785. Cicero on Politics and the Limits of Reason by Jed Atkins

785.  Cicero on Politics and the Limits of Reason by Jed Atkins.  

The author’s argument is that the De Republica and De Legibus of Cicero borrow ideas from Plato and the Stoics and others but changes them to Roman acceptability, but in the end rises to a different level which makes these works gems for all time and places.

Reason to Cicero meant a way to understand the proper way to live and how humans fit into the universe of life, to unite humans and determine the kind of political life for society.  Reason is divine but humans are imperfect- this impacts the nature of political society.

So this book analyzes these two works by Cicero but is not a survey of Cicero’s political views.

Cicero developed a science of politics, this is viewed from a level beyond the physical world.  His science of politics combines the ideal with what is possible.  People are not perfect, thus there is a need for an aristocratic element, monarchic and democratic.  The manipulation of these must be from the perspective that no one knows what history will bring, for life can be unpredictable.  Thus the four virtues are needed for leadership to maintain a balance in a changing world.

Atkins argues that Cicero kept himself out of De Re Publica to allow the reader to think things through for themselves instead of being told by Cicero what to think.  The style of the dialog is guided by a desire NOT to dictate what people should think.  In fact the manner of approach is to encourage discourse, discussion and study.  But in the De Legibus Cicero puts himself in the dialog, perhaps to bring an aspect of the De Re Publica into current times or the reality of a living government.

Atkins remarks that Cicero began De Re Publica after Caesar, Pompey, Crassus met at Luca in 56 B.C.  That is an interesting remark.

Cicero views practical experience as essential for political knowledge and thus places this above philosophy which “dismisses political activity as unworthy of the philosopher.”  At the same time he is careful to argue that political philosophy is of value for the practical politician.  Cicero makes the case that political philosophy allows a politician to see underlying causes and thus have a better grip on how to deal with fluctuations.

Cicero handles the participants in such a way that each contributes an aspect or idea so that the reader may in a sense participate in the growth of the discussion.

It seems to me that by giving good arguments to each member of the dialog and by letting each dispute each other and even contradict themselves, Cicero exemplifies in this way the Roman idea that private law, for example, is so valuable and possesses the quality it has because it is the work of so many over many years.  

Scenes such as that of the Dream may have had the purpose to cause the reader to go back, re-read and think.

Cicero argues that somehow even though the interests of philosophy are hostile to politics and vice versa the two must be combined if one ever hopes to grasp “the principles of civic affairs.”

Tubero’s and Scipio’s discussion bring astronomy to bear on the study of politics.  Scipio observes that astronomy can predict cycles and movement.  Perhaps the changes of a constitution can be predicted and guided.  Thus Cicero combines science and constitutional studies.  Thus the ideal state is viewed as perhaps impossible but useful as a model to create a state approximate to the ideal.  The Roman Republic contains contradictions, confusion, disorder and adjustments.  All politics does not have reason at the helm.  There are limits to reason.

Looming in the background to all this are the works of Plato, Stoics and others.  Cicero deftly uses these for his own purposes.

The Dream has two aspects:  the cosmos with its ideal, divine and rational and the Earth with non-ideal, human and irrational.  Both are combined in the Dream and both are used to “search for a scientific account of politics.”

By knowing the ideal a statesman may better direct the course of his country amidst the irrationality and unpredictability of politics.

Scipio defends the idea of in possession of the ideal but it is clear that with reason alone this system cannot adapt to the vicissitudes of politics.  To use the ideal wisely a statesman must bring one’s soul into harmony with nature’s ideal.  And then as best as possible bring fellow people as close as possible to that ideal.  This must be done with people who rarely follow reason.

The Dream reveals the limits of reason as it puts on display the “rational cosmic order.”  Thus a Roman politician’s code of honor, for example, glory, a study of the the rational cosmic order will show how meager glory is compared to the order of the universe.  This allows a re-evaluation of glory’s worth in cosmic terms.  Thus a statesman, a true statesman looks upon glory as something different from what other politicians see.  Thus even though Scipio’s grandfather who appears in the dream mentions the possibility of his murder, Scipio is eager to return to his duty.  This is in direct contrast to Plato’s man who reluctantly returns to the cave.

