Plato: Zarathustra\'s Philosopher

Arta Moeini

December 2012

Georgetown University

Zarathustra’s Philosopher: Exploring the Transcendent in Plato’s Republic

aṱ tā mainyū paouruyēyā yə̄mā xᵛafnā asrwātəm manahicā wacahicā šyaoθanōi hī wahyō akəmcā And so, from the beginning (of time), the twin fundamental mindsets [came to conflict], manifesting themselves in two kinds of thought, speech, and action—One (actively) good and one (disruptively) evil. And between these two mentalities, the wise (enlightened) souls choose rightly (the good), while the ignorant ones err. Zarathustra, Gathas (Yasna 30.3) 1 Plato’s Republic is often read very much as a work of pure political philosophy. In fact, it is arguably the first work of true political philosophy ever. What I think is a very striking and often ignored aspect of the Republic however, is its philosophy of metaphysics and theology. Underneath the worldly teachings of the Republic and its complex regime theory, one can find an equally complex, if not more, hidden metaphysical message—a cosmology predicated on a unique theory of the divine—that demands further examination. Plato’s metaphysics designates our intelligible capacity as an almost divine quality, treating it as the basis for his conception of free will and human agency. It is our ability to think freely and rationally, our natural disposition toward acquiring knowledge, that endows us with the free will to act and makes us responsible for our choices. The notion of human responsibility is enhanced by a Platonic eschatology that transcends the scope of our actions beyond this world and our existence in it. At the end of Book IX, we come to know that the “city in speech”, which Plato has painstakingly developed throughout Republic, “does not exist anywhere on earth,” but is to be sought out in heaven. Plato thereby asserts that in heaven “a pattern is laid up for the man who wants to see and found a city within himself on the basis of what he sees” in the divine city; the righteous soul then “would mind the things of this city alone, and of no other.”2 In this light, Plato offers the promise of a salvation that’s rooted in an intellectual awakening and emancipation from darkness of ignorance.

1 2

Translation harmonized from Insler (1976) and Humbach (2000) Plato, 592 b

1|Page

In laying out the parameters of his metaphysical investigation, Plato asserts that the greatest and most fitting study is the study of the Form of the Good. Through Socrates he writes, “The idea (/Form) of the good is the greatest study (/knowledge) and that its by availing oneself of it along with just things and the rest that they become useful and beneficial”: he further establishes that “we don’t have sufficient knowledge of” this absolute good, and having knowledge of other things without understanding this principle of the good is “no profit to us”.3 Socrates does not begin to talk about what the Good itself is (suggesting that we are not yet ready to understand it); rather, he starts by discussing the “offspring of the Good”. Making use of his famous analogy to the sun, Plato points out that “the Good is in the intelligible realm with respect to intelligence and what is intellected, what the sun is in the visible realm with respect to sight and what is seen.”4 In the same manner that light being the offspring of the sun illuminates the physical world allowing us to see, truth is that offspring of the Good which illumines the abstract intellectual domain (the realm of the mind). Plato clarifies this better by stating that “when the soul fixes itself on that which is illumined by truth and that which is, it intellects, knows, and appears to possess intelligence.”5 The abstract relationship Plato lays out between the good, truth, and knowledge is best explained in the following passage: “What provides the truth to the things known and gives the power to the one who knows is the idea/Form of the good. [The good can thereby be firmly understood] as the cause of the knowledge and truth; but, as fair as these two are—knowledge and truth—if you believe that [the good] is something different from them and still more beautiful than they, your belief will be right. As for truth and knowledge, just as in the [physical domain], it is right to hold light and sight sun-like, but to believe them to be sun is not right; so, too, [in the sphere of the mind], to hold these two to be like the good is right, but to believe that either of them is the good is not right. The condition which characterizes the good must receive still greater esteem.”6 At this point, Plato is finally prepared to investigate the Good ontologically, revealing the transcendence of the Good. Adopting a rather “monistic” approach, he affirms that as far as the Good allows for things to be known, it gives them existence and becomes the source of their being. As such, existence and being are consequent to the Good, while “the Good isn’t being but is still beyond being, exceeding it in dignity and power.”7 The transcendence of the divine good is crucial to Platonic philosophy, for, it both puts the Good beyond our understanding and, by separating it from our existential world, establishes the principle of divine non-interference, which serves as the foundation for Plato’s theory of choice and agency (our choices matter because the Good does not meddle in our daily lives). Plato, thus, separates the material and the immaterial/intellectual realms from each other and yet portrays their unity through the Good. Existence is the medium and reality the mechanism through which the absolute transcendent essence (the Prima Causa) becomes (not fully, but in part) immanent. By now, Plato has persuaded his audience that true fullness and satisfaction comes from nourishing the soul with knowledge and intelligence of the eide (Forms), which are a class of pure 3

