Ana içeriğe atla

Thucydides' and Socrates' Articulation of Justice

Socrates 1000 yıl sonra doğmuş olsaydı müthiş bir müslüman olurdu ama yine de asılırdı. Demokrasi kötü, kimse kimsenin işine karışmasın, ve her zaman erdemli olalım. İslama ne kadar uygun fikirler gibi gözükse de bu fikirlerin temeli islamla çatışıyor. Bu çatışmayı başka denemelerimde tartıştım, dolasıyla burada bırakıyorum, çok da ilgimi çeken bir konu değil.

Thucydides ile Sokrates'i karşılaştırırken, Sokrates'i hem haklı hem de pratik buldum. Bunun en büyük sebebi Thucydides'in fikirlerini takdir edemememden geliyor olabilir. Çok da orijinal ve keyifli olmayan bir denemeyle karşındayım. Sokrates'in ahlak felsefesinin ana sütunlarını anlamaktan başka bir şey yapmıyorum.

 Control of emotions and appetites is the source of justice as Socrates argues. He initially establishes 3 classes in his city. The auxiliary, the guardian, and the workers. When no classes meddle with each other, justice emerges. A guardian who focuses on his job and does not ask for more is an example of justice. Socrates compares this notion to a person and argues that just like the just city a person also has 3 parts of his soul; appetite, rationale, and the spirit. If the rational rules over the spirit and the appetite, it seems that the person is just. However, this raises a question: If an evil man holds the reins of his appetite and spirit, isn’t he also just despite his wretchedness?

   Socrates would answer this question by suggesting that no virtue is truly a virtue when it is not tied with wisdom. Since justice is a virtue, an evil man who is not wise is not virtuous. To elaborate, In Phaedo Socrates praises dying claiming that earthly pleasures impair our judgment. A true philosopher would indulge in matters belonging to the Platonic realm where every concept’s true form lies. To do that one needs to deprive him of all pleasures in the mortal world. He even goes on to say that people who are taught to be wise are in the wrong as they exchange ephemeral pleasures for long-lasting yet earthly pleasures. He says “they fear to be deprived of other pleasures which they desire, so they keep away from some pleasures because they are overcome by others” (68e) So, a person who acts justly to acquire the reverence of the public or avoid affiliations that injustice begets is not actually just. This is because as Socrates puts it “When these are exchanged for one another in separation from wisdom, such virtue is only an illusory appearance of virtue;” An important question to ask here would be: How do we tie down virtues to wisdom then? As stated before, wisdom emanates from the divine realm and although it is impossible to have full access to that realm, if we separate ourselves from earthly matters, we will have a glimpse at that realm. When we apply this logic to the primary question of this essay If an evil man holds the reins of his appetite and spirit, isn’t he also just despite his wretchedness? it becomes clear that this sort of virtue is only an illusion. A truly just man who has tied down justice with wisdom would not indulge in earthly matters and hence would not become evil.

    However, Thucydides’ account can differ from that of Socrates. Thucydides argues that it is just to exercise your power on the weak and it is just for the weak to submit to it. In The Melian Dialogue Athenians think of justice in terms of nature. They suggest that “Nature always compels gods (we believe) and men (we are certain) to rule over anyone they can control” (106). In other words, the laws of civilization are dictated by the laws of nature. So, according to Athenians justice is tied with profit “whatever profits them to be just” (106). This ostensibly justifies invading smaller and weaker nations. This renders morality useless when talking about politics and it draws a very pragmatistic view of what justice is. When we apply this to the evil man, Thucydides might suggest that as long as the evil man is powerful enough to exercise his wretchedness over other people, he is just. However, he would further claim that tyranny is not just. This is because in the dialogue Athenians give Melians the chance to submit themselves. The war will break off between them only if Melians resist. Therefore, it would not be just for the evil man to voraciously kill slaves who are obedient and do not resist.

Yorumlar

Yorum Gönder

Bu blogdaki popüler yayınlar

Rhetoric in Hobbes' Leviathan

  Hobbes’ Word Play Hobbes argues in favor of a monarch or an oligarch. To be more precise, he is in favor of the idea that multiplicity comes with complexity, harming the integrity of the state. In his opinion, men are mostly power-driven, greedy beings who must surrender themselves to a sovereign power that can spread the terror of punishment. According to Hobbes, this fear of punishment is the only effective motivating force that can keep people from brutally murdering each other. While this Hobbesian idea of the state portrays the sovereign’s subjects almost as though they are slaves, this essay will argue that Hobbes is not fundamentally against liberty and allows it within the constraints of laws. Hobbes's description of liberty suggests that only external impediments are against freedom. He states that liberty is “the absence of external impediments” (189) and, although these impediments may take away man’s power to do what he would, they do not prevent men from using th...
1 yorum
Devamı

Rousseau on Legitimacy of State

Hobbes'dan sonra Rousseau okumayı Proust'tan sonra Daphnes ve Chloe okumaya benzetiyorum. Proust aşkı öyle yapay, çıkarcı ve öyle çirkin yansıtıyor ki, ondan sonra okuduğun her romana ister istemez Proust'un realist bakış açısından bakıyorsun. Belki de realizm sevdamı bırakmalıyımdır. Hobbes'un determinist bakış açısı da birçok argümanını epey ikna edici kılıyor. Bazen bu bakış açısından kaçmak istiyor insan. Hobbes kimmiş lan, ben ölümlü tanrıya irademi falan teslim edemem, gayet özgürüm demek istiyor. Yine de gel gör ki Hobbes haklı. Nasıl, Kant ödev ahlakında nasıl ki herkes davranışlarının topluma yansıdığını varsayarak hareket etmeli diyorsa, Hobbes da yapılmak istemediğini yapma diyor. Buna karşı çıkmak da biraz zor. Rousseau abi Social Contract'ında denese de Emile kitabındaki ikna ediciliğini devam ettiremiyor gibi hissediyorum. Birazdan okuyacak olduğun yazıda da oldukça soyut fikirler göreceksin ve yer yer kendine e ama niye diye soracaksın. Bil ki ben de ...
Yorum Gönder
Devamı

Hobbes’ Paradox

Hobbes’ Paradox Resolved According to Hobbes, people are born with passions that ultimately lead them into a never-ending war. They require artificial power to stop killing each other. Unless such a power is erected, Hobbes suggests, leaving the state of nature is impossible since people are not inclined to cooperate and trust each other. The core reason why it is impossible to leave the state of nature is because of the innate passions people have that drive them to be constantly in conflict. Hobbes states that in the condition of nature, “any reasonable suspicion” renders any covenant or promise invalid since “bonds of words are too weak to bridle men’s ambition, avarice, anger, and other passions…” (196). Here, Hobbes highlights the importance of punishments, suggesting that without the motivating fear of punishments, covenants are practically invalid. It is also important to understand what Hobbes means by the condition of nature. He argues that because men are born equal, they...
Yorum Gönder
Devamı