Ethics, Great Books, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts

On Plutarch, Moral Excellence, And History: An Examination of the Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, Part Three

by Dave Seng
Roman Statesman and Philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106 – 43 BC, detail of a marble bust; in the Capitoline Museums, Rome.

This is part three of three posts on Plutarch’s Lives. Part two can be found here.

That Plutarch and Aristotle connect morality with politics or society is neither uncommon nor hard to understand. For the ancients, the purpose of virtuous action aims at “eudaimonia” which means “well-being” or “happy-life.” The virtues are habits of conduct that provide happy well-being. Essentially this is achieved by finding the mean in ethical reflection and action. However, Aristotle’s starting point (along with much of ancient political philosophy) is that man is primarily a political animal. Moral excellence is not only necessary at the individual level but also at the social level because society is made up of individuals and all forms of moral excellence (individual and social) strive for the common good – that which is good for everyone. Ancient moral philosophy stresses the idea of the “polis,” or social community, which is formed for the realization of the common good and, as in the individual, the virtues are conducive to the common good, or well-being of the community (Miller 557). In other words, the polis or state is then responsible for nurturing moral excellence and enacting laws contributing to the common good and well-being. The morally responsible individual contributes to the common good by encouraging the state or community to pass laws and behave in ways that support moral excellence and human well-being.

A core value for the ancient Romans was the Stoic notion of “officium.” This was a strong sense of commitment to fulfill the responsibilities the individual was born to fulfill within the state for the common good. Stoic moral philosophy is also based on the view that the world, as one great city, is a unity. Man, as a world citizen, has an obligation and loyalty to all things in that city. He must play an active role in world affairs, remembering that the world exemplifies virtue and right action (Britannica 2006). Therefore Stoic political philosophy corresponds with much of Aristotle’s political thought in the emphasis of virtuous action aimed toward the common good, natural law, and a moral life based on rational reflection.

From the classical perspective, modern American individualism looks very strange. Classical ethical theory is focused on the larger community and the shared, common good to which the individual participants in that community contribute through their virtuous activity (Miller 558). Much more holistic in its approach, classical virtue theory would question much of modern American individualism focused simplistically on the rights of individuals. No one can pursue their own good completely isolated and independent from their social community or government.

It would go beyond the scope of this post to fully analyze every ethical system conceived in Western thought. I have simply tried to show the intellectual climate and historical background in which Plutarch wrote and outline a few implications from his ideas. There are several important insights we can learn from Plutarch and the first is that in classical virtue philosophy, moral values are inextricably fused to political values. The emphasis on virtue holds larger implications on the social community and state, which is why Plutarch wrote his biographies.

Also, a recovery of virtue ethics has practical ramifications for today. Society and the world of commerce should be interested in recovering the virtues. Capitalism itself should be aware of corporate leaders who lack virtue and make thousands of dollars while at the same time their company stock prices fall and workers are laid off. A recovery of the common good and virtue will be a healthy corrective to predatory capitalism. Some kind of recovery of classical virtue theory is needed in contemporary social and ethical thought.

Finally, Plutarch helps one to understand the intersection of history and moral philosophy. Plutarch falls within the tradition of the Roman historians Livy, Pliny the Younger, and Tacitus (among others) who insisted that the purpose of history is to teach us something by contemplating examples of morality. The first-century Greek philosopher Dionysius Halicarnassus even said, “History is philosophy, teaching by example” (Lukacs 40). When a historian such a Plutarch places before his readers examples of virtuous action it is natural to inquire what exactly is meant by moral excellence. It is helpful to use the analytical tools of reason and logic developed by philosophers to investigate moral conduct.

History also helps one to think philosophically in another sense. By contrasting and comparing (as Plutarch does with his lives) one discovers how to make similar comparisons to his or her own time. By looking across time and investigating the past, one discovers a broader perspective and will be able to offer correctives to one’s own contemporary situation. Sometimes the ancients made the same mistakes that we make today. Other times they do things in a superior manner which we should learn from. The study of history opens one to new ways of thinking and offers possibilities of viewing the world that spans across time and space.

