Archive for the ‘on politics’ Category
Reflections: Professor Thomas Pangle on Tocqueville and Liberal Education
Posted in American Civic Heritage, on Aristotle, on Being, on courage, on eros, on friendship, on laughter, on Leo Strauss, on liberal education, on liberality, on Pangle, on politics, on prudential questioning, on puzzling, on questions, on Socrates, on Xenophon, political rhetoric, tagged "andres melo", amelo14, liberal education, thomas pangle, tocqueville on December 20, 2011| Leave a Comment »
Protected: Reflections: Canadá y la naturaleza, Response to “El Tiempo” columns 8: Comentario a Andrés Hurtado García, “Estamos de canadienses hasta aquí”.
Posted in Colombia, deep ecology, on Aristotle, on ecology, on politics, trees, tagged amelo14, canada, Colombia, columnistas, columnists, debate, ecology, el tiempo, Greystar, parques naturales, reflection on May 19, 2011|
Reflections: “Great Debate: Advocates and Opponents of the American Constitution”, Review of Professor Thomas Pangle’s on-line course
Posted in Abraham Lincoln, American Civic Heritage, American Civil War, American Constitutional Debates, Colombia, education, on Aristotle, on Charles Taylor, on Leo Strauss, on Nicomachean Ethics, on Pangle, on politics, on the Apology, On the Bible, philosophy, political rhetoric, tagged "andres melo", alexander hamilton, amelo14, american civic heritage, american constitution, american constitutional debates, andresmelo, anti-federalists, antifederalists, Aristotle, brutus, canada, Colombia, comparative politics, constitucion del 91, constitucionalismo, constitution, constitutional debates, constitutionalism, federalist papers, federalists, george mason, great debate, hamilton, jay, law, leo strauss, madison, Plato, political philosophy, political rhetoric, politics, publius, robert yates, the teaching company, thomas l. pangle, thomas pangle, us constitution, usa on November 17, 2010| Leave a Comment »
Review of: Great Debate: Advocates and Opponents of the American Constitution, here
(Taught by Professor Thomas L. Pangle here , The Teaching Company)
________
I. INTRODUCTION
Perhaps one way to express the extraordinary debt we owe Professor Thomas Pangle for the many gifts his teaching generously provides us, is by recalling one of the specific difficult issues taken up in the deeply and intelligently contested debates held between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists over the very meaning of the American Founding and the foundational requirements of the new American Constitution. Thus, in dealing with the very complex question over the separation of powers ——partly following Montesquieu, the Oracle for all those involved in the debate—– Hamilton goes on to defend the idea that for the very stability of a sound modern commercially-oriented Republic, the executive must possess, embody and publicly be made clear to possess, what he calls ENERGY. Hamilton writes: “Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government” (FP, No. 70, p. 421).
And surely one part of the goodness of the gift that Professor Pangle offers us in these 12 (yes, only 12!), very short, very dynamic, very powerful and very concise lectures, is precisely his ENERGY-rich presentation of the Founding Debate itself, an energetic presentation which should in fact allow for a better sense of the dynamics of government and of governing by better prepared citizens, that is to say, ennobled citizens better educated for the intricacies of learning to rule and to be ruled as the dignified self-governing beings that they can become. In other words, these lectures, at the very least, allow for the creation of the requisite spaces for a better UNDERSTANDING of the conditions underpinning the political sphere on its own terms, that is to say, of the struggles undergone to gain the privilege of ruling and of the intense struggles over the hierarchical ordering of the ends of good government as seen by diverse practically-minded statesmen/stateswomen. The course does so via an understanding of the conceptually and practically privileged origin, irrepeatable historical origin, which IS the unique and momentous Founding of any given political community. Such prioritization of the Founding notably defended as particularly enlightening by all of classical political philosophy, but nowhere more clearly brought to light for us to see than in the dramatic presentation which is Plato’s Laws. Within the American civic heritage such privileged moment is precisely that of the Confederation Debates held between 1787 and 1790 when the post-revolutionary “Articles of Confederation” came under serious questioning during and after the Convention of 1787. It is the Federalists (Madison, Hamilton, Jay; using the pen name “Publius”) —–in response to highly critical newspaper articles published anonymously by brilliant Anti-Federalists (Brutus, Federal Farmer, Centinel), some of whom had left the Convention filled with intense indignation—— who, because of said challenge, are “put on the spotlight” and made to defend their radical, previously unheard of, innovations.