Plato, 505 a Plato, 508 c 5 Plato, 508 d 6 Plato, 508 e-509 a (translation slightly altered) 7 Plato, 509 b 4

2|Page

ideas—complete, “never changing, immortal, and true.”8 And yet, in presenting the allegory of the cave, Plato is adamant that the ignorant prisoners in the cave “are like us” (at least in the beginning of our intellectual journey), “compelled to keep their heads motionless throughout life”, convinced that “the truth is nothing other than the shadow of artificial things”.9 The right kind of education is therefore necessary to inspire the soul to rise above his cave of ignorance and seek out the light of the truth that can free him in that ultimate understanding of the Good, which is enlightenment. Complementing “the allegory of the sun”, the “allegory of the cave” is a powerful image representing Plato’s ultimate ideals— freedom from bondage of ignorance, enlightenment through gaining the knowledge of truth, and understanding the Good. The “allegory of the cave” further confirms that enlightenment is a process that could only be achieved in stages. We ought to “get accustomed” to the liberating truths it offers. Using the voice of Socrates, Plato masterfully delineates a path to enlightenment through four stages of intellectual development (Visualization/Mirrored Reflection—Conviction/Belief—Positive (scientific) Thought—and ultimately Intellection/Understanding). True education, in the Platonic sense, is not to imbue one with intelligence as though giving sight to the blind, but “the art of turning” the gaze of the mind along with the entire soul toward that truth which is, so that each can come to understand the Good through his own power.10 Truth then is the compass directing us toward the right path ending in enlightenment! My argument is not aimed to detract from the practical importance of Plato’s metaphysics for sociopolitical life. According to Plato, ideally, all humans ought to be “just” (in accepting the primacy of their intellectual part over the other two parts) so that guided by the light of truth they can come to “know” and “understand” the Form of the Good—attaining divine wisdom. However, since realistically such men are hard to come by and truth-seeking philosophers are very rare, these philosophers are charged with both ruling the society and implementing good laws in the worldly “cave”: imitating and applying their divine understanding within the material world through these laws ensures that the masses who cannot seek out the divine can still live their life rationally, productively, and in harmony. Plato argues this most expressly in the following passage: “When the form of the best is by nature so weak in a man that he isn’t capable of ruling the beasts in himself, but only of serving them… [and since ideally] such a man must also be ruled by what rules the best man, [that is] what is divine and prudent, so that all in the city are piloted by the same thing, the law [emerges] as an ally of all in the city. This is akin to the rule over the children, their not being set free until we establish a regime in them as in a city, and until— having cared for the best part in them with the like in ourselves—we establish a similar guardian and ruler in them (their rational mind) to take our place; only then do we set them free.”11 It is important to stress again that while the laws in the city are authoritative and come to reflect the principles of divine wisdom and the eternal Forms, the Platonic education is emphatically “liberal”—only meant to initiate individuals as to where to look for the truth, providing them with the intellectual

8

Plato, 585 c Plato, 515 a-c 10 Plato, 518 c-d ( take advantage of the divine power in each of us) 11 Plato, 590 c-d-e 9

