Tal Bachman: We Have Met the Enemy, part VIII

Steyn On-line ^ | June 18, 2021 | Tal Bachman

[Twotone]

I mentioned in my last piece that the standard (mis)interpretation of Oedipus Rex—that Oedipus got what he deserved thanks to a moral shortcoming he couldn't or wouldn't correct—traces back to an earlier misinterpretation of Aristotle's comments on tragedy. That provides a nice segue, because what Aristotle actually says in his Poetics (and his Politics) provides further insight into our current problems.

What Aristotle actually points out in Chapter 13 of Poetics is that great tragedies revolve around hamartia (ἁμαρτία) inherent in, or committed by, a protagonist. All this Greek word refers to is error. It does not necessarily imply moral shortcoming (although the word can cover that, too; New Testament writers used it in just this way). Hamartia, unless specifically used in a moral context, simply points to human frailty or limitation. As such, it covers even the most innocent of mistakes—like those resulting in an unavoidable (Oedipus-style) lack of omniscience. As the Scottish poet Robert Burns would write 2000 year later, even "the best laid plans o' mice an' men gang aft agley". Hamartia is the reason. Both Biblical and Greek thinkers agree.

So, back to Aristotle. He is an early and strong endorser of the Eastwood Rule about knowing our limitations. In fact, in his Politics, Aristotle completes one of the classic "flames" of all time: he, in effect, lights up his own real-life teacher, Plato, for endorsing the limitation-denying Utopian fantasies of Socrates, Plato's teacher and hero.

You might recall that in The Republic (written by Plato himself), Socrates reasoned that true justice would require state-enforced, radically egalitarian, totalitarian communism—at least among a permanent ruling class, but ideally among everyone. The 20th century political philosopher Leo Strauss would later claim that Socrates's comments amounted to a reductio ad absurdum.

[NobleFree]

When do we get to the dragons?

[dadfly]

fascinating. great series by Tal.

so Plato and the utopians, in the abstract analyse how to eliminate all that’s wrong with humanity. just looking at the bad effects of what humans do, with no attempt to understand what humans do and why they do it like Aristotle, who uses the scientific method and close observation to form a true description of human agency. humans as individuals and in groups with free choice as they are confronted with the trials of life.

makes it pretty clear how we’ve gotten into the mess we are in. the average American voter has been seduced and indoctrinated into the simplistic and false ways of utopianism. if Plato could fall for it, it’s understandable why so many—especially young—Americans are infected with it too.

[chajin]

Ever since I started teaching philosophical ethics 30 years ago, I have taught that the basic left vs. right division in politics goes back to Plato vs. Aristotle; that the difference between the American and French Revolutions was that ours was based on Locke and Aristotle, and theirs was based on Rousseau and Plato; that the essential flaws in Plato are first his presumption that it is obvious who should be the Guardians, and second that the Guardians are always going to be willing to be self-sacrificing rather than becoming, to use more modern phrases, the nomenklatura, or the deep swamp.

These have been known for over 2000 years in the West, and for nearly as long in the East, with its not-quite-so-exact analog of Confucius vs. Lao Tse. But since they are not taught—just as I was artlessly moved over from ethics to music because I wouldn’t kowtow to the left and the early versions of CRT—our present generations are destined to suffer the difficulties that come from attempting Plato’s Republic rather than Aristotle’s true republic.