And, it is made transparently clear to us, in the urgency of the tone of the delivery, and through certain republican rhetorical abilities used (!), that such a return ——which stands in serious contrast to a simple shallow “progressive” reading of history as economically/ideologically driven——- is by no means an exercise in luxurious time consumption. Rather, such a return bespeaks of the crisis of the American political system, if not of the very crisis of the democratic west itself as exemplified in ONE of its member nations (albeit a very powerful, one could even say, a kind of model one; of this, more later). Or, as Professor Pangle’s Professor wrote:
“It is not self-forgetting and pain-loving antiquarianism nor self-forgetting and intoxicating romanticism which induces us to turn with passionate interest, with unqualified willingness to learn, toward the political thought of antiquity. We are impelled to do so by the crisis of our time.” (Strauss, The City and Man, 1).
This uniquely energetic presentation, then, is all the more comprehensible as a kind of response to such a crisis. Such a vigorous presentation is a philosophically-inspired reflexive attempt at UNDERSTANDING the core elements that may be considered, in part, and primarily by those interested in the political life itself, in order to become the types of public leaders ——in their souls, so to speak—– who can ultimately generate sound, decisive and prudent educational practices amongst their liberally-educated citizens. Such leaders, the dignity of whose moral virtuous and intellectual skills is repeatedly recovered by Professor Pangle, would then be better capable of generating a certain kind of political healing of our complex modern democratic condition, which ——–because not seen in its complexity—– can be worsened furthermore by a false sense of security that is derived always from all convenient uncritical “ideological” oversimplifications. Such medical therapeutics, in an important sense, deals with origins, not merely with a multiplicity of simplified and disconnected symptoms. Undoubtedly, Aristotelically speaking, the course is partly a courageous attempt at a therapeutics of critical recovery. And to know that this unique experience is available to us all via the internet through The Teaching Company bespeaks of the energetic generosity of shared thought and of thoughtful American enterprise.
II. BETWEEN THE LINES
But prior to going into the CONTENT of the course itself, it might be wise to look at some of the features which make the course such an exemplary one for us all, academics and non-academics alike; specially for those of us interested in recovering the dignity of political life, of public service and of the complex sacrifices and dilemmas involved in the pursuance of our highest most virtuous moral and intellectual ideals.
Reflections: The Bibliography of Professor Thomas L. Pangle
Posted in on Leo Strauss, on Pangle, on politics, on Xenophon, philosophy, tagged "andres melo", amelo14, andresmelo, bibliography, classical political philosophy, classical reason, Pangle, recovering reason, thomas l. pangle, thomas pangle, timothy burns on October 18, 2010| Leave a Comment »
With the welcome publication of the important Recovering Reason: Essays in Honor of Thomas L. Pangle (ed. Timothy Burns, here) we now have an accessible bibliography for those of us interested in the work of a true exemplar of the philosophic life, its depth and its joy. This post merely transcribes said bibliography.
(Note 1: For an important lecture by Professor Pangle on the nature of Socratic Political Philosophy following Leo Strauss see here . Only viewable on the Windows Platform).
(Note 2: For a recent interview by the Jack Miller Center see here . )
(Note 3: Those seriously interested but unable to have access to most of these works, specially in developing countries, contact me.)
Bibliography of the Published Work of Thomas L. Pangle
1973
Montesquieu ‘s Philosophy of Liberalism; A Commentary on The Spirit of the
Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Review of Charles Yost’s The Conduct and Misconduct of American Foreign
Policy. Yale Review 62. no. 4 (June); XVI-XVIII.
