Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(A Response To Hall) Allan Bloom-On Aristophanes, Plato, and Sokrates (1977)
(A Response To Hall) Allan Bloom-On Aristophanes, Plato, and Sokrates (1977)
(A Response To Hall) Allan Bloom-On Aristophanes, Plato, and Sokrates (1977)
RESPONSE TO HALL
ALLANBLOOM
of Toronto
University
I
In the firstplace, Hall presupposesthat he knows the Platonic
teachingand reads his understandingof it into the text. Arguing
againstmy contentionthat the best regimeof the Republic is not a
serious proposal, he tells us, "Socrates is explicitthat his polis is
natural."I searchin vain forSocrates'statementto thateffect.Indeed,
I know of no assertion anywherein the Platonic corpus that the
cityis natural or that man is by naturea politicalanimal. Whatever
the ideas may be-and theyare the highestand most elusive theme
and slowlyfromthecommonly
to whichwe mustascend verycarefully
sensed particulars-there is not the slightestindicationthat there
is an idea of the cityor of the best city,as thereis said to be an idea
of the beautifulor an idea of thejust. What the omission means is
debatable,but one mustbeginby recognizingthatit is so. Obviously,
fromthe point of view of the ideas, the naturalnessof the citymust
have a status very differentfromthat of, for example, man. The
kallipoliscannot participatein an idea whichis not. While thereare
manymen and an idea of man, thecitydoes not existas a particular
or as a universal;it is neithersensednor intellected.
Careful observationof what the text says about this question of
naturalnesswould have helped Hall. In his discussion of the three
waves of paradox in Book V, Socrates says (a) the same education
and way of lifeforwomen as formenis possiblebecause it is natural
(456b-c); (b) the communityof women and childrenis not against
nature(466d)-however, now Socrates shiftsthe criterionof possibilityfromnaturalnessto cominginto being (manythingswhichare
not natural,and even against nature,can come into being); (c) the
coincidenceof philosophyand ruleis just that,coincidenceor chance
(473c-d). All the attentionis given to the possibilityof that highly
improbablecoincidence.Cities, let alone the best city,do not come
intobeingas do plantsand animals.Some men are by naturefitboth
to philosophizeand to rulein thecity,butitis notsaid thatit is natural
thattheydo so. Iftheyactuallydo both,thecause is art,humanmaking,
not nature.If I wereto use againstHall the methodshe uses against
me, I would say that,with respectto the naturalnessof the city,he
has read Aristotle'sPolitics, not Plato's Republic. He does not see
thatthe cityis more problematicforPlato than forAristotle.
Justas Hall reads in, he reads out. In tryingto arguethatforPlato
thereis no significantdistinctionbetweenthe theoreticaland the
practicallife,he says thatPlato "does not suggestthatphilosophising
and should be the end of the city.Unless ones reads the Republicas
a drama, one does not see thatit has a reversaland a discovery,that
thereis a peripety.Platonic books are closer in formto dramas than
to treatises.
III
I have put offuntilthe end discussionof what is onlya subsidiary
part of Halrs criticism-whathe says about Plato's relationto Aristophanes. But this issue seems to me centralto our differences.
The
elusive texture of Platonic thought-so differentfrom our owncan, I believe, only be approached when one becomes aware of its
peculiar combinationof what we take to be poetryand philosophy.
Or, putotherwise,Platonicphilosophyis poetic,notmerelystylistically
but at its intellectualcore, not because Plato is not fullydedicated
to reason, but because poetrypoints to problems for reason that
unpoetic earlierand later philosophydo not see and because poetic
imaginationproperlyunderstoodis partofreason.The Socratesofthe
Clouds-an account of the earlySocrates substantiallyconfirmedby
the Platonic Socrates (Phaedo 96a ff.)- was unpoetic,and thishad
somethingto do with his incapacityto understandpolitical things.