History strengthens and enriches the human spirit. There seems to be something ennobling and inspiring when one reads Herodotus’ account of the battle of Marathon or the three hundred Spartans at Thermopylae. These ancient Greeks understood what it meant to sacrifice for the common good. Likewise, Plutarch’s accounts of Alexander or Caesar are equally edifying. History takes on existential implications when one reads Thucydides’ account of human nature and realizes that humans have always been driven by the same passions, desires, and appetites. History has a way of showing us who we are and what it means to be human. Plutarch understands history as a way to improve the human spirit and has a way of making his readers think through some of the enduring questions of life. For this Plutarch is correctly listed among the great authors.

Works cited/consulted

Aristotle. The Basic Works of Aristotle. ed. by Richard McKeon. New York: Random House, Inc., 2001.

Lukacs, John. A Student’s Guide To The Study Of History. Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 2001.

Miller, Ed. Questions That Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy. 4th ed. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1996.

Plutarch. The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952.

Pojman, Louis. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. 2nd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995.

“Stoicism.” Encyclopedia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopedia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD 5 July 2006.

Thornton, Bruce. Humanities Handbook. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 2001.

Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts

On Democracy: Part Thirteen

by Dave Seng
John Jay 1745 – 1829

It is important to remember, however, that America is a product of the Enlightenment. Madison, Jay, Hamilton, and Washington were all (some more, some less) men of their times. The Enlightenment was a philosophical period of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, characterized by belief in the power of human reason and the perfectibility of mankind. There are several ideas that were emphasized during the Enlightenment but the primary ones are – all humans are by nature rational and inherently good and the idea of progress and whatever is new is intrinsically better than anything that has existed before. Also, a strong anti-authoritarianism existed among Enlightenment thinkers and custom, tradition, and especially religion have little value due to their irrational and superstitious nature. Some of the founders of America had a strong sense that America would be a source of progress and enlightenment to the rest of the world. Progress and democracy were now the rulers of a new world and provided the best hope for the world – the days of kings, lords, and nobles were clearly seen as over. Even Abraham Lincoln said that America “was the last best hope of mankind.” America would eventually see the rise of the Progressive Party.1 However, the twentieth century saw the disintegration of Enlightenment and Modernist ideas with the advent of two world wars. Progress seemed to be incredibly elusive. The twentieth century experienced the rise of postmodernism.

Postmodernism is a contemporary interdisciplinary movement that stresses the wholistic, pragmatic, historically relative, character of reality and knowledge.2 Postmodernism in some respects contains serious problems. Nonetheless, it has also clearly shown the errors of the Enlightenment and Modern eras.3 The perfectibility of mankind is no longer seen as inevitable. That which is new is no longer seen as better. People are now more likely to question a blind allegiance to progress. Postmodernism now provides some interesting possibilities for democracy and this is where the Greeks can help us. Since that which is new is no longer seen as valid, we can once again learn from the wisdom of the past. Because, in some ways, the Enlightenment project of progress and perfectibility failed, we can once again listen to the Greeks who would remind us of the unchanging nature of mankind. This nature is not always inherently good or perfectible. We, tragically, and concretely live in a world of absolutes and social programs that seek the utopian perfection of humanity are sorely disappointing. Reality (including political reality) has its own intractable way of being. This is why Plato’s utopian project failed when he tried to implement it in Syracuse. There is a certain logic and rhythm to human existence that transcends the rational and empirical. Human beings do not think or act in strict Enlightenment or rationalist categories. Enlightenment and Modernist theories of human nature were failures. The Greeks would remind us that we are all moved by the same desires, appetites, and impulses. Human nature is always guided by honor, status, a desire for recognition, and plagued by envy and jealousy. Mankind would be quite crass and uncouth without the thin veneer of civilization based on law, culture, tradition, and religion. Further, the Greeks would cause us to doubt any self-acclaimed theorist that would claim to have overcome human nature. The Athenians held no illusions of what it means to be human but they did believe in the equality of human beings and the wisdom of careful reflection and debate when it comes to democratic self-rule. The Athenians were aware of the innate human desire to grasp for more than it ought and many were ostracized or exiled whenever they sought more political power than one should have. If the Athenians feared anything, they feared tyranny in all its forms. The Athenians were not strictly concerned with the economy either, for they were aware of other cultures that had more wealth such as the Persians. But the Athenians understood that law and civic virtue supplied their freedom.

The Greeks provide us with ways to think about our current American democratic situation. It is hard to assess the contemporary American political situation as democratic. I can only give a few examples here of American democratic failure but there are many more. Whenever a representative places himself or herself above the law this person is functioning in an undemocratic manner. The same is true for political parties. Whenever one party dominates the political scene, the democratic process shuts down. The nomination process in America is equally nondemocratic, and parties are served instead of the people.

