There are both important affinities and important
differences between Plato and Aristotle. When Aristotle was a pupil of Plato,
his thought was closer, later he deviated more, and then Plato followed his
thought to an important extent.
Here I follow the account given by Alasdair MacIntyre[i]. He proposed, and this is
most important, I think, that Plato and Aristotle shared a basic perspective
and programme concerning the good life. MacIntyre reduced a complex debate,
over centuries, to a choice between two basic perspectives.
First, the perspective shared by Plato and Aristotle
entails a striving for excellence in
pursuing a set of goods. Virtues are traits of character needed for
achieving a good.
The alternative view was held by the sophists
contemporary to Plato and Aristotle, and was adopted in our presently dominant
view, in the West, of liberal individualism. It entails a striving for effectiveness in satisfying desires. For
(neo)liberalism the engine for achieving that is the market.
For example, for the sophists public speech is not
aimed at achieving the truth, which is ephemeral, but to convince people of
one’s view (rhetoric). In markets, the aim of advertising is not truth but
affecting preferences.
For Plato and Aristotle, who or what determines what
is the good, or the ranking of multiple goods, and corresponding virtues? For
Plato it is more the individual, though instructed by philosophy. For Aristotle
it is the community, the polis, such
as the Athens of his time. Here I side with Plato, though in my view
philosophers should inform, not dictate ethical debate.
An important difference between Plato and Aristotle is
the following. For (the early) Plato experience, and the complex, variable
world we experience, are disparate from the underlying forms according to which
reality is ordered. For Aristotle, experience is the basis for inferring and
understanding forms. Here I side with Aristotle. However, in his later work
Plato approached Aristotle’s views.
Of particular interest for my endeavours in philosophy
and economics is Aristotle’s notion of phronesis,
practical wisdom. Experience and judgement in the world are too complex and
variable, and context-dependent, to be based on fixed, universal ideas or rules.
Yet, and this is a problematic point in Aristotelian
philosophy, Aristotle, like Plato, assumed ultimate harmony between different
goods. Any conflict between them is due to imperfect reason. Here I disagree
with both. I think tragedy is real. Conflicts between goods arise that cannot
be resolved by reason alone. I will return to this in a later item in this
blog.
Now, my project is to bring in, or bring back, in
public discourse (and economics), considerations
of the good life and corresponding virtues. However, rather than having goods
and their ordering imposed by the state, I would leave them to personal choice,
but subject to public debate, with guidance from people who have mastered
phronesis, recognising the occurrence of tragedy while still trying to grapple
with it. I might sum this up as follows: I want to combat liberalism by liberal
means.
Important for my project is also the claim, by both
Plato and Aristotle, that virtuous conduct is not just instrumental to pursuing
the good life, but an integral part of it, with intrinsic value. The virtuous
person enjoys virtuous conduct for itself.
Also, relationships, in particular friendship, entail
the sharing of a project, with mutual interest, care for the partner, and
willingness to yield, to some extent, without expectation of material reward or
gain.
These are crucial for the goodness of life and for the
quality of society.
Finally, especially Plato, but also still Aristotle,
rank as the highest, purest good, contemplation (the original meaning of
‘theory’) of ultimate, eternal, universal truths. Phronesis and political
virtue are subordinate to that, even though they are necessary to achieve it
(according to Aristotle, and the later Plato, perhaps). To me, that is an
illusion. I think we cannot achieve more than ongoing ‘imperfection on the
move’.
No comments:
Post a Comment