Plato On The Unity of the Political Arts (Statesman 258 D–259D)

Eric Brown
{"title":"Plato On The Unity of the Political Arts (Statesman 258 D–259D)","authors":"Eric Brown","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198858997.003.0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Plato argues that four political arts—politics, kingship, slaveholding, and household-management—are the same. His argument, which prompted Aristotle’s reply in Politics I, has been universally panned. I consider and reject three ways of saving the argument, and argue for a fourth. On my view, Plato assumes that politics is identical with kingship, just as he does elsewhere, but he begs no questions because the point of his argument is to identify the public arts of politics and kingship with the private arts of household-management and slaveholding. He does this successfully by addressing three reasons why one might distinguish the private from the public arts. His argument leaves room for Aristotle to propose other reasons. One of them—involving differences among men and women and slaves—is unfortunate, but another is more promising. The Aristotelian can assume that political expertise is a matter of know-how gathered by experience of the particular actions which differ in the public and private arts. But Plato might well be right to reject this, and to insist that the essential difference between the expert and non-expert—the dividing line between good and bad rule—is not in experience but in their grasp of their goals.","PeriodicalId":345213,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Volume 58","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Volume 58","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198858997.003.0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Plato argues that four political arts—politics, kingship, slaveholding, and household-management—are the same. His argument, which prompted Aristotle’s reply in Politics I, has been universally panned. I consider and reject three ways of saving the argument, and argue for a fourth. On my view, Plato assumes that politics is identical with kingship, just as he does elsewhere, but he begs no questions because the point of his argument is to identify the public arts of politics and kingship with the private arts of household-management and slaveholding. He does this successfully by addressing three reasons why one might distinguish the private from the public arts. His argument leaves room for Aristotle to propose other reasons. One of them—involving differences among men and women and slaves—is unfortunate, but another is more promising. The Aristotelian can assume that political expertise is a matter of know-how gathered by experience of the particular actions which differ in the public and private arts. But Plato might well be right to reject this, and to insist that the essential difference between the expert and non-expert—the dividing line between good and bad rule—is not in experience but in their grasp of their goals.
柏拉图论政治艺术的统一性(政治家258 D-259D)
柏拉图认为,四种政治艺术——政治、王权、蓄奴和持家——是相同的。他的论点,促使亚里士多德在《政治学I》中作出回应,却受到普遍的批评。我考虑并拒绝了三种挽救论点的方法,并提出了第四种方法。在我看来,柏拉图假设政治等同于王权,就像他在其他地方做的一样,但他没有提出任何问题,因为他的论点的重点是将政治和王权的公共艺术与家庭管理和蓄奴的私人艺术等同起来。他成功地解释了为什么人们可以区分私人艺术和公共艺术的三个原因。他的论证为亚里士多德提出其他理由留下了空间。其中之一——涉及男女和奴隶之间的差异——是不幸的,但另一个更有希望。亚里士多德学派可以假设,政治专长是一种由公共艺术和私人艺术中不同的特定行为的经验所收集的知识。但柏拉图拒绝这一点,并坚持认为专家和非专家之间的本质区别——好规则和坏规则的分界线——不在于经验,而在于他们对目标的把握,这很可能是正确的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信