Plato: Statesman

by Christopher J. Rowe

Until now no English translation existed of the Statesman (one of Plato's central works on politics, and on much else besides) which was both accurate and nor was there a modern commentary which would help the reader through the argument, which was, in some parts, likely to be inaccessible without a guide.

256 pages, Kindle Edition

Published January 1, 1995

About the author

Christopher James Rowe OBE was a classical scholar known for his work on ancient Greek philosohy.

Reviews

[David Sweet · Rating 4 out of 5]

1. Background Context: A World in Transition
Plato wrote The Statesman late in his life (around 360–350 BC). This wasn't the "Golden Age" of Pericles anymore; it was a time of political fragmentation and anxiety.
* Post-War Exhaustion: Athens had been humbled by the Peloponnesian War. The old confidence in democracy was shaken, and the city had seen a rotation of bloody oligarchies and shaky restorations.
* The Sicilian Failure: This is the most personal context for Plato. He had tried—and spectacularly failed—to turn the tyrant of Syracuse, Dionysius II, into a philosopher-king. He was even briefly sold into slavery during his travels. The Statesman reflects a man who has seen how hard it is to actually "coach" a leader.
* Rise of the "Technical" Mind: The intellectual trend was moving toward classification and logic. People were obsessed with defining things precisely, a shift from the more poetic, myth-heavy style of Plato’s earlier works.

2. Biography of Plato: The Aristocrat Who Stayed
Plato (c. 427–347 BC) wasn't just a "thinker"; he was a man of high birth who felt the sting of politics personally.
* The Name: "Plato" was actually a nickname (meaning "Broad") given to him by his wrestling coach. His birth name was Aristocles.
* The Socratic Trauma: The defining moment of his life was the execution of his teacher, Socrates, by the Athenian democracy in 399 BC. This left Plato with a lifelong skepticism of "mob rule" and a drive to find a form of government based on knowledge rather than opinion.
* The Academy: He founded the Academy in Athens, arguably the first university in the Western world. He didn't just teach philosophy; he taught "political science" to the sons of the elite, hoping to influence the next generation of rulers.
* The Late Style: By the time he wrote The Statesman, Plato had become more analytical. He was less interested in the "Forms" as abstract ideas and more interested in how we use language to categorize the world.

3. Outline of The Statesman
The dialogue is a conversation between an Eleatic Stranger and Young Socrates (not the famous Socrates, who just sits and watches).
* The Method of Division (Diaeresis): Most of the book is an exercise in "splitting" definitions. To find a "Statesman," they start with "Knowledge," then "Command," then "Living things," narrowing it down until they find the specific craft of ruling humans.
* The Myth of the Reversed Cosmos: Plato tells a wild story about how the universe periodically reverses its rotation. In the "Age of Cronus," God guided everything. In our current "Age of Zeus," the pilot has let go of the rudder, and we have to figure things out for ourselves.
* The Art of Measurement: He distinguishes between "relative measurement" (big vs. small) and "the mean" (what is appropriate or "just right"). A statesman must hit the "mean."
* The Royal Weaver: The final definition. A leader is like a weaver who joins together the "warp" and the "woof"—the aggressive, courageous citizens and the quiet, moderate ones—to create a stable social fabric.
* Classification of Governments: He ranks six types of government based on whether they follow laws:
1. Monarchy (Best) vs. Tyranny (Worst).
2. Aristocracy vs. Oligarchy.
3. Democracy (The "best" of the lawless ones, but the "worst" of the lawful ones because it's so weak).

4. What is Plato Really Trying to Do?
If The Republic is about a "Utopia" (a place that exists nowhere), The Statesman is about political expertise as a technical craft.
The "Expert" vs. The "Law"
The most controversial point Plato makes is that the ideal ruler shouldn't be bound by laws. He argues that a perfect doctor doesn't follow a "medical manual" if he sees a better way to cure a patient. However—and this is the "candor" of late Plato—he admits that because "god-like" rulers are almost impossible to find, strict laws are the "second-best" way to prevent disaster.
Defining the "Scientific" Ruler
He wants to prove that ruling is a science (techne). Just as you wouldn't let a popular vote decide how to perform heart surgery, Plato argues that we shouldn't let a popular vote (or a lottery) decide how to run a state. He is trying to isolate the "DNA" of what makes a true leader: the ability to judge the "opportune moment" (kairos) for action.
The Weaving Metaphor
Plato’s ultimate goal is social harmony. He realizes that a state made of only "warriors" will destroy itself, and a state of only "pacifists" will be conquered. The Statesman's job isn't to be a tyrant; it’s to be a master-weaver who blends different human temperaments into a unified whole.

