I like Plato for 3 reasons : Firstly, he understood the nature of society, how societies cannot function without tiers and specialities, rather than some “liberal” thought which tries to ensure that everyone is told they can excel at anything, which is clearly nonsense. Secondly, he proposed the Simile Of The Cave; a startlingly simple idea which decribes the nature of knowledge, and becomes more relevant as time passes. For once, there is nothing I can add to this, almost perfect, idea. Thirdly, he was a committed moral vegetarian – he actually thought about what he ate.

Plato is not without his faults. One oft-quoted Platonism is the apparent need for infanticide in the model society. In fact this just reflected the common thoughts at the time, and Plato is quick to judge this idea as being unsavoury.

One other area that I found slightly odd was his overuse of the term “indignation” (and this isn’t just a translation error). I reflected on this, and found something rather interesting:

In The Republic (Book V, Part 2), Plato discusses opposing elements of desire, namely the desire itself, or the “irrational appetite”, and the reason which opposes that desire. He then also brings in a third element, vaguely called “indignation”, or the reaction to a particular course of action.

These terms may be analogous, but it is important to clarify what is meant in a more general sense.

The opposition between desire and reason is actually the opposition between two opposing desires, i.e. the desire to do something (although desire may be too strong a term when referring to instinct, but it will serve here), and the desire not to do that thing. Plato is correct in saying that both elements must be corellative, for instance, the desire to run forwards, opposed by the desire to run backwards, is correct, but the desire to run forwards opposed by the desire to not run is incorrect. In other words, the two elements are simply two different poles of attraction.

The third element, that is “indignation” is too specific. What Plato is alluding to is in fact reflected in later metaphysical ideas, the concept of stepping outside of a system and reflecting on it. Hence, the desire referred to of looking at some decapitated bodies, which is stronger than the desire to turn away results in anger at having carried out the action. This may be termed, the “reflective conscience”. This conscience, or reaction, does not have a bearing on the course of action that it is reflecting on, but may have a bearing on future actions. In fact it may be the key to experience as a catalyst for learning.

This means that, effectively, Plato understood the nature of human reflection about 2400 years ago. Neuro Linguistic Programmers think they brought the idea of internal filters to the wide world – Plato got their first.

The next book I decided to read after getting rid of everything in the “if it sounds like a load of self-important nonsense then Keith can’t be bothered to read it” series, was Machiavelli’s, The Prince. You may think you know something about The Prince and how it describes the means to win over another nation. There are plenty of people in the US Department Of Defense who think they know all about the Prince; and some of them like to speak of Machiavellian Principles in their strategies.

In fact, Machiavelli wrote far more thoughtful and considered prose than most people would credit him for. There is a subtlety in The Prince that, when you truly understand it, makes you realise that Machiavelli, for the time, was totally right – and the modern-day generals who led the US and UK forces into battle in Iraq, twice, were wrong. They simply didn’t understand it.

Here is my take on Iraq from September 2003:

Modern, western governments are driven by power. After many hundreds of years since The Prince was written, nothing has really changed – benevolence and altruism are subservient to personal gain.

The neo-conservative government (whatever that means in relation to world politics) of the United States is driven by Machiavellian theory, but they have forgotten to look at the real world and so are in a great deal of trouble in all of their recent conquests.

Part V of The Prince states : “But when cities or provinces are used to living under a [ruler], and his family is wiped out, since on the one hand they are used to obeying, and on the other hand have lost their former [ruler] they cannot agree on the choice of a new [ruler] amongst themselves and they cannot live in freedom without one. So they are slower to take up arms, and a [ruler] can win them and assure themselves of him more easily.”

This, taken at face value, is the precise policy that the USA carried out when committing to war against Iraq and, very probably, in Afghanistan. Given that current USA military policy is extremely consistent (sometimes blindly so) and based on a set of pre-ordained values, then ruler acceptance was assumed by the USA and the invasion of Afghanistan was bound to be a failure. The Afghans were not used to living under a consistent leader – certainly many were not content with the Taliban regime – and there is no reason to believe that they will ever be content under any single ruler, be that the coalition of the Northern Alliance, or USA military rule.

There may be some argument as to whether this was indeed their policy, but this has been clarified in the case of Iraq. An ideal Machiavellian situation, you may think, as did the US policy makers, but in fact Iraq is three nations, those of the Kurds, Shia and Sunni who are only too willing to co-operate with the invading force as long as their own aims are met. The mistake of taking Iraq at face value is compounded by the fact that Saddam Hussein’s “family” has not been wiped out as long as his supporters see themselves as a continuation of the regime. Complete destruction of a regime would involve major genocide, and is not compatible with today’s world view of acceptable behaviour.

One further extract may completely put to rest the USA’s current ideas that their chosen regimes will be acceptable over a considerable span of time. “Whoever becomes the master of a city accustomed to freedom, and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed himself; because, when there is a rebellion, such a city justifies itself by calling on the name of liberty and its ancient institutions, never forgotten despite the passing of time and the benefits received from the new ruler.” This is but a few lines away from the neo-conservative agenda in The Prince, but without an appreciation of what the conquered see as “freedom”, a whole world away from what the conqueror wants to achieve.

It appears that western leaders who use The Prince as a manual for conquest are making an incorrect assumption about the behaviour of the populus. When The Prince was written it was implied that people were motivated purely by self interest, and that the common good did not figure in the minds of most people. This sounds reasonable, for in a time and place (Italy) where governments and borders were constantly changing and people largely lived by self-sufficiency the main aim was co-existing with the current political and physical environment, and not losing your livelihood, or even your life.

The intervening centuries, and changes in political systems brought about societies in which people had collective roles (communism), a common interest in changing the system (political revolution and self-rule), and even altruism in the form of numerous efforts to enfranchise more people. However, in the most “advanced” western societies, the current aim once again appears to be self-interest, with a guarded approval to secure nations as a whole. This is not generally the case with nations other than the USA. In some cases, overarching concepts of liberty for liberty’s sake still exist and may well continue. In other cases, such as Iraq, Syria and Palestine, it is religion that binds people together to such an extent that they are prepared to die voluntarily to defend what they believe in. This, however obscurely, is the nature of “freedom” that Machiavelli refers to, and which no ruler or prince can overcome, however much firepower they bring to bear upon the people.

One day they will learn.

Next time, I will talk about how we think, and where it can take us.

Keith Farnish
www.theearthblog.org
www.reduce3.com
And Proud Member Of The Sietch