Today, candidates are chosen based on their popularity, not their merit or qualifications. In fact, political races today are a little more than publicity contests. A law enacted in Oregon in 1954 states that only candidates recognized by the national news media will be allowed on the ballots. This makes the media the nominators instead of the people. And media may, or may not, allow third parties representation. It is unclear how the fairness doctrine will accommodate third parties because it is based on a two-party framework. Since the 1920’s the media has become a major force in determining the contours of American politics often in the form of entertainment and at the expense of content and thoughtful debate. The media is more capable of shaping a candidate’s “image” rather than his or her ideas. Mass communication itself is not the problem, however, or at least, not the only one. Media as a technology and product of human beings will always bring with it the virtues and vices of human beings. Humans bring to the media the problems of the human condition itself. In America, the communication industry is largely unreflective and thoughtless because as a whole people are not given over to reflecting on the important issues of the day. But it must also be remembered that populism is not democracy.

In the next post, we will reflect on how America has shifted from a republic, to democracy, to populism, and finally to a thinly veiled constitutional bureaucracy.

1 Of course, the Progressive Party was a result of modernity but the Enlightenment provided the foundation of modernity and shared the same concerns.

2 Miller, 589.

3 Postmodernism can be taken too far. But some of its critiques of the Enlightenment and Modernity are valid.

Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts

On Democracy, Part Eleven

by Dave Seng

Part ten can be found here.

In this post I examine the classical influence on the founding of America and the vision of James Madison.

Now we must jump many years to the founding of the American republic. It is not surprising to find that the founders of America were influenced by classical thought – and all the values of the Western intellectual and political tradition can be seen in the American State Papers and Federalist Papers, including debate, dissent, civic virtue, and the free exchange of ideas. The classical influence of early America can be discovered from the works they read, the architecture they built, and the documents they wrote. One obvious piece of evidence rests in the fact that the authors of the Federalist Papers wrote under the names of significant Roman leaders. Furthermore, many of the founders such as John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, were well versed in the classics and read Latin.

In America, constitutional government evolved from the idea of constitutional monarchy found in Europe. Although the founders envisioned a republic and not a democracy (they were very cautious of an extreme democracy), America finally became a popular democracy in 1828 with the election of Andrew Jackson. Nonetheless, at the beginning of American Republicanism was the conviction that consensual rule was possible and that governments existed to protect citizen’s natural rights and to promote the common good of all people.1 This is the idea of classical liberalism and has become the social-political theory that stresses freedom from undue governmental interference and views the state as the guarantor of the basic liberties and rights of the individual. This is basically a classical idea; however, a thinker like Aristotle would see a closer relationship between the individual and the state.

In the early days of the American republic, there was much debate about the constitution itself. The parties were divided between those who wanted a stronger national government, the federalists, and those who wanted more sovereignty among the individual states – the antifederalists. The friends of the Constitution (the federalists) had the advantage of superior intellectual firepower. Among the federalists were the two most eminent men in America at the time, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.2 Washington himself declared that the choice lay between the Constitution and disunion. Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay, under the joint pseudonym “Publius,” wrote a long series of newspaper essays explaining and extolling the new document.3 These essays were later published in book form and are considered the greatest intellectual defense of the Constitution by some of the early Republic’s greatest thinkers.

For example, James Madison, one of the writers of the Federalist Papers, was very concerned about the role of human nature and the propensity for people to divide into factions. For Madison, factions are different than regular political parties. He defines a faction as, “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”4 In other words, factions are those groups which will seek there own power illegitimately and disregard the rights of others in the process. Factions do not regard the democratic principle of equality as an important ideal nor understand or value the idea that in a democracy harmony is essential. People have to be united – a government for the people and by the people must first of all be supported by the people and truly believed in if it is going to work. Madison understands the corrosive effects of factions on a consensual government. Nonetheless, it seems to be part of human nature to divide into factions as soon as individuals are given the freedom to do so. Madison was concerned about how to keep a faction from becoming a tyranny on one hand and how to maintain fair representation on the other. But Madison understood that factions would be a problem to any liberal republic because it is so basic to the human instinct,

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions and many other points as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment of different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have in turn divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their most violent conflicts.5