1974
Review of R. Hackforth’s Plato’s Phaedo, Phaedrus. and Philebus. American
Political Science Review 68, no. I (Mar.): 258-260.
Review of John Stuart Mill, The Later Letters (4 vols.) edited by Francis E.
Mineka and Dwight N. Lindley. Yale Review 63, no. 1 (Oct.): VIII-XII.
1975
“England After 1832.” The Yale Review 65, no. 1 (Oct.): 143-46. (Review
essay of Collected Works of Walter Bagehot, edited by Norman St. John
Stevas. The Political Essays, Vols. V-VIII.)
1976
“‘The Political Psychology of Religion in Plato’s Laws.” American Political
Science Review 70. no. 4: 1059-77.
“The Moral basis of National Security: Four Historical Perspectives.” In
Historical Dimensions of National Security Studies, edited by Klaus Knorr.
307-72. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
Review of Eric Voegelin’s From Enlightenment to Revolution. Political Theory
4, no. 1 (Feb.): 104-08.
1977
Review of G. M. A. Grube’s Plato: Republic. American Political Science Review
71 no. 3: 1336-37.
1978
“Rediscovering Rights.” The Public Interest 50 (Winter): 157-60. (Review
essay of Ronald Dworkin’s Taking Rights Seriously.)
“The Period of Cold War.” The Yale Review 67, no. 2 (Dec.): 289 -92. (Review
essay of Daniel Yergin’s The Shattered Peace.)
Review of Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars. American Political Science
Review 72, no. 4: 1393-95.
Review of D. J. Manning, Liberalism. American Political Science Review 72,
no. 4: 1380-81.
Review of Melvin Richter’s The Political Theory of’ Montesquieu and David
Carrithers’ A Compendium of The Spirit of the Laws. Political Theory 6, no
4: 567-69.
1979
“A Note on the Theoretical Foundation of the Just War Doctrine,” The Thomist
43, no. 3: 464-73.
Review of W. B. Gallie’s Philosophers of Peace and War. Review of
Metaphysics 33. no. 2.
1980
The Laws of Plato, translated with notes and a book-length interpretive study.
New York: Basic Books.
Review of Charles Beitz’s Political Theory and International Relations. Review
of Metaphysics 34. no. 1.
Reflections: PhD Graph II: Basic Preparation for Understanding the Work of Professor Thomas Pangle via “The Teaching Company”
Posted in Abraham Lincoln, American Civil War, on justice, on Pangle, on politics, philosophy, political rhetoric, slavery, war, tagged "andres melo", amelo14, andresmelo, graph, Pangle, PhD, thomas pangle on January 26, 2010| Leave a Comment »
NOTE: REVIEWS OF THE COURSES MENTIONED:
A. MAIN COURSE TO BE REVIEWED:
“Great Debate: Advocates and Opponents of the American Constitution”
Professor Thomas L. Pangle
(Reviewed here )
B. SECONDARY COURSES:
COURSE I: “Masters of Greek THought, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle.”
Professor Robert Bartlett
(Reviewed here )
COURSE II: “Abraham Lincoln: In His Own Words”
Professor David Zarefsky
(Reviewed here)
COURSE III: “American Civil War”
Professor Gary Gallagher
(Reviewed here)
Protected: Reflections: Twitter and Political Philosophy
Posted in blogging, blogs, education, everyday language, on agoristic philosophy, on language, on politics, Philosophical topics, tweeting, Twitter, writing, tagged "andres melo", amelo14, andresmelo, philosophy, political philosophy, rarefactions, Twitter on January 10, 2010|
Reflections: “American Civil War”, Review of Professor Gallagher’s on-line course
Posted in Abraham Lincoln, American Civil War, on Aristotle, on politics, slavery, war, tagged "andres melo", amelo14, American Civil War, andresmelo, lincoln, Northern States, politics, professor Gallagher, rarefactions, reflection, slavery, Southern States, the teaching company, war on January 4, 2010| Leave a Comment »
Review of:
(Taught by Professor Gary Gallagher, The Teaching Company)
Professor Gallagher’s course represents, almost as a war unto itself (!), a massive, elegantly-presented and very worthwhile undertaking. He provides us with forty-eight inviting, in-depth and detailed lectures that focus on the nature, conditions, causes, political strategies, and military campaigns of the costly Civil War between the Northern and the Southern States; an internal war which marks the identity of the United States in a radically unique way. The very fact of this war’s permanent recounting, continual exploration and constant re-interpretation ——both at the academic and non-academic levels—– reveals to us the very strength of the United States as a modern democracy and the necessary conditions for the rise of a politically powerful republic in any historical moment. For it was then that the United States really moved from using the verb “are” to the verb “is” in reference to itself. Truly, it seems, a healthy —–though painful—- memory may bring forth greatness. But, how can one see this uniqueness? Comparatively.
