Resumo em Inglês:

Abstract: This paper argues that Plato in the Statesman consistently rejects all existing forms of constitution, separating off one, “the knowledgeable constitution,” from any other sort of rule, whether by a single individual, by a few, or by the many, and whether rule and the offices into which it is organized are or are not governed by effective checks and balances - a division that gives us kingship vs tyranny, aristocracy vs oligarchy, and two different types of democracy. All existing “statesmen” are written off without exception as “sophists” and “experts in faction,” and the quality of the laws of any existing constitution is declared to be at best sub judice insofar as they have all been formulated in the absence of the relevant political expertise. The paper goes on to consider these outcomes further, in relation to Plato’s Republic and Laws.

Resumo em Inglês:

Abstract: This paper provides a framework for understanding how nonideal constitutions are better or worse imitations of the ideal constitution. My suggestion is that the nonideal constitutions imitate the skill of the political expert, which includes an epistemic component (their political knowledge) and two teleological components (the benefit to the citizens on the one hand, and the unity of the city on the other). I then show how some constitutions better imitate the political expert’s skill across these dimensions, as higher-ranked constitutions are in a better epistemic condition, better benefit the citizens, and better foster unity in the city than lower-ranked constitutions. A major upshot of my reading will be to show that Plato recognizes the value of some nonideal constitutions while making clear how they still fall short of the ideal.

Resumo em Inglês:

Abstract: Remarks made by the Eleatic Visitor at Statesman 293a-300e are often read as implying that laws are hopelessly defective in comparison with expert political knowledge. Specifically, laws seem inadequate to the task of capturing the variability, mutability, and finely-grained detail of human life (294a6-b7). On the other hand, the Visitor endorses a strict form of law-abidingness for non-ideal constitutions. The tension between these positions has greatly exercised scholars. In this paper, I argue for a reading on which (1) the political expert, no less than laws, must rely on “rougher methods,” i.e. generalizations across individual cases; (2) law-making is a constitutive part of the statesman’s expertise; (3) laws are necessary for political communities and their value exceeds the merely instrumental or heuristic.

Resumo em Inglês:

Abstract: The Statesman is unique in the particular emphasis it places on paradigm: crafting and presenting two distinct paradigms, in great detail and at some length, but also turning to define and explain paradigm itself as a method that can help us progress from what is familiar to us from perception and experience, to what is unfamiliar and may “exist” only in the realm of ideas and thinking. In this paper I wish first to examine the Stranger’s explanation of paradigm, to see what it is and how it functions. Then, I wish to examine in turn the two paradigms the Stranger offers, the myth and the account of weaving: to see whether and how they fit his explanation of what a paradigm is; to explore how the Stranger employs each in his search for the being and the definition of the statesman; and to consider what each paradigm helps disclose that we might not have as easily discovered without them. The final question will be: what does the Statesman’s highlighting of the being and use of paradigm have to teach us about how we might advance toward knowledge of “the greater things.”

Resumo em Inglês:

Abstract: This paper explores privation in the Statesman, first from a methodological point of view, and then politically. I begin (§1) with the Rule of Bisection (262a-e): classes should be bifurcated by form, which apparently excludes division by positive and negative terms (e.g. human and non-human). The significance of the restriction is debated. I argue that the correct interpretation must take into account the preponderance of privative terms in the subsequent divisions of animals. According to one definition, humans are two-footed, non-interbreeding, hornless land animals; according to another, they are featherless, two-footed land animals (264d-266e). On my reading of the rule, classes should be bifurcated with reference to constitutive features of the resulting subclasses; while negative properties never satisfy this requirement, privations are in some cases partly constitutive of the target class in division. This insight allows me to offer a charitable reading of the Eleatic Stranger’s definitions of the human herd, which others have disparaged, as relevant for political theory (§2) and tightly linked with the Myth of the Ages (268e-274d) that follows these divisions (§3). In the final section, I sketch a unified outlook on the dialogue as concerned with effective political collaboration, under the supervision of a statesman who expertly integrates each member into the self-protective fabric of society (§4).

Resumo em Inglês:

Abstract: In the Statesman (287c3-5), Plato proposes that the philosophical divider should divide analogously to how the butcher divides a sacrificial animal. According to the common interpretation, the example of animal sacrifice illustrates that we should “cut off limbs” (kata mele), that is, divide non-dichotomously into functional parts of a living whole. We argue that this interpretation is historically inaccurate and philosophically problematic: it relies on an inaccurate understanding of sacrificial butchery and leads to textual puzzles. Against the common interpretation, we argue that the example of animal sacrifice illustrates that correct division minimizes (it cuts into the smallest number possible) by first dividing dichotomously and then dividing non-dichotomously into “parts,” not “limbs.” We will show that both the philosophical divider and sacrificial butcher proceed exactly in this way. By taking Plato’s comparison to the historical practice of animal sacrifice seriously, our interpretation provides better solutions to several textual puzzles than the common interpretation.