The Platonic Socrates can in some sense be understoodas a response
to the AristophanicSocrates,or, more stronglystated,Socrates may
have learned somethingfrom Aristophanes.The Republic, in one
of its guises, is the proofthat philosophersare not unpolitical(and
it must not be forgottenthat,accordingto all serious testimony,in
particularthatof Aristotleand Cicero,therewas no politicalphilosophy prior to Socrates), that theyknow the political thingsbest and
are most necessaryfor politics. Socrates, who in the Clouds stands
aside, is neutral,in thedisputebetweenthejustand theunjustspeeches,
in the Republic-in a referencewhich is clearlyto Aristophanespresentshimselfas an unconditionalpartnerof thejustspeech(Clouds.
896-7; Republic, 368b-c). And in the Symposium Aristophanesis
Socrates' only seriouscompetitorin the contestforthe best praiseof
eros: only thesetwo have some inklingof whateros reallyis. Socrates
the philosopher shows that his valid interlocutoris Aristophanes
the comic poet, and that he is Aristophanes'superiorin politicsand
erotics.Until we can take Aristophanesseriouslyand Plato comically
we shall not understandeither.It is onlyour stiffpedantrythatcauses
us to ignore Plato's countlessallusionsto Aristophanes.For us aca-
wouldseemto be necessary
tornout. Hence, inequalityand selfishness
concomitantsofanypoliticalorder.(b) A beautifulyoungmanis forced
witha successionofuglyold hags.This is the
to have sexual intercourse
reformconnecapplicationofthemostradical,butalso mostnecessary,
tedwithcommunism.Whatseemsto be mostprivateand mostunequal
by naturemustbecome subject to the public sector,or therewill be
have-notsin themostextremeand importantsense,and theyoungand
the beautifulwill have profoundreservationsin theircommitment
uglyscene lays bare
to civilsociety.This powerfuland unsurpassedly
of
the absurdityof tryingto make politicstotal, tryingto make an
of all thatis rare,special,and splendid,of allowing
equal distribution
or
transcendthepoliticalorder.It revealsthetension
to
escape
nothing
betweenphysisand nomos, natureand civilsociety.By hypothesizing
a perfectsocial union, Aristophaneslets his audience see for itself
thatit would be a hell,thatsome thingsmustremainprivateand that
men must accept the inconsistenciesof a communitywhich leaves
much to privacy.The actualizationof the Atheniangoal is not to be
desired.
Socrates adopts the premiseof the Ecclesiazusae:forthereto be a
mustbe made public;above all theremustbe a
everything
community,
communityof womenand children.In a passagethatis all buta direct
quote fromthe Ecclesiazusae (461c-d; Ecclesiazusae,634-9), Glaucon
asks how thecitizenswould recognzietheirclose kin,to whichSocrates
responds,as did Praxagora, thattheywill not. Neitherof thesegreat
reformersis worriedabout incest,the prohibitionagainst which is
most sacred and seems to be the backbone of both familyand city.
indeed.
Theirreformis far-reaching
But this defianceof nomos in Plato's picturedoes not turnout to
conclude that Plato
be ugly or ridiculous,and we should therefore
character
thoughtAristophanesto be wrong about the intransigent
of perfectcommunismand the transpolitof nomos, theimpossibility
to philosophymade himmiss
ical natureoferos.Aristophanes'hostility
the crucial point: philosophers,those consummateliars,could make
it all work. Because he did not understandphilosophy,Aristophanes
thoughtthe politicalproblemto be insoluble.The focus of the issue
forboth Praxagora and Socrates is sexual affairs,and Socrates acts
as thoughhe can handlethemas Praxagoracould not. Uselessphilosophy proves to be most useful. Socrates as the replacementfor
CONCLUSION
My differenceswith Hall come down to whetherphilosopherkingis a compoundformula,joining twodistinctactivitiesand, thus,
violatingthe rule of justice, one man-onejob, as I insist,or whether
philosopherand kingare two wordsforthesame thing,as Hall insists.
NOTES
1. 471e-473b;475d-480a;485a-b; 510a-51Id; 514a-519c;532a-b; 540a-b. Plato surely
makesa distinctionbetweenthepracticaland theoreticallives. Hall onlyintroducesa red
herringwhen he says I took thedistinctionfromAristotle.There is a difference
between
themconcerningthe distinctionbetweenphronesisand sophia, but that is irrelevant
here.EverythingI said was based on Plato. Hall, on the otherhand,comes dangerously
close to sayingthat knowingis making,a view to be found only in modernthought.