Canada —-country of which I am a citizen—- has really had no such internal war (it even boasts of a “Quiet Revolution” in the Province of Quebec). Little wonder the identities of these two modern liberal democracies can be so different even if there are obviously shared underlying realities and manners of self-understanding. No wonder how different at times is their population’s understanding of their role in armed conflict throughout the world. In contrast, as a citizen of Colombia one easily appreciates that there is a much closer possibility for an understanding of the dilemmas both past and present which both countries have had to face historically. Little wonder the USA and Colombia are currently well-intentioned allies (though at times the friendship seems quite one-sided). However, Colombia has not been able to win decisively the fundamental, if not perfect, unity that the USA won after the terribly disruptive Civil War. In this respect, courses such as these are of central concern for Colombian citizens in positions of leadership as we have gained much in securing our democratic liberties and freedoms via a costly bloody struggle primarily against narc-terrorists (also paramilitaries and drug cartels), but still have a long way to truly secure our greater happiness as a republican nation with a complex reality like few others. Examples of such resolutions may aid us even if ours is in no way a civil war in the accepted understanding of the term. This is the more so in that we are reaching the bicentennial of our first struggles for independence in 1810 against the Spanish Crown.
In other words, my not being a citizen of the USA ——not really knowing in detail who was Lee or Grant or Davies, or what happened at Vicksburg or Antietam or Richmond (not to mention the lesser known names; can a well-formed US citizen really imagine/accept this?)—— can be immensely helpful in trying to gather the relevance of a such a study beyond the borders of the historical imagination of the United States. Perhaps an understanding such as the one provided by this course reveals, as Thucydides believed, the permanence of certain elements of the human condition regarding political conflict and the constraints of war. For surely, in the same manner, few —if any—- US citizens will know who was Rondón (to whom the much more famous Bolivar said “Coronel Rondón, salve usted la patria“), or Anzoátegui or Sucre or know much of the Battle of Boyacá or Carabobo or Pichincha. In this limited sense, maybe an understanding such as the one provided by this course reveals core elements of our political nature as human beings beyond the vicissitudes of this or that conflict, this or that epoch. As Thucydides writes in his powerful The Peloponnesian War and the Athenians —which in very important respects contrasts dramatically with Gallagher’s course as the acknowledged Greek historian focuses primordially on military and diplomatic history (with little mention of economics, or everyday life, or the life of prisoners, etc.)— his is a book for all times, a book which reveals what gathers permanence beyond endless historical variation:
“In fine, I have written my work, not as an essay which is to win applause for the moment, but as a possession for all time.” (my emphasis: TPW: Book I, 22, 4; Strassler edition)
But leaving this point aside, Professor Gallagher’s inspiring understanding of the dynamic of the war and all its complex and unique protagonists, its multiple causes and its harsh day-to-day realities is delivered in such a passionate and careful manner that, although of great length in itself, one finishes the course with a feeling that actually little has been said in contrast to the true dynamic of the war itself! Moreover, Professor Gallagher’s serious undertaking is broken at times by a very fine sense of humor which reminds us that a certain elegant kind of humor can never be overcome by the dramatic tragedy of events. This is particularly so in his recounting of the nature of some of the Generals and their absolutely unique personalities. Perhaps one can recall the unforgettable case of the General, seen as having an extremely difficult personality, and who is said to have denied his own letter for provisions! “You have picked a fight with yourself now”, he is supposed to have been told by a superior. Quite revealing indeed. (more…)
Reflections: Assassination of Governor Luis Francisco Cuéllar
Posted in on justice, on politics, tagged amelo14, andresmelo, Colombia, politics on December 23, 2009| Leave a Comment »
The historically irrelevant, self-aggrandizing, tyrannical and cowardly narco-terrorists of the infamous FARC have assassinated —–they slit his throat rather than shoot him—– the 69-year-old Governor of Caquetá, Luis Francisco Cuéllar, and his personal security police officer, Javier Simón García.
