Collapse of Idols by Pigeon

Oh, praise the great philosopher idols of Plato, Aristotle, and Confucius, the catalysts of the moral declination of states. Let their ideas of virtue and ethics seep into the political sphere to further the growing need of a stronger nationalistic base. Wrap the virtuous and moral gods in the flag to corrupt the perception of right and wrong. Crush the family trees in a tidal wave of oppression and allow the droplets of water feed the infant seeds. Watch these seeds spread their vines through the old ways of ethics and virtue in the nature of politics. The fundamental basis for the model represents the key features of Plato’s, Aristotle’s, and Confucius’s philosophical theory.  The issue with the three philosophers results in the end goal they seek to reach with virtue. By living a virtuous life within the city-state one will enter into the good life. What constitutes the good life and, why should a selfish need of happiness be the ultimate goal? The ambiguity these philosophers preach will be used to undermine a city-state and ultimately become an Authoritative entity.

Plato’s theory in the book Republic represents the equal virtues, functions, and features both the individual and city-state share in order for the state to exist properly. The rational soul, spirited soul, and the appetitive soul encompass the exact traits the city-state and individual share. The rational soul pertains to the mind or intellect, the spirited soul describes will or volition, while the appetitive soul revolves around desire or emotion. By analyzing the three souls a hierarchy can be placed within the establishment of the city-state. The leaders and law makers must act rationally to impose laws; guardians of the state must upkeep the laws and make certain that each individual follows the law, the common folk desire to be free and will obey the laws under the watch of the guardians. Working in unison the city-state will output virtuous citizens and leaders that keep the country or city functioning properly. To establish Plato’s blueprint one must ask how the city-state would start, from the top down or bottom up? Building top down takes oppression, brainwashing, and manipulation by leaders through laws and stipulations. The bottom up starts within the crevices of the city-state where the individuals form into a group that seeks to change the system from the outside in. Either one will be forced against opposition but the top down exceeds more power as the guardians will align with the leaders regardless of the circumstances. Plato creates a compelling argument in which he partakes in the top down method of control through censorship. “Then the first thing will be to establish a censorship of the writers of fiction, and let the censors receive any tale of fiction which is good, and reject the bad; and we will desire mothers and nurses to tell their children the authorized ones only” (Steinberger, 192-377c). Exempting any form of art or literature in a city-state represents a form of Authoritarianism. He attempts to create rational citizens by censoring items that decay the moral and intellectual portions of the city-state. The end goal of the state for Plato results in happiness. To reach happiness one must be a rational being in Plato’s scheme. In order for the state and people to be happy the state must teach rationality equally across his hierarchy. By censoring these items he eliminates the ability for the state to teach rationality. Within a hierarchy rationality cannot be taught equally for each class. Plato falls to his own appetitive soul in which desire outweighs rationality. In order for the state to teach rationality desire must balance out but, Plato shows that passions tend to throw off that balance. The guardians make the decisions for the common folk in the city-state which eliminates freedom. If the upper philosophers make the laws and the guardians wield them, then how can the rest of the citizens properly know what constitutes right and wrong? How does rationality extend out to each partite if an ordinary citizen can go through life without making a single important decision for himself? Plato does not account for these questions and clearly must rely on power to force his passions and ideals onto the ordinary citizens of the city-state. Therefore, Plato’s tripartite soul of the individual and state evolves into an authoritarian regime ruled by passion. Confucius on the other-hand falls into the same pattern as Plato but in the realm of the bottom-up method of government.

Confucius in the Analects greatly pushes the notion of family as the primary source of political power of virtue. Parents rule over the child, older brother rules over the younger brother, the husband rules over the wife, and the leader of China rules over everyone as he represents the father of the nation. The hierarchy reveals that the bottom up method of government starts with family ties and ends with family ties. The entire model works as one enormous family. Everyone must obey the king (father of the nation) in order to remain in line. Confucius argues that each individual contains an inherent good. In order to obtain goodness and happiness one must be educated and remain in the alignment of their status in the hierarchy. Confucius follows the authoritative path in open light unlike Plato. He advocates each role a citizen must play in the Chinese city-state. Confucius argues that even under a terrible regime or family one must obey their superior no matter the circumstance. “In serving your mother and father, remonstrate with them gently. On seeing that they do not heed your suggestions, remain respectful and do not act contrary. Although concerned, voice no resentment” (Confucius, Filial Piety). If individuals contain inherent good then how does an authoritative regime come into play? Starting from the bottom-up form of government causes many implications in the Confucius idea. The king forces filial obligations upon each family as a means of control. The hierarchy creates complacent individuals who can never reach full happiness and virtue under the entrapment of social classes. The elite subvert anyone lower in the social class and no one oppressed can stand up due to the filial obligations. The destruction of family as a means of reaching proper government disembowels the system and will eliminate the goal of happiness and virtue. Among the three thinkers, Aristotle remains the most elusive and inconsistent thinkers.