Scipio also rejects Polybius’ idea that humans possess rational self-interest.  Instead he feels that humans are a complex mix of reason and passions.  Thus human nature is unpredictable.

In Cicero’s view when it comes to the constitution power is not enough.  There must be auctoritas.  Auctoritas: reputation, dignity, influence, weight.  It is not something which comes from law but what is the result of getting things done or a demeanor which signals respect with a sense of awe.  The Senate has this.  This helps to produce stability- this is Roman and Roman alone.  So power with authority and liberty- there must be a balance to avoid revolution.  Liberty’s definition was a matter of dispute in Scipio’s time and in Cicero’s and for that matter in the present.  To many people liberty is a numerical equality.  This view is rather simple.  Aristotle felt that liberty without respect for dignity is a perversion of liberty- licentia.  But in the dialog Scipio realized that people must have liberty as it is universally appealing.  Concordia (harmony), caritas (charity), libertas and concilium( assembly) are to be connected to custom and education and tradition- from this citizens are educated and guided.

Atkins makes the argument that Romans possessed rights and the power to use them.  This defense he felt was needed in that in modern times he must battle the repeated assertion that the Romans did not possess rights.  He pretty must smashes that assertion.

Scipio defines res publica:  1.  property of the people

                                             2.  gathering of people in a partnership (societas) with the agreement that law, justice and rights are for common advantage.

This res publica- this property of the people= the liberty to be masters of laws, courts, of war, peace.  This property is emancipated from the power of kings or aristocrats.  If the res publica, Scipio asserts, is the property of the people, then people possess a right to run it.  The res publica represents citizens interests, activities and thus stands for rights.  (My observation-  in the De Officiis Cicero makes much of property rights.  I think that the basis of liberty is owning the res publica and undisputed rights to one’s own property.  Property in Roman private law could only be given up by an owner.  Thus Romans did not endorse eminent domain as we have.)

Consequenbtly a citizen has the right to redress if this societas (partnership) is corrupted.  The history of Rome supports this view of Scipio/Cicero- for as time passed, citizens gained more and more rights to ownership of the Republic.

Scipio argues that the reason for states is a human need, a natural desire to create a society.  Thus the purpose of government is to promote natural desires.  Natural desires are supported by laws and government.  This is the opposite of Plato and Aristotle.  Cicero does not think that people formed societies to supply what they themselves can not provide but to fulfill a need to share thoughts and ideas.

Tubero in De Re Publica questions what is needed to preserve such a state.  Thus Cicero wrote De Legibus.

Cicero in contrast to De Re Publica puts himself as one of the participants in the work on laws.  Cicero felt that the Stranger in Plato’s Laws was actually Plato.  A friend, Sallustius, may have advised him to do so.  So Cicero plays the lawgiver.

Cicero argues for Natural Law but uses elements from Stoics, Platonists and Aristotle to attract a wide audience.  Cicero may well have this idea from the time he spent with Antiochus. So Cicero felt that “all humans are governed by natural rights or justice.”  All humans possess reason, justice has been given to all humans.  There are natural qualities which humans have:  humans are upright, unlike animals (this encourages thinking), senses, facial expression and speech.  Humans are rational, this draws them together.

Atkins points out that Cicero is not dogmatic about these issues.  Cicero is not completely convinced of Natural Law but knows that if progress in argument is to be made, the power of doubt (such as that practiced by Peripatetics) must be dialed down  There is a Natural Law, Cicero feels, but as his understanding of it stands, it may not be fully correct.  But Cicero feels that in essence the Stoics, Platonists and Aristoteleans are in the end in agreement on Natural Law.

