Wolnosc-Solidarnosc
18th April 2005, 17:22
This is meant to be a reply to the thread in the philosophy forum but for obvious reasons I have to put it here.
First, how can you say that it's not worth writing 100 pages about Plato's cave image? Just because it spans two pages? The image of the cave is how Plato understands reality, the world, and our position in it. Of course, because it is an image, interpretations as to its exact meaning will differ. Entire theses have been written on the subject. It's two pages long but it's crucial not only for Plato but for all philosophers who came after him.
Now, as for Plato's sexism. Have a look at the first "wave" of Plato in Book 5 of the Republic. He effectively desexualizes the relationship between men and women. Their child-bearing ability has no relevance in politics. He makes it clear that there is no difference between the natures of men and women and that both should have equal access to his guardian class. The problem for Plato is not such much female nature as it is attraction between men and women. Remember, guardians are meant to fully serve the city and not each other or any family. To this end, Plato calls for equal treatment of men and women. In fact, I would argue that this equal treatement shows Plato's acknowledgment of the power that women have (if not too much power) as opposed to considering them to be lesser individuals.
Of course, there's Aristotle, branded everywhere as a sexist slave-holder. Reading The Politics should be done extremely careful, since Aristotle makes his points in a very subtle way. Accepting what he says at face value will make you miss the point entirely.
It is true that Aristotle divides the souls and assigns different virtues to men and women. He does it in chapter 12 of book 1. Notice how short the chapter is - it's only about a paragraph long. Aristotle in fact never goes about proving his case! This division of virtues is but an assumption that he makes. He makes the claim, sure, but he provides no evidence to support it. I don't think this is a matter of oversight for Aristotle. Remember, he's writing for the "gentlemanly" audience of Greece who by and large were patriarchs. Perhaps unqualified assumptions like this are meant to satisfy them and lend credit to himself to cover his more radical statements.
It gets better.. Aristotle claims that men should rule over women politically. Political rule for Aristotle means to both rule and be ruled. Patriarchy, therefore, makes no sense as men and women must share in ruling the household.
Lastly, Aristotle like to support his arguments with quotations from various works. It's crucial to understand these citations and their meaning because often it will change the meaning of what Aristotle is saying. For example, he uses the quote "Silence is a virtue of women, not men." Sounds terrible, doesn't it? BUT you have to realize that the author of the quote is Ajax. If you look into Greek mythology you'll se that Ajax failed to retrieve Achilles' armour and for this the gods struck him crazy. It was only after he turned insane that he gave the quote. So what does this mean? Why is Aristotle citing a madman to support his "sexist" claim? Perhaps because the sexist claim itself is just that: crazy.
First, how can you say that it's not worth writing 100 pages about Plato's cave image? Just because it spans two pages? The image of the cave is how Plato understands reality, the world, and our position in it. Of course, because it is an image, interpretations as to its exact meaning will differ. Entire theses have been written on the subject. It's two pages long but it's crucial not only for Plato but for all philosophers who came after him.
Now, as for Plato's sexism. Have a look at the first "wave" of Plato in Book 5 of the Republic. He effectively desexualizes the relationship between men and women. Their child-bearing ability has no relevance in politics. He makes it clear that there is no difference between the natures of men and women and that both should have equal access to his guardian class. The problem for Plato is not such much female nature as it is attraction between men and women. Remember, guardians are meant to fully serve the city and not each other or any family. To this end, Plato calls for equal treatment of men and women. In fact, I would argue that this equal treatement shows Plato's acknowledgment of the power that women have (if not too much power) as opposed to considering them to be lesser individuals.
Of course, there's Aristotle, branded everywhere as a sexist slave-holder. Reading The Politics should be done extremely careful, since Aristotle makes his points in a very subtle way. Accepting what he says at face value will make you miss the point entirely.
It is true that Aristotle divides the souls and assigns different virtues to men and women. He does it in chapter 12 of book 1. Notice how short the chapter is - it's only about a paragraph long. Aristotle in fact never goes about proving his case! This division of virtues is but an assumption that he makes. He makes the claim, sure, but he provides no evidence to support it. I don't think this is a matter of oversight for Aristotle. Remember, he's writing for the "gentlemanly" audience of Greece who by and large were patriarchs. Perhaps unqualified assumptions like this are meant to satisfy them and lend credit to himself to cover his more radical statements.
It gets better.. Aristotle claims that men should rule over women politically. Political rule for Aristotle means to both rule and be ruled. Patriarchy, therefore, makes no sense as men and women must share in ruling the household.
Lastly, Aristotle like to support his arguments with quotations from various works. It's crucial to understand these citations and their meaning because often it will change the meaning of what Aristotle is saying. For example, he uses the quote "Silence is a virtue of women, not men." Sounds terrible, doesn't it? BUT you have to realize that the author of the quote is Ajax. If you look into Greek mythology you'll se that Ajax failed to retrieve Achilles' armour and for this the gods struck him crazy. It was only after he turned insane that he gave the quote. So what does this mean? Why is Aristotle citing a madman to support his "sexist" claim? Perhaps because the sexist claim itself is just that: crazy.