Let the united strength of all the diverse Colombian civilians be set in intelligent heartfelt unison against them —-and their silent and their outspoken accomplices—— with all the might of our sorrows as on that memorable March 4th,
let the prudent strength of state justice and law fall with the weight of all their deaths upon them with the most severe of physical punishments, specially for their lawless drug-loving leaders,
let the formidable strength of the democratic military forces continue to be unleashed fiercely against their inhuman terror with the military genius of many more victorious “Operations Jaque”,
let the historical strength of our party system finally come together to rid us, once and for all, of this enemy of all,
let the united strength of all Colombians be set against those who are undeserving of any type of recognition, undeserving of the privileges of citizenship and undeserving of the grace of forgiveness in this, or any other world,
and, most importantly, let the humble spiritual strength of all Colombians prepare us for the possible graceless fate of those “secuestrados” who remain in their ignoble, sullen and blood-ridden hands. May we be truly forgiven if all does not go well.
For we must now more than ever remember what is said by those who are wise:
“This is why some think that lawgivers, in the course of laying down laws, should exhort and try to turn people towards excellence for the sake of what is fine, on the assumption that those whose habits have been decently developed will listen; but that they should impose forcible constraints in the form of punishments on those who fail to obey, and are rather poor material; and finally that they should cast out the incurable for good; the view is that the decent character directed as it is toward the fine, will allow words to govern him, whereas the inferior character whose desire is for pleasure needs forcible constraint by pain like a yoked animal. This is why they also say that the pains meted out should be of the sort most opposed to the attracting pleasures.” (Aristotle, NE, X *9, 1180a5-1180a14: Trans. Broadie.)
Reflections: “Abraham Lincoln: In His Own Words”, Review of Professor Zarefsky’s on-line course:
Posted in Abraham Lincoln, on Aristotle, on Leo Strauss, on liberal education, on politics, on prudence, on prudential questioning, on slavery, Philosophical topics, philosophy, political rhetoric, Reviews, slavery, tagged "andres melo", "art of rhetoric", abraham lincoln, amelo14, andresmelo, Civil war, lincoln, political rhetoric, politics, rhetoric, slavery, speeches, the teaching company, Zarefsky on November 30, 2009| 1 Comment »
Review of:
Abraham Lincoln: In His Own Words
(Taught by David Zarefsky, The Teaching Company)
Professor Zarefsky’s course provides us with an incredible opportunity. He opens the doors to an in-depth encounter, not with what others thought about Lincoln, but rather a much more powerful and intimate encounter with what Lincoln himself actually said and, through his words, with what he did. He gives us the gold, not merely the bronze. Lincoln, “in his own words”; such is the adventure. And, if it is true that the greatest leaders in speechcraft are perhaps the greatest leaders in statecraft, then Professor Zarefsky provides an entrance into the nature of political greatness, of political insight and of political decision-making themselves. In this respect, to be able to follow the paths which bring forth the birth, development and death of a great leader, is precisely what is made available by the course to us. Professor Zarefsky’s detailed and erudite knowledge of Lincoln’s life and his famous speeches ——-as well as Zarefsky’s own personal rhetorical abilities (!)—— enhance the encounter in such a way that the very silent words of the pages come into the proper realms of both dialogical argumentation and constrained action from whence they arose. We face the dilemmas Lincoln faced, we search for the possible solutions which Lincoln sought, we come to humbly appreciate his limitations, we can see much more clearly the decisions which Lincoln actually had to ponder and make in the solitude of the chambers of power. And to know that this unique experience is available to all of us via the internet is absolutely a welcome possibility.