Atkins puts out a long discussion on Cicero’s sources.  The essence is this:  Cicero uses what makes the most sense.  (Cicero never seemed the type to fail to see the forest for the trees. )  He uses what make the most sense in light of his understanding of human nature, the limits of reason, the limits of government and in light of what is practical.

In Atkins’ view Cicero demonstrates how the natural, rational, divine and ideally best may purchase authority from the customary, irrational humans.

Conventionalists argue that law is what people say it is.  Thus there is no basis in nature.  This rests on the idea that humans are only motivated by self interest.

But human nature to Cicero is what is common between Gods and humans.  So Cicero looks to the very heart of the essence of what a human is.  He looks to the higher hopes and capacity of humans.  This human nature will produce laws.  These laws may not satisfy the requirements set by Natural Law.  What to do?

So laws to Cicero may be imperfect but these are valid even if said law does not fit perfectly with Natural Law.  Cicero does not think that human law modeled on Natural Law would be permanent- for all depends upon human situations which may arise.

According to Atkins Cicero uses Natural Law to help form constitutional law and religious law, but he does so in terms of society, human nature and society’s desires.  

Cicero’s constitution is characteristic of human life just about everywhere- such as respect for the dead and protection of sacred sites.

Cicero has a tripartite division of law:

1. Natural Law (ius naturale)
2. laws which ought to be (ius gentium)
3. laws actually in place (ius civile)

In the De Legibus, De Re Publica Cicero asks us to think along with the participants to examine, study and question just what can be done to come as close as possible to the ideal state.  He looks at the essence of the realizable state.  He had the good sense to know that there are limits to what reason, human reason, can accomplish.

Cicero examined people to figure out what they are by examining what they hope to be.  Thus he looked at Plato and others to see their hopes but then looked at history to see what humans are and then examine what is possible in light of an ideal.

Supreme Court Diversity, Justice Sotomayor and GMOs.

Supreme Court Diversity, Justice Sotomayor and GMOs.

When I hear someone call for diversity these days, I am never sure which way the intent is directed.  But this I read a while back and gave pause.  Justice Sotomayor said in an interview at Brooklyn Law School, “I, for one, do think there is a disadvantage from having (five) Catholics, three Jews, everyone from an Ivy League school (on the Supreme Court).”  

Here we have a justice calling for a different kind of diversity on the Supreme Court.  And it makes sense.  She seems to suggest that Justices from other law schools may bring different perspectives.  This is sorely needed.  

In 2014 the Supreme Court ruled that “Monsanto may sue a farmer whose field  was accidentally contaminated with Monsanto materials.”  On the surface this seems to make some sense.  There is a patent by Monsanto which protects the GMO seeds which they have developed.  GM surely has thousands of patents to protect devices they have developed for their cars.  

There is a problem here.  Cars are a material object created by humans.  But seeds and the way these function have been developed over millions of years by Nature to assure their survival and success.  To give the right to a company to sue for what Nature has been doing since, well, since the earth cooled, displays a level of ignorance or complicity which is nothing short of scary.  How can it be ignorance?  

We live now in Georgia and where we live can have some strange wind patterns.  Often in the morning the wind comes from the west, later on from the south and occasionally from the east and once in a while from the north.  The seeds I plant can conceivably be contaminated from a large area.  I could plant trees around the border and this would reduce the chances of cross pollination but certainly would not end it.  So the ignorance rests on the utter cluelessness of how weather can work with Nature.  How a farmer’s heritage seeds can be contaminated by “an act of God”.  The Supreme Court Justices might alter their views, if they understood farming.  There is also the danger in allowing a company to have a patent for a seed and give them the right to check another farmer’s field without permission or knowledge.

This ruling clearly is for the benefit of giant companies to be able to control who manages the food supply, not just for the USA but for the entire world.  This is where complicity comes in.  It is illogical to assume that when someone becomes a Supreme Court Justice that they delete their past, their past of employment, their past education, their past views.  After all, who and what each of us is depends on what we read, studied, heard and where we worked.