Aristotle uses his teachings from Plato to ultimately define virtue and the role of government based upon said virtue. Aristotle disagrees with Plato’s Republic immensely and wrote the book Politics to convey his argument. His belief revolves round the notion that man must contain a relationship with government. He argues that man in nature cannot survive properly without the role of government. “For as man is the best of all animals when he has reached his full development, so he is worst of all when divorced from law and justice” ( Aristotle, Politics). Right away he advocates government and believes that man inherently resembles evil without order. Political participation remains very important to Aristotle as the citizens of Athens take turns essentially ruling the city-state. The dilemma there for Aristotle equates to his notion that a plurality subverts political power for the citizens of the city-state. He supports a polity or constitutional form of government but warns that democracy remains detrimental to the city-state. To address virtue Aristotle creates a government built upon the basis of noble action. Aristotle desires citizens to be noble and virtuous. “So we must lay it down that the association which is a state exists not for the purpose of living together but for the sake of noble actions. Those who contribute most to this kind of association are for that very reason entitled to a larger share in the state than those who, though they may be equal or even superior in free birth and in family, are inferior in the virtue that belongs to a citizen. Similarly they are entitled to a larger share than those who are superior in riches but inferior in virtue” ( Steinberger, 399). No matter the social class individuals will vote and play a key role in Aristotle’s form of government. The dilemma Aristotle faces with these ideas deals with the notion of slavery and women in Athenian society. Aristotle believes anyone who does not resemble the Athenian part will succumb to slavery. Women seem to always be left out when classical politics comes up. If Aristotle believes that Athens contains the superior race then how does he not fall into the idea of a natural race? Aristotle supports slavery and gender inequality but gives no reason to why these should exist. He realizes how contorted politics and states can be when oppression and financial gain enter into the city-state. Aware of the atrocities he still supports his role of the master race and superior state. Virtue cannot be achieved under strict master-slave city-states and his argument holds no weight. Knowing what detriments a state and knowing how to prevent this collapse of morals he still aligns with authoritative means to reach the end goal of happiness. Everyone should be happy and virtuous but only under the Athenian class. That means many remain left out from reaching the good life due to his unsupported arguments. The insidious master-slave relationship and gender inequality causes too many implications and breeds authoritarianism.

Aristotle, Plato, and Confucius seek virtue and happiness and ground the goal in the realm of politics within the city-state. They strive towards a common goal but fall to ineffective means of implementing the path to reach happiness. Gender inequality, brainwashing, oppression, slavery, and the overall authoritarianism cannot be used to create virtuous beings. Virtue in itself uses vagueness and can be easily manipulated to control a society. Anyone can deem something virtuous and back the declaration through authoritative means. Humans contain the natural ability to know right from wrong. Simply wrapping that notion in a flag destroys every chance of a city-state reaching happiness. Individual happiness should be the goal but in completely different way. The state should not emplace strict laws and stipulations but instead allow each citizen the individual right to reach happiness their own way. Converting each citizen to a notion of ultimate virtue will create the facade of freedom and cause the power surge of authoritarianism to seep into the city-state. Government should not define ultimate virtue and should not seek to create the perfect state. Individuals should collectively know what morals and virtues one should contain to reach happiness. Authoritarianism will never define perfect virtue only when the state ceases to exist in the argument of virtue will one reach happiness. The diversity of virtues needs to be respected without government or specific philosophers determining how one should live and be virtuous.   

Works Cited

Steinberger, Peter J. Readings in Classical Political Thought. Indianapolis, Indiana; Hackett Publishing Company, inc, 2000. Print.

“Two Concepts of Filial Piety.” Oolongiv World Press. Chen Xudong, n.d. Web. 5 December 2012