[Jalmari Kinnunen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Valtiomies ei ole yhtä vakuuttava kuin sitä sarjassa edeltänyt Sofisti. Platonin ajatuksenjuoksu ei ole tässä yhtä terävää tai oivaltavaa kuin parhaimmillaan. Loppuratkaisuna on lähinnä filosofikuninkaan ylistys Valtiota referoiden.

Alussa Platon lähestyy valtiomiehen määritelmää samaan järjestelmälliseen tapaan kuin sofistin määritelmää Sofistissa, aloittaen yleispätevästä jakaen sitä kahteen osaan niin kauan, että päädytään etsittyyn käsitteeseen. Tässä Platon lähtee jostain syystä etsimään ihmisen paikkaa luonnon taksonomiasta ja päätyy monen kummalliselta tuntuvan kahtiajaon jälkeen surullisenkuuluisaan "sulattomaan kaksijalkaiseen" - Diogenes Sinopelainen anekdootin mukaan arvosteli määritelmää kutsumalla kynittyä kanaa ihmiseksi. Diogeneen kritiikki ei kumoa mitään Platonin oikeasti tärkeissä teorioissa, mutta osoittaa kyllä selvän puutteen käytetyssä käsitteenmäärittelyn metodissa: jos sillä pystytäänkö sulkemaan käsitteen piiristä kaikki tunnetut tapaukset joihin käsite ei sovellu, näyttäisi olevan mahdollista ja jopa keksiä nokkela anomalia. Jokaista kohden määrittelyä pitäisi täydentää uusilla kahtiajaoilla, ehkä jopa loputtomuuteen asti.

Myytti, jossa Platon kertoo ajasta jolloin kaikki kulki takaperin, on dialogin paras osuus. Myytin mukaan elämme nyt Zeuksen aikaa, mutta joskus on ollut myös Kronoksen aika. silloin ihmiset syntyivät haudoista ja vanhenemisen sijaan nuorenivat ja kaikkea muuta vastaavaa kummallista tapahtui. Kiinnostavasti kaikki tapahtui tässä takaperinmaailmassa korkeamman tahdon, ei ihmistahdon mukaan. Tämä herättää ainakin kysymyksiä. Voisiko historian kulku olla aaltoliikettä, jossa Zeuksen ja Kronoksen aikakaudet vaihtelevat? Jos ihmisen tahto on nykyisessä maailmassa vahvempi kuin jumalten tahto, kuljemmeko sukupolvi sukupolvelta yhä kauemmas korkeammasta voimasta?

Loppupuolella Platon käsittelee valtiomalleja, jotka hän yllättäen nyt valtiosta poiketen määrittelee Aristoteleen tapaan. Aristoteleen kylmän tieteellinen jaottelu on kieltämättä matemaattisesti Platonin mallia harmonisempi, mutta timokratian vaihtuminen aristokratiaan, "hyvään" harvainvaltaan, vaikuttaa menetykseltä. Pitäisi kenties lukea Valtio uudelleen jotta ehkä ymmärtäisi, mikä tuon tunteeseen järjen tai himon sijaan perustuvan valtiomuodon todellinen arvo on.

[Julia Novaes · Rating 3 out of 5]

And people had beef with the structure of the Phaedrus. It is rather unlike Plato not to please me on purely literary grounds. I'm sure he made several points which went over my head while I was trying to follow the Eleatic Stranger's schizophrenic gathering (shall I say, collecting?) of models and likenesses and subordinates of statesmanship – but unlike the challenging Theaetetus, the unnerving Parmenides, the delightful Symposium, or really any other dialogue I've read so far, I'm not looking forward to reading this one again.

[Jordyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Maybe my favorite yet??