So when this ruling was made, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion.  From 1976- 1979 Thomas worked as a corporate lawyer for Monsanto.  This, to me, is a serious conflict of interest.  He did not recuse himself.  It appears that members of the Supreme court are exempt from having to recuse themselves, when a case comes up in which a former associate or employer is involved.  They are permitted to evaluate their own obligation to recuse themselves.  A rather convenient arrangement.  

Justice Thomas has received gifts from groups which support programs such as those developed by Monsanto.  $15,000 bucks from American Enterprise Institute which opposes regulations on GMOs,  speaking engagements at organizations which also oppose GMO regulations.

So it seems that integrity is not only lacking in Congress and the Executive branch but also the Judiciary.  This is scary because one thing, it seems to me, preserves what freedoms we have and that is the fact that one branch of government is supposed to watch the other.  This conflict between the three branches has kept them off of our backs, for the most part, for more than two centuries.  

There is not much doubt that corporations play a huge part in elections, in both parties.  This is clear when we see how Senators respond and how Congress people respond and how Presidents respond. President Obama appointed Michael Taylor to run the FDA.  Where did he work previous to his appointment?  He was a lobbyist for Monsanto!

Who appoints Justices?  The President.  Where do they come from?  Many from corporations, major power interests.  President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia.  Where did he work?  For a company which defends corporations.

Just exactly where in all this are the interests of the country as a whole defended?  

Modern Epicureans as Anti-intellectuals

Current argument by some claim that there are certain matters settled and beyond dispute.  I agree that some issues come under this group:  the distance of the sun from the Earth, or that the Earth revolves around the Sun.  There are hundreds of others.  But there are some problems which science, for example, faces which are at least questionable. 

Lets change subjects for a moment and think about the ideas of Marcus Tullius Cicero.  He wrote a book, On the Nature of the Gods in 45 BC.  It consists of a dialogue between Cicero, his friends, Balbus, Velleius and Cotta.  Cicero narrates but hardly participates in the discussion.  As though he sits at the side, follows the conversation and thinks of what is said.

Velleius submits the argument of the Epicureans who argued that only things exist. And these things, atoms are constantly shifting about and that no object ever remains the same.  He carries his argument to all areas. God does not exists for God does not consist of atoms.  The ideas in your head can not be the same as those in mine.  Pleasure and pain determine how we act, why we act (because only atoms, physical objects interact).  Thus we seek pleasure but avoid pain.  No one does something for country because it is right but because there is some personal advantage for doing so.  Such as saving the country to protect one’s own property.  Any argument or piece of litarature outside of these limits is not worthy of study.

One of the characters in the dialogue, Balbus, a Stoic, critiques Velleius’ points.  Balbus makes the case that Epicureanism tends to be dogmatic- here is the list of what is true, learn it and then one will know; that here is no need for knowledge outside of what the senses provide, because Epicurus (the founder of Epicureanism) has transmitted to all posterity what is true and what is false; that Epicurus saw no need for examining any other system of thought or anyone else’s ideas; that any system which disputes Epicurus is not just wrong, but foolish; that Epicureanism has the tendency to argue that the matter is settled and case is closed.  Balbus is extensive in his arguments to refute Velleius and Epicureanism.  

But all this leads to a question about Epicureanism.  If it had gained ascendency and had the power to enforce its views, would it be tolerant of different views?  After all does dogma see any need for dispute?  Epicureanism never says that it appears to be correct but that it is correct. 

At the end of the dialogue, Cicero says that he favors the Stoics but realizes that upon further study, he may change his mind.

My concerns is that if only things exist and constantly change how can love or justice or courage be nailed down?  It would be like nailing jelly to a tree (as Dick Goddard used to say). In fact how can any aspect of life be understood in any way except as objects of matter?