More specifically; perhaps what is of the utmost value in the course is the very conscious recovery by Zarefsky of the art of rhetoric which has come under very severe attack by “Modernity” (Hobbes, Machiavelli, Locke) given its desire to contrast itself as far superior to the ideals of the classical Greek and Roman political philosophy and political practice in which the art of rhetoric itself was born, critically analyzed, and made an integral part of the political education of the best of citizens. Or to put it more fairly, by way of this kind of course one could actually come to understand the very basis of what distinguishes modern from classical rhetoric in both its means and ends; for instance, the rise of a type of “revolutionary” rhetoric in modernity which knows of little-to-no moderation in its practice. In allowing us to better understand the value and political relevance of this art, Zarefsky allows us to gain a greater respect for the call of the statesmen and stateswomen of our time. To learn to develop the capacity to rightly persuade diverse audiences at diverse times and under varying circumstances, such an art has rarely been more developed by any leader than Lincoln. For surely the capacity to write transforms, clarifies and prepares the writer himself for the practical complexities of political life filled with a multiplicity of constraints which a potential, but careless leader, will instead eliminate as cumbersome and irrelevant. Such a path may lead not to greatness, but to the worst of tyrannies and their terrifying defense of silence. This difference between our modern relation to the art of rhetoric and that of previous times perhaps is nowhere better exemplified than in the recounting of the nature of the audience which heard the Lincoln-Douglas debates which lasted for hours on end. It seems nobody was bothered, but rather cheered along as if cognizant in some way of the very basis of our nature as political animals who seek to be actively involved in the discussion of those matters of great importance. Perhaps the debates in the presidential campaign Obama-McCain have brought back this desire in some citizens of the USA, but the return of the value of rhetoric in the political arena in modernity still has to be defended by courses such as this which clearly show that the greatness of a leader is in part due to his love of argumentative language and style, in part due to the desire to be able to go into dialogical argumentation in defense of certain —in some cases—- flexible positions, and in part due to the nature of the type of self-understanding which the written words allows not only for the author himself but, even more importantly for us, centuries later. For the words left to us by Lincoln bespeak of the permanent transhistorical questions, not merely of this and that dilemma, in this or that epoch. Herein lies, as Zarefsky points out masterfully, the overwhelming permanence of Lincoln’s stunningly short “Gettysburg Address”: “it is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us”.
And, moreover, if this rhetoric is connected directly to a supervaluation of the virtue of political moderation —seen very early on in Lincoln’s “Temperance Speech”—- then truly in his work and life one finds perhaps the avenue for an understanding of the dangers of “rhetorical” radicalism in its diverse immoderate-ridden, demagogic and incendiary versions. Perhaps allowing myself a personal remark, it is this immoderation that characterizes the president of the neighboring country to my troubled Colombia and his continuous calls for war. For surely listening to the monologue of a leader for hours, cannot be seen as comparable fundamentally to listening to Lincoln for 2 minutes. And it is without a doubt such moderation ——and particular the desire to be moderate particularly after Victory (as Churchill likewise said, “In Victory: Magnanimity”) —— that makes Lincoln stand so high above us and above so many leaders of our age. The praise and cultivation of such a virtue in the political sphere under specific circumstances, stands as a permanent contrast with the punitive approaches developed in recent history. A crucial example is that of the excessive retributory decisions made in Paris 1919 against Germany which, in part, further developed the seeds for an even more tragic World War years later. (more…)
Reflections: Indicaciones para la justicia política en Platón: contra el Platón de la izquierda, Response to “El Tiempo” columns 8: Comentario al candidato presidencial Carlos Gaviria ”Colombia y la república platónica”, agosto 29 de 2009. (Spanish)
Posted in on justice, on Plato, on politics, on Socrates, Philosophical topics, philosophy, tagged amelo14, andresmelo, Carlos Gaviria, classical political philosophy, Colombia, columnistas, crítica, el tiempo, filosofía política clásica, justice, on Socrates, Platón, Plato, República, Republic, republicanism, republicanismo clásico on September 2, 2009| Leave a Comment »
“Lo vital es lo irracional,
Lo antivital es lo racional.”
