Plato on Non-Harming: 3

21 October 2024

Plato on Non-Harming: 3

“Well, then, can those who are just make people unjust through justice?  In a word, can those who are good make people bad through virtue?

“They cannot.

“It isn’t the function of heat to cool things but of its opposite?

"Yes.

"Nor the function of dryness to make things wet but of its opposite?

"Indeed.

"Nor the function of goodness to harm but of its opposite?

“Apparently.

“And a just person is good?

“Indeed.

“Then, Polemarchus, it isn’t the function of a just person to harm a friend or anyone else, rather it is the function of his opposite, an unjust person?

“In my view that’s completely true, Socrates.

“If anyone tells us, then, that it is just to give to each what he’s owed and understands by this that a just man should harm his enemies and benefit his friends, he isn’t wise to say it, since what he says isn’t true, for it has become clear to us that it is never just to harm anyone?

“I agree.

“You and I shall fight as partners, then against anyone who tells us that Simonides, Bias, Pittacus, or any of our other wise and blessedly happy men said this.

“I, at any rate, am willing to be your partner in the battle.

“Do you know to whom I think the saying belongs that it is just to benefit friends and harm enemies?

“Who?

“I think it belongs to Periander, or Perdiccas, or Xerxes, or Ismenias of Corinth, or some other wealthy man who believed himself to have great power.

“That’s absolutely true.”

(Plato, The Republic, translated by G. M. A. Grube, revised by C. D. C. Reeve, Plato: Complete Works, edited by John M. Cooper, Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, 1997, page 981, 335d-336a, ISBN: 9780872203495)

1.  I read this passage as focusing on cause and effect or, more specifically, means and ends.  Virtue is not the proper means for making people bad.  And acting justly is not a means that will generate injustice.  By implication, a person cannot live a life of non-harming by teaching them how to act in such a way that causes others harm.

This kind of analysis is often overlooked, particularly in a social or political context.  In my life I have been involved in various political causes and in that context I often hear someone passionately arguing that because the goal we are aiming for is good, it is legitimate to use ‘any means necessary’ to achieve it.  This can lead to disastrous consequences.  What should be kept in mind is that if we use negative, destructive, or harmful means to achieve our ends, on the ground that our ends are good, what we teach other people is that it is legitimate to use any available means to achieve a noble enough goal.  That is what they learn.  They don’t learn that the goal I want is good; instead they learn that it is legitimate to use means completely at odds with the stated goal.  This keeps the cycle of conflict going without end.

2.  The passage goes on to say that this kind of thinking is not wise, that it is contrary to wisdom.  This is because wisdom is founded on principles.  Non-harming is a transcendental principle that is not to be abandoned just because harming a few people, or a lot of people, will allow us to achieve our goal.  On a pragmatic level, even if using these means that are inconsistent with the principle we are advocating does lead to ‘victory,’ such a victory will only be temporary.  Others will soon follow behind us and, having learned that all means are available to now bring us down, they will do so at the first opportunity.

Wisdom is founded on, and grows out of noetic principles and understanding and the application of wisdom requires the retaining of these principles.  Otherwise one has abandoned wisdom.

3.  It’s interesting that Socrates uses the metaphor of a battle, which he and Polemarchus will fight against any who think that doing harm to enemies and good to friends is the way to live.  An actual battle is an occasion for harm; I don’t think there is any way around that.  But the battle Socrates is talking about is the dedicated search for truth and an adherence to the principles of the Platonic Way, including non-harming.

3.1  As an aside, the metaphor of a battle is often used in contexts that are not military in nature and are not in any real sense a battle.  The metaphor is often used for simply having a disagreement on some mundane matter with someone else.  The metaphor is often used in religious works as well in an allegorical manner.  I think this is unfortunate.  Using this kind of metaphor, or allegory, obscures the nature of harm and makes it more difficult to access the meaning of non-harming.  Having a disagreement with a friend about which noodles taste the best is not an occasion for harm.  Two Platonists disagreeing about whether the soul is fully descended or if the soul always retains a connection with the One is, again, not an occasion for harm even if the discussion is passionate and intense.  I understand why this metaphor is used so widely; I believe it is related to the idea that in situations where harm is done there is one person who ‘wins’ and another who ‘loses’ and this is superficially the same for the discussions I suggested.  But if my focus is on truth, then whether I am right or my opponent is right I benefit because the truth is uncovered.  That is why there is no harm in such discussions and that is why there is no harm in dialectic.

4.  Simonides (roughly 556-468 BCE) was a famous lyric poet who was widely admired for his poetic skill.  He also invented a system of mnemonics, and there are lots of stories about him.

Bias of Priene was a 6th BCE century Sage, one of the famous Seven Sages of Greece.  His writings have almost completely disappeared, but there is a bust of Bias that has the saying “most men are bad.”  

Pittacus of Mytilene (640-568 BCE) was a famous general and another of the Seven Sages of Greece.  In a battle against Athens Pittacus suggested that he and the Athenian general decide the conflict by battling one another; the result would be accepted by both sides.  In this way Pittacus avoided large scale loss of life.  Pittacus won the battle and ruled for ten years; after this he left his office having established a good constitution.

There is a story that Pittacus had a son who was killed.  The killer was brought before Pittacus who said, “Pardon is better than repentance” and he dismissed the man.

A saying of Pittacus, “It is a hard thing to be a good man,” is discussed in the dialogue Protagoras.  It is an extended analysis beginning at 343b.  Pittacus and Simonides evidently didn’t agree with each other on whether it was ‘hard to be a good man’ which makes it all the more interesting that both of them are listed in this collection of Sages that advocate for non-retaliation and non-harming.

These three Sages, Simonides, Bias, and Pittacus, are sighted as examples of previous philosophers and Sages who held the same view that Socrates is offering in this discussion; they are examples of those who hold the view “that it is never just to harm anyone.”  This implies that this teaching had been around for a long time,  Socrates   (470-399 BCE) lived about 200 years after the Sages that Socrates mentions.  And Socrates does not attribute these ethical teachings to these Sages; I mean that Socrates doesn’t suggest that these were the ones who came up with this kind of ethical stance.  It would be interesting to research earlier examples, if such can be found.

5.  The Sages are contrasted with four famous figures who had an opposite view of life.  In a footnote to the translation it reads, “The first three named (Periander, Perdiccas, and Xerxes) are notorious tyrants or kings, the fourth man (Ismenias) a man famous for his extraordinary wealth.”  As in many cases of great wealth, it is suggested that Ismenias acquired his wealth with little thought of its source, which was Persia.  (I think there is an appeal to the general idea that those who have great wealth are likely to have harmed others in order to attain that wealth.)

6.  The Republic is an extended allegory about the nature of justice and the soul’s relationship to justice.  Here there is the suggestion that non-harming is justice and that non-harming leads to the ascent into the light.