An interesting question I usually ask myself in class when discussing the different philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, and Kant is whether or not their theories would be the same if they lived in today's political world? Who would be a democrat? Who would be a republican? Or would they even associate themselves with political parties?
From my understanding of the philosophy of Plato, I would most likely put him in the republican category. Plato's philosophy has a powerful group of guardians governing the rest of the members of society. Plato theory of a society is set up much like the economic plan of the republican party. This philosophy has a strong, extremely weathly upperclass aiding in the job distribution for those with lower incomes. Plato would argue that the ergon of these wealthy businessmen is to ensure the fulfillment of the ergons of the workers. These strong few must govern the rest of society to ensure it remains in order.
Aristotle is a little harder to place into a party. Aristotle's theories are heavily based on the idea of meritocracy. He stresses balance more that Plato does, but believes that a person should only receive what he earns. But he also stresses equity as something much different than equality. There are times when equality is not the best policy and equity, the just distribution according to the greatest need, is the better policy in certain situations. These ideas would subject him into falling into more of an in-between position in politics according to one's definition of a person's need and merit.
Now Kant, as of what we have discussed so far in class, I would label as a democrat. I believe Kant's Categorical Imperatives would translate into a a need for a strong middle class. The first part of his Categorical Imperatives states that one must act in only such a way that you could will the maxim of your actions as a universal law. This idea reflects the statement Bill Clinton said in his Democratic National Convention speech; the democratic society is one in which "we're all together" instead of the republican idea of "you're on your own".
Now I am curious to see if any of you agree, disagree, or just think I'm crazy for connecting each of these philosophers with a political party. I would say there are arguments on either side for each of these philosophers, especially since we are unable to ask them ourselves which party they would affiliate with in today's world. But I do believe it is an interesting question to ask about each philosopher we study.
It is an interesting question to pose! As for Kant, while he might be persuaded to fall into step with American society and align with a political party, I wonder if he would actually refuse to do so. The party platforms are defined pretty narrowly on different issues, and I'm not sure that having any entity dictating where he was supposed to fall on an issue would be acceptable for Kant. Perhaps Kant would create a more flexible "rationalists" party instead?
ReplyDeleteI do think it would be difficult to classify these philosophers, as they would likely never expect to be a part of a political society like ours, but we can certainly guess, based on their works, where they might agree and disagree with our contemporary political parties. I like your point about Kant being a Democrat. Civil rights are a big concern of the Democratic party, and the idea that everyone must be granted the same rights regardless of their differences. At the same time, I'm not sure what Kant would think about taxes, for example. Would he favor increased taxes for the wealthy? Applying Kant's logic to our current world, I think, is really tricky, because it seems so restrictive (at least what we covered in class on Friday did)! But I think it's a good point that many of the "golden rule" points of the Democratic party align well with Kant's categorical imperative.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting post. We are learning about various philosophers and their views in a time that is so different from the society they lived in. I think it is important to look at their philosophies in the context they created them in but also one good test for the validity of the philosophies is to see if they can carry over to drastically different societies. Because we are so focused on categorizing people into political parties, it's interesting to think about how people like Plato and Kant would be divided into our party system.
ReplyDeleteI think it was very interesting to try and compare the philosophers to modern times. I agree that it would be very difficult to try and actually place them into political parties. While some of their thoughts maybe agree with the republican or the democratic parties, i am not convinced that they can be placed, because they did not believe in democracy. I don't think they would associate with a political party for that reason alone.
ReplyDeleteI'll admit that I'm actually guilty of wondering the same thing throughout class! But like most everyone has said, I tend to remind myself that Plato, Kant, and Aristotle were never meant to be placed in political parties. Not only for obvious reasons, but also because, while their philosophies might fall under certain political party platforms, their philosophies are meant to relate to a more broad range of people. Political parties these days are so narrow and divided that it's entirely possible for extremists on both side of the political spectrum to be able to relate to the same philosophy, but asking them to agree on the same political issues would be like pulling teeth. So it seems more beneficial to their philosophies to be undivided and uncategorized like they would be in political parties.
ReplyDeleteIf we use Aristotle's meritocracy, as you put it, i think that he would fall a little more to the right, politically. Republicans tend to put more emphasize on people, especially business owner's, getting to where they are because of their personal hard work and commitment to their goals. I also think that in the case of unemployment and disability, that if Aristotle ran those programs in our modern times, he would have much stricter rules for who recieves checks, and who does not. I think that many people would agree that some of our government ran programs are taken advantage of by undeserving or unauthorized people. I don't know if the system is too easy to get through or that the people that do take advantage are just smart for their abilities. I think that, based on meritocracy, people would have to work a little harder in this country for what they get, not just hand-outs given to them. Obviously as college students, we are all taking a step towards bettering our lives and hopefully one day fulfilling our own personal dreams.
ReplyDelete