Chávez (Documental canadiense titulado Revolución)
Comienza usted su muy cuestionable columna, indicando que en lo que concierne al racionalismo filosófico-político clásico, y en particular a la vertiente de Platón:
“Aún muchas personas que no han leído a Platón conocen su propuesta de una República aristocrática donde los más sabios, que son a la vez los más virtuosos, han de ser los llamados a gobernar el Estado-ciudad.”
Ya con estas palabras se indica el camino del descalabro. Los descalabros sobretodo más dramáticos se dan cuando una interpretación precisamente se funda en “rumores” –y se perpetúa a la manera de “rumores”—– más que en serias aproximaciones a los complejos textos en cuestión. Es claro que en tanto académico, y usted ha de saberlo bien como profesor, intenta uno estar abierto a diversas interpretaciones de textos fundacionales. Sin embargo, cuando una interpretación es tan contrario, o tan simplificada, o tan tediosamente repetitiva, (o peor aún, las tres a la vez), en lo que se refiere a un texto para la reflexión política primordial ——-es decir, la reflexión de un texto que abre el camino en occidente para la reflexión de una temática fundacional, la de la virtud de la justicia— se debe confrontar dicha interpretación limitada decididamente. Y si dicha interpretacion, en su aparente seguridad, además es utilizada para generar implicaciones políticas concretas y juzgamientos éticos específicos, pues con mayor decisión ha de confrontarse con seriedad.
Lo cierto es que toda su columna se funda en la presuposición interpretativa, repetida hasta el cansancio por la izquierda radical y la izquierda de centro latina una y otra vez sin imaginación hermenéutica inspiradora, de que La República de Platón tiene como conclusión fundamental el que la verdadera justicia, virtud fundamental de lo político en tanto que revela las condiciones para el bien común, se dará solamente cuando los gobernantes virtuosos sean los filósofos y los filósofos virtuosos (que usted parece identificar con seres de perfección) sean los gobernantes. Es decir, la solución al problema de lo político se da en la coincidencia entre poder y saber. (1)
Pero una lectura más interesada en el aprendizaje de los grandes filósofos y escritores políticos clásicos revela todo lo contrario; en particular, nada más foráneo al pensamiento dialógico platónico fundado sobre la base de una cierta skepsis socrática que va a contrapelo tanto de un relativismo insulso que caracteriza muchas de nuestras decisiones éticas actuales, como de un absolutismo conceptual de formulismos repetitivos ad infinitum. Es más, tal vez nada haya hecho más daño político en América Latina que el silenciamiento de la filosofía política clásica que como usted parece asegurar indirectamente, estaba tan equivocada, que poco ha de enseñarnos como modernos. Pero me pregunto, ¿qué tal que los destinos del continente tal y como lo reveló Unasur, se estén generando a través de un efectivo silenciamiento de alternativas cuya fortaleza es en cambio reconocida a lo largo de la historia y de las culturas? ¿Qué tal que encontrásemos en Platón, o mejor, en la Filosofía Política Clásica como tal (Tucídides, Platón, Jenofonte, Aristóteles, Plutarco y Cicerón), el gran camino de moderación que es requerido para una real resolución a nuestra encrucijada como país y como continente? Porque, ¿no resultaría irónico que entre más se dice que se une América del Sur bajo una visión “social demócrata de izquierda” que pide valorar la diferencia, termine triunfando al eliminar la diferencia que una vez predicó hasta el cansancio? ¿No resultaría altamente cuestionable el que dicha retórica de apertura se mantuviese solamente “hasta conseguir el poder” que permita instaurar un nuevo régimen “revolucionario” absolutista?