3|Page

framework with which to ignite and put into correct use that which is divine in each, the thoughtful mind, so that the worthy can ascend through their intellect to “know” the divine. Epistemologically, Plato argues for the dialectics as the best means of attaining the whole truth in the intelligible realm. The Good is the “king of the intelligible class and region” (metaphysical/intellectual realm) we are told. Plato’s preferred epistemology is dialectic reasoning because, in the Platonic conception, the Good can only be perceived through intellection or understanding and not by positive proofs (which support scientific thought) and dialectics is the only method of argument that can bring to light the first hypothesis. Yet, he cautions his audience as to the dangers of abusing the Socratic method for the sake of contradiction itself and not discerning the truth, maintaining when these abusers of the dialectics “refute many men and are refuted by many, they fall quickly into a profound disbelief of what they formerly believed; and as a result, they themselves and the whole activity of philosophy become the objects of slander among the rest of men,” instead of generating the truth.12 Perhaps, the most vital element of Plato’s teaching, the thread that neatly ties his entire argument together, is only revealed in Book X (the last chapter) of Republic. There, Plato is finally ready to unveil his greatest and most profound philosophical finding, one he has reached dialectically, that is the immortality of the soul. He establishes the notion of “afterlife” as a metaphysical reality, making the remark that “the whole of the time from childhood to old age would be very short compared with all time”; this is then tied together with his perception that “our soul is immortal and is never destroyed” to construct a unique eschatology within the confines of which the principles of Platonic ethics and justice become animated.13Moreover, Plato signals at the distinctive quality of the Good and its opposite: “what destroys and corrupts everything it the bad (principle) and what saves and benefits is the good (principle).”14 He goes on to associate the soul’s “pure” essence and “true nature” to “its love of wisdom”, inferring that “it longs to keep company” with the things of the intelligible realm “on the grounds that it is [itself] akin to the divine and immortal and what is always”—proposing that the soul has the prospect of becoming pure and divine (as is its essence) “if it were to give itself entire to [its] longing” for wisdom and the intelligible truths.15 Having raised the possibility of salvation, Plato discusses justice and the rest of the virtues as “procuring” rewards and prizes for the men who best practice them both in this life and the next, but he is careful to point out that the rewards “coming to the just man while alive…are nothing in multitude or magnitude compared to those that await each when dead.”16 Ignoring the virtues, on the other hand, results in penalties and punishments. Finally and most importantly, one learns of the bearings of Plato’s eschatology on the notions of choice and agency in which lies the most valuable Platonic lesson: considering the “risk” that a conception of afterlife entails for human beings, Plato advises each to be, above all, “a seeker and student of that study by 12

Plato, 539 c Plato, 608 c-d 14 Plato, 608 e 15 Plato 611 e 16 Plato, 614 a 13

4|Page

which he might be able to learn and find out who [or what] will give him the capacity and the knowledge to distinguish the good and the bad life, and so everywhere and always to choose the better from among those that are possible.”17 As such, he stresses that “an ordering of the soul” does not occur independent of our actions, “due to the necessity that a soul become different according to the life it chooses”: while mindful of the context that surrounds our life and of the influence chance, necessity, and contingency often hold on our choices, Plato rejects the idea of a preordained life and Providence that would make humanity powerless, emphasizing instead, that no matter the context, we always have a choice (and that is the source of our distinction from one another).18 On this note, Plato ends his masterpiece with a provocative pun—“a tale was saved and not lost”—implying that there is yet hope for human salvation if we were willing to open our minds to truth in Plato’s message and choose to act “justly” in accordance to it, a message that he himself summarizes in eloquence: “holding that soul is immortal and capable of bearing all evils and all goods, we shall always keep to the upper road and practice prudence in every way so that we shall be friends to ourselves and the gods, both while we remain here and when we reap the rewards for it like the victors who go about gathering in the prizes. And so here and in the thousand year journey …we shall fare well.”19 Tasked with clarifying Socrates teachings throughout Republic, Glaucon makes an extraordinary revelation at the end of Book IX, claiming that he does not suppose the “Republic” that Socrates has built up in speeches “exists anywhere on earth”. Throughout this article, I have attempted to demonstrate and explain the significance of this line. For here, I believe, lies the key to uncovering the hidden metaphysical meaning of Republic: that the “Republic”, as an ideal political construct, is but an illusion for the true “Republic” that could actually come into being in an enlightened soul through the sovereignty of the truth-seeking mind and discovering of the Forms in general and the Good in particular—a process which endows one with the “eye-opening” gift of divine wisdom, thus turning the entire Republic into a metaphor for spiritual-intellectual awakening. The true Politeia is to be found in the heavens (intellectual sphere) and not here on Earth (material sphere) and the best human beings could hope for as far as a political philosophy is to strive to understand and replicate (in their soul) the divine city to the best of their ability. At the end of the long dialectic journey Plato takes us, the ultimate purpose of his teachings are exposed. Ironically, the core of Socrates’ message, as displayed in Republic, is aimed not at statecraft but soulcraft (and it is entirely plausible that he was killed over his revolutionary, heretical doctrines because for all intents and purposes what we are left with at the end of Republic is a new religion). In fact, what is most remarkable is the similarities (whether intended or inadvertent by Plato) between the teachings of Plato and Zarathustra both in substance and imagery. Similar to Plato, Zarathustra (thought to have lived sometime between 1700-1200 B.C.) conceives of a metaphysical 17