Madison understands that factions are a part of any liberal society. He is also aware that there are only two solutions to the problem of factions. The first is to eliminate the cause of factions. But this would require the elimination of liberty, an unacceptable option. The other is to give every citizen the same interests, passions, and opinions – and this option is clearly impossible. Madison knows there will always be independent thinkers. So the third option for Madison is to control the effects of factions. Madison believes the best possibility for this rests in the rule of law and to allow factions a voice in their own government.6 He explains, “The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.”7 Much like Aristotle, Madison understands the value of allowing differing parties a voice in their own government functioning under legitimate legal protection and constraints (consensual government always seeks a check on majority rule to ensure the rights of the minority). Of course, when factions are in the minority they are less likely to prevail in their evil intentions. Madison’s concern rests in what could happen if a faction became a majority. Madison concludes that a pure democracy can not protect itself from this phenomenon. “From this view of the subject it may be concluded that pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.”8 He goes on to explain,

A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.9

For Madison then, a pure democracy is a government in which every citizen participates, is small in size, and contains no check on majority rule. It is unclear, however, if any such government has existed because the ancient Athenians functioned under the rule of law, and was regulated by assembly, councils, and archons. Rome itself transformed from a republic (also under the rule of law) to an empire without becoming a direct democracy. Nonetheless, Athens was close to being a direct democracy and Thucydides does point out the mob mentality of the Athenians after the death of Pericles. But the point that a democracy can become a tyranny is a legitimate concern, the French revolution being the primary example. The ancient Greek political thinkers were all aware of the tyranny of the majority. And there was nothing more they hated than tyranny.

Next time, I will examine the particular definition of republic held by Madison.

1 Goodwin, Gerald, Richard Current, Paula A. Franklin. A History of the United States. 2nd ed. (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1985), 119.

2 Ibid., 131.

3 Ibid.

4 The Federalist, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 43, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 50.

5 Ibid.

6 Hamilton believes most factions arise from differences between the propertied and non-propertied classes.

7 Ibid., 50.

8 Ibid. 51.

9 Ibid.

Consensual Government, Education, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts

On Democracy, Part Nine

by Dave Seng

Part eight can be found here.

Education is always necessary for any democracy regardless of time and place if it is to succeed. Megabyzus was correctly concerned about a government that was run by the uneducated. If citizens lack the abilities to read, write, discern ideas, and critically think about important questions, they will not be able to differentiate good policy from bad, excellent laws from those that are immoral. If citizens are uneducated it will be impossible for them to contribute intelligently to the important discussions of the day. In addition, if citizens lack a good education they will not be able to adequately judge a debate. Public debate, however, is essential to democracy. Often, an uneducated populace will uncritically believe the first thing they hear rather than reflecting on the facts critically and weighing evidence carefully – the very reason Thucydides wrote his grand history of the Peloponnesian War. “So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand,” he tells us.1

The Greek way of education was called Paideia and means something close to “general education.” It was not a specialized form of education but it did give the student the skills to read philosophy, literature, history, to speak persuasively, and to write meaningfully. Paideia did not prepare the student for a specific vocation – the student would find an apprenticeship for that. What the Greek student did learn was how to write, speak critically, and read carefully. The study of history gave the student a sense of the importance of the past as it influenced who they are and becoming to be. The study of literature captured the beauty of language and imagination. And learning philosophy and mathematics allowed the ancient student to think rationally, logically, and critically. This gave the student the general ability to think and communicate in a rational, articulate, and careful manner. They did not have what is today known as “cultural studies” but writers like Aristotle, Herodotus, and Thucydides wrote a lot about other cultures and the Athenians would assimilate the useful ideas they discovered from other civilizations. (Herodotus could arguably be called the first cultural historian.)

Plays were also a form of Greek education. From such playwrights as Euripides, Aeschylus, Sophocles, and the works of homer, Athenians would learn of their history, a sense of tradition (but not always accept tradition for tradition’s sake), and reflect on ideas. Playwrights would often question the ideas of the government and investigate values and civic priorities – as in the case of Sophocles’ Antigone – where the playwright examines the great questions of moral and civil law. The Greek theatre was a place to explore ideas and provide an education for the citizens.

