The important thing about the past is that it can serve to correct our own mistakes, if we are willing to listen responsibly and learn from those who have gone before us.

Athenian democracy was different from any democracies in existence today. Even so, they were guided by ideas that still resonate with contemporary democracies – ideas of freedom, equality, rule of law, legal checks on majority rule, citizen participation, public audit of elected officials, and citizen control of the military. The basic structure of Athenian government consisted of the assembly, council, and elected officials (generals that held military posts and sometime served as political leaders or archons). The Athenians believed all these posts were to function under the rule of law.

The rule of law was essential to Athenian democracy. Pericles in his funeral oration explains that it is the laws which provide equal opportunity for everyone to participate in the governing bodies of Athens,

Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his position.3

The idea that law should provide equal justice to all was a revolutionary concept in the ancient world and Pericles believed it was among the most important institutions of Athenian democracy. It created equality, freedom, and a citizenry that respected both the magistrates and the laws. Nonetheless, slaves and women were disenfranchised and the idea of equality was more of a political idea and did not seem to spread to economic or social spheres of society. Perhaps the Athenians did not fully understand this contradiction or realize what to do with the powerful idea of democracy.

1 Woodruff, First Democracy: The Challenge of An Ancient Idea. (New York: Oxford University Press), 2005, 32.

2 Herodotus, The History of Herodotus, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 6, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 287.

3 Thucydides, The Peloponnesian Wars, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 6, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 396.