Plato, 618 c Plato, 618 b (cf. with Machiavelli in Chapter 25 and 26 of the Prince—and where he states: “God does not want to do everything, so as not to take free will from us and that part of the glory that falls to us.” 19 Plato, 621 d 18

5|Page

system that is marked by cosmological monism and ethical dualism. The eide which serve as the pinnacle of Platonic thought find expression as Amerta Spentas—Eternal Formative (Principles) that are holy aspects of God Ahura Mazda—in Zarathustrian philosophy. The Gathas (the poems of Zarathustra) speak of two original mentalities that have defined creation, Spenta Mainyu (the Formatively Good Mind) and Angra Mainyu (The Destructively Evil Mind), Ahura Mazda (Supreme Intelligence/Wisdom— i.e. God) is the ultimate realization of this Good which resembles Plato’s the Good. In the Gathas , Ahura Mazda is described as the “great architect of the universe”, or in the word of P.O. Skjaervo, the grand orderer of the cosmos and upholder of Arta (the normative order and divine truth which is the meaning behind his creation), who has created this world by means of his good wise thought. Similar to Plato’s eide of the Good, Zarathustra’s God is a transcendent whole only reachable in thought, but “whose visible aspects are the sun and the sun-lit heavenly spaces”.1 Analogous to Republic, The metaphors of light and darkness also play a central role in the Gathas. In Zarathustra’s conception, The Wise Lord (Ahura Mazda) “thinks” the creation and also produces, by his thought, the divine truth (Arta). The Amerta Spenta (cf. Platonic eide) are six divine entities which combined with Ahura Mazda form a intelligible whole: they are as follows: 1) Vohu-Manah: Good Mind 2) Spenta-Armaiti (Formative Regular-Systemic-Harmonious Thought—suggesting the physical order, laws of nature ~think physics) 3) Arta-Vahishta (Best and divine Truth—suggesting the cosmic order and a model for ethics) 4) Haurvatat (Perfection, Completion) 5) Amertat (Immortality and Eternality) 6) Khshathriya Variya (Ideal Dominion—of Ahura Mazda as King of the Good). Perhaps, the most important parallel between these two philosophers rests in their championing of “free will”, “voluntarism”, and “agency”. Akin to Plato, Zarathustra emphasizes our thinking mind as our divine part which never dies and must be activated to discern the truth between the good and the bad; precisely because we are cognizant beings with an immortal soul then, we have the ability to choose our paths and are, in turn, held accountable for our actions (in the next world if not in this one). Accordingly it must not come as a surprise that in the Republic, the reader is instructed to look “fixedly at the regime within himself” and guard against anything that would disturb the harmony and peace within his soul by challenging the authority of the rational truth-seeking part over the other “more bastardly” parts (this harmony and correct ordering of the soul taken to be true justice).20 And as if to settle any confusion in the minds of his audience as to the political responsibility of each person, Socrates declares that ultimately each person engages in politics not in his fatherland leaving aside some divine coincidence, but in his own city alone managing the affairs of his soul in hopes of attaining the divine knowledge of the Forms.21 Having said that, there is perhaps one way in which theoretically the philosophical/theological project of soulcraft could be wedded to the political life in the Platonic model: if all citizens come to create the idealized “republic” in their souls and become just and virtuous, then their city —which is made up of all these righteous souls—will also have become “just” and “best”, philosophical and civic virtues combine, and the “Republic” that is founded in speech comes to being in action.

20 21

Plato, 591 d-e Plato, 592 a

6|Page