The purpose of Greek education was to create excellent citizens. There was a symbiotic relationship between the state and educated citizens. Part of the role of the state, the Athenians believed, was to produce morally excellent citizens. Then, the educated citizens would be able to make wise decisions regarding the state and foreign policy. Paideia is the kind of education that makes for better citizens. The Athenians believed that “better” meant having more arête or excellence, virtue, or strength.2 It includes the idea of having the inner strength to do the right thing. Athenians believed that good education would make young people better able to use good judgment, to live reverently, and to make decisions with justice.3 Throughout the ages, the Western intellectual tradition has emphasized that education serves the purpose of making morally excellent citizens. As Robert Hutchins explains,

The aim of liberal education is human excellence, both private and public (for man is a political animal). Its object is the excellence of man as man and man as citizen. It regards man as an end, not as a means; and it regards the ends of life, and not the means to it. For this reason, it is the education of free men. Other types of education or training treat men as means to some other end or are at best concerned with the means of life, with earning a living, and not with its ends.4

There is a teleology and significance to learning that goes beyond earning a living. This is an essential and important difference between classical Greek education and the contemporary American conception of education.

Education, in the popular American mind, is for the purpose of getting a job. And American institutions of higher education have blindly accepted this notion. Now, the state and schools will educate its citizens to be good contributors to the state economy, (which in the end amounts to a form of socialism). The state is not primarily concerned with creating excellent citizens as in the classical tradition, but in creating subservient workers who can perform a trade to better the economy. Many who have been educated in this model learn a vocation and can become successful at their trade, but generally do not know how to carefully read, think or write critically about the most important questions of life. Many do not know how to think deeply about critical issues of the day, or how to handle intelligently the obstacles and challenges of life that might occur later in one’s existence. A purely vocational training qualifies one for little more than slave labor – and man is seen as a means to an end but not the end itself. On the other hand, following the Greek idea of paideia, someone with a liberal arts or humanities education is prepared to think broadly and across different fields of inquiry, consider opposing views, weigh evidence, and follow logical reasoning. These skills, based on careful reading and articulate communication are valuable for any number of employers and are really the best education for life itself. Learning should not cease when one finishes college. A liberal arts education will allow anyone to continue the life long process of learning – also skills valuable to employers in the ever changing workplace. More and more, employers are seeking individuals who can change skills quickly and those with a humanities or liberal arts education are able to do this since they are accustomed to move from one field of inquiry to another (such as history, philosophy, or literature). They are trained to read, write, and communicate well. Nonetheless, the pragmatic emphasis of a liberal arts education is a by product of what preparing for life should be. A pursuit of wisdom, learning and eloquence in education is the best preparation for life and work. State education often misses the point that education should prepare one for life and to become a more excellent citizen, not just to become workers in the state economy. The idea that the individual exists for the benefit of the state is a very narrow view of human life. Economics is not the only reality in life. Bill Clinton’s phrase “it’s the economy stupid” is a shallow understanding of human existence. Economics are important but it is only one element among many in determining a valuable, holistic approach to life and learning.5 A recovery of the classical idea of paideia will be a positive move towards a better democracy. Robert Hutchins explains the connection of democracy with liberal education,

This Western devotion to the liberal arts and liberal education must have been largely responsible for the emergence of democracy as an ideal. The democratic ideal is equal opportunity for full human development, and, since the liberal arts are the basic means of such development, devotion to democracy naturally results from devotion to them. On the other hand, if the acquisition of the liberal arts is an intrinsic part of human dignity, then the democratic ideal demands that we should strive to see to it that all have the opportunity to attain to the fullest measure of the liberal arts that is possible to each.6

The liberal arts teach human beings how to be free. The devotion to inquiry, free exchange of ideas, and rationalism allows citizens to think carefully about the most important questions of life – including, what is the best form of government? What sort of thing is justice and how should it be distributed? And does ethical theory hold implications for the community and state? These questions and how they have been answered have powerful implications for society and liberal democracies. A liberal arts education teaches us to strive for personal and public excellence, to think rationally, and to live well in a free society.

In the next post, we will further examine the role of education in classical Greece and explore why Pericles called Athens the “school of Hellas”.

1 Thucydides, 354.

2 Woodruff, Paul. First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 193.

3 Ibid.

4 Hutchins, Robert. The Great Conversation: A Reader’s Guide to Great Books of the Western World. (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1994), 49.

5 A strictly economic study of political reality often misses the point of human nature. Humans rarely function in strict economic categories; rather they are driven by non-economic and non-rational impulses. Irrational emotions and passions often drive people more than economics as is seen in the American economy where it is commonplace to consume more than one needs.

6 Hutchins, The Great Conversation, 50.