Pero dejando estas preguntas de tan grande envergadura de lado, me limitaré ahora a argumentar más concretamente el por qué su suposición es tan injusta en tanto académico, y seriamente equivocada en tanto candidato presidencial. Para ello recurriré a 3 puntos centrales –——lo más brevemente expuestos—– que espero le revelen la necesidad de retomar las preguntas fundacionales que permitan una argumentación mucho más profunda y enriquecedora de los dilemas y las encrucijadas a las que nos enfrentamos en la Colombia de hoy. Estos puntos serán; 1) aspectos del diálogo de Platón titulado la Apología, 2) aspectos del famoso texto de la República al que usted hace alusión pasajera, y finalmente, 3) en tanto apéndice, aspectos relacionados con otro diálogo platónico, Las Leyes, que permite una reconsideración que lo que hemos de entender por republicanismo clásico y de las intenciones platónicas que subyacen a su obra.
1. La Apología
Comencemos más allá de La República con lo más “obvio”, sinceramente, aquello que es demasiado obvio. La obra de Platón gira en torno a, o mejor, es una defensa dialógica de la vida de Sócrates. Ahora bien, como veremos, resultaría altísimamente extraño que Platón “dedique” su obra a aquel ser del cual aprendió el filosofar, y sin embargo a la vez defendiera las posiciones que usted le atribuye. Por ello en la Apología de Sócrates (cuya lectura debe ser acompañada de la Apología de Jenofonte), no encontramos rastro alguno de esa ecuación que usted asume como fundamento de la “teoría platónica de las cosas”, a saber, una coincidencia entre el filósofo y el gobernante como resolución a la pregunta por la virtud de la justicia. En cambio, lo realmente impactante es que Sócrates allí precisamente dice y defiende —defiende con su vida ya que esta en un juicio condenado a la más severa pena posible por parte de la justicia política misma— todo lo contrario! Según Sócrates en dicho texto, que se da tan solo días antes de su muerte, el saber filosófico es por naturaleza una acción que se acomoda de manera mucho más saludable al ámbito de lo privado. Pero en vez de llenarnos de más “rumores”, escuchemos al propio Sócrates:
“This is what opposes my political activity, and its opposition seems to me altogether noble. For know well, men of Athens, if I had long ago attempted to be politically active, I would long ago have perished, and I would have benefited neither you nor myself. Now do not be vexed with me when I speak the truth. For there is no human being who will preserve his life if he genuinely opposes either you or any other multitude and prevents many unjust and unlawful things to happen in the city. Rather, if someone who really fights for the just is going to preserve himself even for a short time, it is necessary for him to lead a private rather than a public life” (mi énfasis: Apo. 31d-32a; edición Thomas G. West, disculpe la falta de traducción)
Como ha de ser evidente, estas palabras van en total oposición a su suposición, y por ende ponen en entredicho toda su columna ya que una coincidencia entre gobernantes y filósofos implicaría que los filósofos socráticos están de entrada interesados primordialmente en la búsqueda del poder político en el ámbito publico como medio para instaurar su visión absolutamente segura de la justicia. Ahora bien, el por qué Sócrates prefiere la vida privada a la pública, bueno, eso sólo es posible entrar a considerar si superamos de una vez por todas su errada suposición que, para usar términos marxistas, es enajenadora. Pero sin duda unas de las claves radican precisamente en hacer la pregunta por la justicia no sólo en cuanto a su relación con las virtudes políticas tomadas como fines en sí mismas, sino también en cuanto a su relación con la noción de “felicidad” en términos de lo que cubre la correspondiente palabra griega eudaimonia.
Rarefactions: by Andrés Melo Cousineau 