This dialogue touched a bit on several topics such as dialectic, metaphysics, sociology, and the "royal science" of government. I have a more decentralized, individualistic ideal of the role of government than Plato whose rational pragmatism leads him to favor an oligarchy with strict legal enforcement. Nothing really stood out for me about this dialogue.

This is one of the strangest, but also most interesting, of Plato's dialogues. Essential for the student of his later thought, it offers considerable interpretive challenges for one who aims to assess its complicated relations to its predecessor (Republic), sister dialogue (Sophist) and successor (Laws).

The beginning of this dialogue was pretty boring but once they got into discussing the three types of constitutions; rule by one, few, and many; the dialogue was much more interesting. From this discussion, we learn that the beneficent dictator is the best ruler and also that Plato is not a fan of democracy as it is “capable of nothing of importance either for good or for bad” (348). However, it is the best government if the people are not law abiding since it does the least damage.

Wacky divisions, fun conclusions. Non-philosophers should just obey the rules. Politics isn't a science. Politicians are blowhards.

This dialogue is part of our Great Books Project. Plato leaves no stone uncovered to determine what is a Statesman.

My only comment on this dialogue (mid-read):

" Yes, it takes a wise government to know when to stick to precedents and existing laws and when to change them to suit new conditions. Even moreso when those laws are thought to be based on some kind of sacred principle (e.g. the Bible) or hallowed patriotism.

I believe the Stranger will continue in this dialogue to expolore what makes a real government (one that acts in the best interest of the people) and what is only a poor imitation. "

“…the government of the many is in every respect weak and unable to do either any great good or any great evil, when compared with the others, because the offices are too minutely subdivided and too many hold them. And this therefore is the worst of all lawful governments, and the best of all lawless ones. If they are all without the restraints of law, democracy is the form in which to live is best; if they are well ordered, then this is the last which you should choose, as royalty, the first form, is the best.”

“This then we declare to be the completion of the web of political action, which is created by a direct intertexture of the brave and temperate natures, whenever the royal science has drawn the two minds into communion with one another by unanimity and friendship, and having perfected the noblest and best of all the webs which political life admits, and enfolding therein all other inhabitants of cities, whether slaves or freemen, binds them in one fabric and governs and presides over them, and, in so far as to be happy is vouchsafed to a city, in no particular fails to secure their happiness.”

Title: Statesman
Author: Plato
Year: circa 360 BCE
Translator: Benjamin Jowett
Translation year: circa 1871
Genre: Fiction/Nonfiction - Philosophy, Socratic dialogue
Date(s) read: 12/5/22-12/6/22
Reading journal entry #320 in 2022
Link to the text: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1738/...

Plato's dialogues:
Early:
Apology,
Charmides,
Crito,
Euthyphro,
Gorgias
Hippias Minor,
Hippias Major,
Ion,
Laches,
Lysis,
Protagoras,
Menexenus
Alcibiades I

Middle:
Cratylus,
Euthydemus,
Meno,
Parmenides,
Phaedo,
Phaedrus,
Clitophon,
Republic,
Symposium,
Theaetetus

Late:
Critias,
Sophist,
Statesman,
Timaeus,
Philebus,
Laws

This is the place where Plato gives his description of democracy as the worst possible form of government, but the best option we have. I liked his notion that a king is just as much a king even when he is not in power (292e). My favorite discussion, however, was on the 'regio dissimilitudinis,' the infinite region of dissimilarity into which the universe will fall when God takes his hand out from where He spins the heavens in their circles.

Seth Benardete's translation of Plato's Statesman is the translation any student of Plato (who lacks full knowledge of Greek) should make primary use of. His translation is the most literal one, and Benardete's mastery of Greek and his faithfulness to the particulars of the original make it the translation one should have at hand when paying the closest attention to Plato's particulars. In addition to the dialogue itself, Benardete's accompanying commentary can be the source of profound insights for those willing to expend the necessary effort needed to penetrate it (which, as I've said elsewhere, will come as no surprise to readers of Benardete's other works). One last thing I would like to point out: this is the third part of a three-part work which was originally published in one volume—n  The Being of the Beautifuln. Each of the three parts were later published separately, and in each of those three individual parts there is one introduction that briefly discusses all three of the dialogues in the whole trilogy (Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman). But note: this three-part introduction is not included in the original Being of the Beautiful. But also, note this as well: the introduction that is in The Being of the Beautiful is not the same as the introduction in each of its later, separately published parts. Serious students may want to read both.

2,9*

En väldigt bred dialog, med mycket strunt, men också mycket värdefulla grundkoncept.

Det irriterar mig oerhört att Platon återigen vidmakthåller den spuriösa skillnaden mellan tyranni (regering genom hot om våld) och kungaskap (regering genom balans mellan intressen och strategiska belöningar), och inte behandlar dem som en glidande skala. Inget samtida grekiskt samhälle var fritt från maktmissbruk, eller fritt från konflikter som löstes orättmätigt, genom våld. Platons egna släktingar inkluderade några av de 30 tyranner som installerades av Sparta, och även om han ogillade deras dömande av Sokrates, m.m. så talar han också för deras regim som alternativ till vad som kom efter dem, under några av Sokrates lärjungars regering. Platon förefaller därför hycklande när han hävdar att det finns makt utan våld, i ett samhällsstyre. Särskilt i ljus av att bokens bästa stycke är dess slut, där han kommer fram till att kungen verkar genom att spela ut olika grupper med våldskapital och samhällsintressen mot varandra.

Jag gillar denna definition på styrelsehantverket, för den tvingar fram en kungaroll som står bortom direkta konflikter, vilket en bra bevarande ledare behöver göra. Samtidigt skapar den en dynamik - metoderna liknar de som kallades Brinksmanship under kalla kriget; strävan efter att skapa mervärden ur konflikter runt om kring en, genom att aldrig allieras med någon grupp. Dulles hade nog gillat Statesman - eller kanske gjorde, eller inte - jag har aldrig fascinerats speciellt mycket av amerikanska politikers öden och smak.

De långa avsnitt utan innehåll som Platon lägger in i denna gör att jag inte kan rekommendera den. Vad gäller hans neutrala kungaroll, så finns motsvarande beskriven av antropologer och stampolitiker från i stort sett hela världen - ledaren är bara mäktig, så länge hen kan vandra mellan olika läger för att söka stöd. Bateson hade uttryckt det som att bara flexibilitet kan möta komplexitet. Att Platon formulerar detta är viktigt, för det ger en aning om att tanken var okontroversiell nog för Platon att skriva ned (både Aristoteles och nyplatonisterna är överens om att han inte gjorde det med de tankar som kunde orsaka honom problem). Däremot är det inte skäl nog att faktiskt läsa boken.

Jag rekommenderar denna endast för de som vill fördjupa sig i grekisk idéhistoria. Delar av innehållet är viktigt, men det är långt ifrån unikt, och prosan är så pass trögflytande att detta innehåll inte är mödan värt.

German Edition