|
Jesus, Plato and the Foundation of Order
Comparing the teachings of Jesus with the philosophy of Plato. Introduction Since the beginning of civilization, a tension has existed between hierarchical and nonhierarchical tendencies. In the earliest remaining literary work, the Epic of Gilgamesh, this tension is realized when the king Gilgamesh seeks enlightenment, but the pressures of his place at the top of the hierarchy prevent him from attaining this stage of development, and so he retreats back into the glories of his accomplishments as king. While enlightenment is regularly seen as a good thing to strive towards, the tension arises at the question of order. Is a nonhierarchical system capable of maintaining order? Is the order of a hierarchy good, or is it counterfeit? This question of order rests ultimately in the ability of human beings to be moral creatures. The difference between organization and chaos rests on how people interact with others, whether they seek their own interests (the immoral) or whether they put their own interests beneath those of others (the moral). Whether or not hierarchy is able to maintain true order depends on its ability to instill a moral foundation in humanity. The same is true of any nonhierarchical system. Rampant immorality in traditional hierarchies have tended to lead to two alternative options: the "rational hierarchy" and the abolition of hierarchy. This paper will compare the rational hierarchy of Plato's Republic with the nonhierarchical model presented by Jesus in The Gospel of Matthew to determine which presents the better case for a solid moral foundation and therein a truer and deeper sense of order. It is found that a principle-based ethical system like that presented by Jesus provides a surer foundation than the authority-based system of Plato, and therefore, in at least this case, hierarchy can be considered fundamentally inadequate for creating true order. Plato's Philosopher Kings In The Republic, Plato (in the person of Socrates) argues that for the good order of society, governance should be taken up by a caste of self-effacing "philosopher kings". Plato uses the famous "Allegory of the Cave" to describe the enlightened state as one of liberation from false perception into apprehension of the truth of the universe. He then portrays his ideal philosopher kings as those who have returned to the cave to in turn liberate those still suffering false perception. Plato argues that the capacity for discerning higher truth rests within all people, as evidenced by his assertion "the virtue of wisdom more than anything else contains a divine element which always remains." However, he also asserts that the potential of this divine element is best realized when a person has been raised from youth to pursue higher truth. Plato says: "But what if there had been a circumcision of such natures in the days of their youth; and they had been severed from those sensual pleasures, such as eating and drinking, which, like leaden weights, were attached to them at their birth, and which drag them down and turn the vision of their souls upon the things that are below[...]" Having essentially breed citizens for such contemplation, the State should then be willing to install them in positions of leadership. The rationale for this rational hierarchy is made clearest in the closing paragraphs of this selection from The Republic: "You must contrive for your future rulers another and a better life than that of a ruler, and then you may have a well-ordered State; for only the State which offers this, will they rule who are truly rich, not in silver or gold, but in virtue and wisdom, which are the true blessings of life. Whereas if they go to the administration of public affairs, poor and hungering after their own private advantage, thinking that hence they are to snatch the chief good, order there can never be; for they will be fighting about office, and the civil and domestic broils which thus arise will be the ruin of the rulers themselves and the whole State." Jesus' Blessing of the Meek The "Sermon on the Mount", which is discussed here as it appears in The Gospel of Matthew chapters 5-7, is often considered one of the core statements of Jesus' ethical teachings. And so, it demonstrates an anti-hierarchical posture from the very beginning, with the passages ordinarily referred to as the "Beatitudes":
Here, Jesus is reversing the order of traditional hierarchy, placing those on the bottom (such as the meek, mournful, pacifistic, and persecuted) in special places of blessing. From this beginning, Jesus goes on to outline the basis for His ethical teachings. Though not necessarily in opposition to previous principles of enlightenment as the foundation for civilization and morality, such as those found in the Epic of Gilgamesh or the teachings of the historical Socrates, Jesus proposes righteousness as the foundation. Rather than a hierarchical model, Jesus explicitly teaches personal morality based upon the principle of love (Matthew 5:43-48). Jesus further outlines the shape of righteousness by doing it for it's own sake rather than for any hoped social status (Matthew 6:1). His vision is that God will reward those who pursue righteousness for it's own sake (Matthew 6:33) with both material (Matthew 6:25-30) and spiritual (Matthew 6:19-23) well-being. He also makes sure to warn against judgementalism (Matthew 7:1-5) and false prophecy, or false teaching, (Matthew 7:15-23) which would interfere with the work of righteousness. Jesus acknowledges that the path of righteousness is difficult to maintain and continue upon (Matthew 7:13-14), but maintains, importantly for the discussion at hand, that it is egalitarian:
Plato and Jesus: Comparison, Discussion, and Conclusion The ethics presented by Jesus and Plato are not entirely at odds with one another. In fact, there is a great deal of similarity between them, as there would be between any two people of good conscience who are mutually seeking what Plato calls "the beautiful and just and good" in following a Deity Plato also describes (obliquely by way of "the idea of good") as "the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual". Both Plato and Jesus express a certain dissatisfaction with the then current state of morality. Plato voices his feelings with the statement: "And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or envy the possessors of them?" Jesus' own feelings are expressed most clearly in chapter 5 verses 21-48 of The Gospel of Matthew, wherein He juxtaposes the existing Jewish Law, otherwise known as the Torah, with His own deeper understanding (e.g.: "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Matthew 5:22). However, where Plato seems to assert that the entirety of present understanding is flawed, Jesus does affirm that there is legitimate value in the Torah (Matthew 5:17-20). Plato and Jesus also anticipate persecution for those who pursue the paths they have described. When the philosopher descends back into the cave, they receive a sum of hostility from those still captive in the cave, in everything from mockery to threats and imposition of death (Plato 153). Plato's compensation for this essentially is The Republic, in which he argues that these philosophers should be installed in positions of authority rather than persecuted. Jesus, in the mean time, acknowledges and compensates for this persecution by asserting at the end of His Beatitudes:
Jesus clearly doesn't expect that the righteous will gain authority on earth, which underscores an apocalyptic thread throughout the body of His teachings recorded in the "synoptic" Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and as interpreted theologically in the Gospel of John. These two teachers also share the idea that virtue, in the form of enlightenment or righteousness, can only come about when one's loyalties are not divided between it and what Plato calls "sensual pleasures" and what Jesus calls "Mammon" (Matthew 6:24). Looking at the entirety of the selections discussed here, the general trend is to understand morality as temperance, fortitude, prudence, and justice. Where the two differ, though, is in how far reaching this virtue should be. Plato's "fatal flaw" is that he applies all of his ideas solely to the State. His focus is upon the State as a source of order rather than necessarily upon the interactions of individuals within that society, and under what conditions, being the rule of the philosopher kings, this State may achieve good order. It is worthwhile reiterating a previous quote to illustrate this: "You must contrive for your future rulers another and a better life than that of a ruler, and then you may have a well-ordered State; for only the State which offers this, will they rule who are truly rich, not in silver or gold, but in virtue and wisdom, which are the true blessings of life. Whereas if they go to the administration of public affairs, poor and hungering after their own private advantage, thinking that hence they are to snatch the chief good, order there can never be; for they will be fighting about office, and the civil and domestic broils which thus arise will be the ruin of the rulers themselves and the whole State." In Plato's system, virtue is for the enlightened, and the rest of the civilization recognizing this asks the enlightened to lead them. The failure here is that virtue, or morality, is not understood and internalized by the greater number of people. They would essentially be following rules they didn't fully understand simply because their "betters" said to follow them. The threat to the State is not necessarily the rule of selfish and unenlightened kings, though that most certainly is a threat, but rather it is that the populace continues to be selfish and unenlightened. Without a conversion experience, an enlightenment, for the rest of the people, the system Plato describes must rely increasingly upon force to maintain order. Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount" is deeply personalized. It is not formulating a system of State governance but instead setting principles to govern human relationships. From the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-10) Jesus is establishing that His frame of reference is more towards the bottom of the hierarchy rather than the top where Plato's is. His argument is directed to each individual hearing Him (or reading the record of His words in The Gospel of Matthew), provoking them to exhibit righteousness in their own lives, rather than provoking them to let the righteous lead them as Plato does. The emphasis is upon, essentially, sanctifying all people. It is this principle-based, egalitarian approach which provides a surer foundation for morality and order. Plato speaks of the sure foundation for the State, and with so grand a focus misses the details which spell the downfall of his system. Jesus, on the other hand, finishes His Sermon by illustrating in parable that He seeks the sure foundation for individuals, which is the only means by which order on any higher scale can be achieved:
|
