548. The Republic by Marcus Tullius Cicero, trans. by R. Rudd. This is a work by Cicero which sadly is in very poor condition. Much of it has been lost. It is meant to be read in conjunction with The Laws.
In the beginning Cicero attacks the Epicureans for their lack of patriotism. The Epicureans stated that a wise person would avoid if possible to dangers and conflict inherent in the pursuit of politics. Cicero wonders how someone could conceivably man the helm when that person would have no experience to rely on. It is clear that in this work and others by Cicero that he took the views of the Epicureans seriously. By this I mean they must have had quite a following. Otherwise he would not have taken pains to bring their system into question. After this the dialogue begins.
The following people arrive at the house of Scipio: Lucius Furius Philus, Publius Rutilius Rufus, Gaius Laelius, Spurius Mummius, Gaius Fannius, Quintus Scaevola, and Manius Manilius. They discuss celestial phenomena. The basic idea here is that a knowledge of astronomy causes one to keep worldly prizes in perspective, i.e. do not get a big head. Scipio define the Republic: the property of the public. A public is a gathering of people convened by legal consent and community of interest. Humans are political by nature.
Thus the primary reason for a state’s existence is not need for survival but common interest and desire to be with other humans. Scipio discusses the three main types: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. The best by far is the mixed constitution much like what the Romans had themselves. This is where Cicero diverges in a serious way from Plato. Plato’s Republic was made up but Cicero’s was a real place. Scipio states that the government which the Romans had at present was something which took many many years and the effort of many many great people to bring about. In fact he quotes Cato the Elder that the Roman state had too much sophistication for one person to have created.
Some scholars have suggested that Cicero in this book advocates a ruler somewhat like that which Octavian/Augustus became. But it seems that in light of this particular discussion there is not much to stand on. The accomplishments of humans are praised.
It is this aspect I think which was one of the reasons that Cicero was so attractive to the scholars coming at the beginning of the Renaissance. Man the being born in sin was unheard of to Cicero. Later there is a discussion of justice versus injustice. Philus as a Peripatetic makes the case for the unjust life. Justice he says is a political phenomenon. If justice were part of nature, then, just and unjust views would all be the same. Much has been made of this too, since the case which Philus makes is a strong one. Laelius makes the case for the life of justice. The problem here is that each comes from a different premise. To the Epicureans there was no divine connection between humans and gods. To the Stoics and others there was. Thus each comes from very different direction The Epicureans noted the differences between one human and another to note their differences. For example Philus remarks about the vast differences between one religion and another but evidently takes no note of the fact that each culture had a religion. Stoics did note this. Cicero considers Epicurean views of culture and people as superficial and therefore incomplete. For Cicero one test for a philosophical system was whether or not it helped draw people together and caused people to look beyond themselves. The Epicurean system fails he thinks in this area.
It just seems to me that without Cicero’s system there is no way to claim that Hitler was evil. What rationale would we have for the claim? By what concepts could he be condemned? Cicero wondered about such matters, too. If a system is logical does that mean it would be better than one which is not perfectly logical? He seems to me to extend the boundaries by which we as humans evaluate human needs and aspirations.
No comments:
Post a Comment