It seems to me that modern liberals (I despise the use of that word- it is derived from Latin, liber-free, al- pertaining to. pertaining to the essence of what freedom is.  But it is the word in vogue, so here we go.)  modern liberals are much like the followers of Epicurus.  First they are followers, they deny any value to an idea which questions theirs.  They hurl snide remarks at those who offer a different perspective (as Velleius does in Cicero’s book), there is no need for discussion, no need for debate and certainly no need for study of anything but accepted liberal views.  In the end Epicureans and modern liberals are curiously anti-intellectual.  And had they ascended to indisputable preeminence, no ideas but their own would be tolerated.

It is interesting and telling that Epicureans saw little of value in Cicero’s ideas.  Yet, it was Cicero who took advantage of an opportunity to save the school in Athens which Epicurus set up, because Cicero felt that all systems of thought deserved a reading and study.  Ironic is it not?  Or is it?

Liberty and Common Core

These are thoughts about Liberty and Common Core.  The comments evolved on Face Book from a nice discussion on an article about whether there should be evaluative tests, written tests or that these should be eliminated. 

 A friend of mine made the point about Common Core exams/tests that these rely less on recall and more on the performance of complex tasks where there is more than one right answer.  Those are good points and a nice observation on Common Core.  I can see the attraction for some of these features.  The problem I see with Common Core tests and one I feel is loaded with danger is that the writers of the tests determine what is taught.  This may seem a strange point but bear with me, please.  I use the following as a means to make my point.  

I taught Latin.  In some ways I liked the AP Latin tests, but what bothered me was the clear indication (as the years passed- I did not notice it for some time) that the same passages were hit over and over in terms of say a five year period.  Thus there were passages never hit which were stunning displays of artistic quality and of personal value for a student’s view of life.  My point here is that those who wrote the tests and selected the passages had the imprint of THEIR view of what  was significant in a piece of literature.  I noted, too, that the authors selected and the works selected represented the social and even political views of the test designers (This point is picked up later).  These points make the case that a teacher would tend to focus on what the test designers felt was valuable.  I ignored that, frequently, but the time constraints made it difficult to fit in.  My system jeopardized my students' performance on the exam, because I did not always select passages for my tests which I knew may be on the exam.  I hope that these sentences make my point understandable.  

I have another example.  I investigated the International Baccalaureate syllabus for Latin.  I was stunned to see that every author selected, every one, was from the imperial period, there was nothing from those authors who defended liberty, free speech and opposed tyranny.  Of course, I point out that we are a country which cherishes liberty.  I understand the title of the program is IB, but even so, it is heavily promoted here in the U.S.A.. My concern is this- it is dangerous to have authors selected or tests designed by a centralized group.  It will defend its turf against a challenge.  

Years ago a group of Latin teachers, like my self, asked the committee which selects authors and passages for AP Latin courses to help with the process.  These were permitted to sit in the room with the committee, but were not permitted to ask questions, make comments, written or spoken.  And this was the result of an extended set of negotiations.  

I might add that the Romans never had any national syllabus or anything vaguely similar to public education, yet there was very strong similarity between the authors covered by one teacher or group of teachers and another.  Yet, because there was no national control of any kind, teachers were known to tailor their program to the interests of individual students.  Even in the imperial period, teachers continued to teach authors who defended liberty and fought against tyranny.  Thus there was for a long time a constant stream of those who opposed the manner in which some emperors operated and challenged conventional thinking.  Opposition ended when a way was found to end the system where teachers designed their own program.

Uniformity in Education

Is it wise to want sameness and /or uniformity?

I admire the paintings of Monet.  Do I need to compare the paintings of Monet to Renoir in order to know that his paintings are beautiful and well done? Do I need to compare Raphael to Michelangelo in order to know that Raphael has skill?  There is great skill in each but in terms of consistency, consistency between one and the other in terms of presentation, there is very little similarity.  Each approaches their area in a different way and one can not be used to evaluate the other.  Yes, there is value in comparing and contrasting one great work with another.  But only in terms of enhancing our love and admiration for each.  If we compare great works for the purpose of producing uniformity, we do so at the risk of killing creativity, expression and freedom of thought.

So what are we doing comparing the students of Oregon to those in New Jersey?  We are comparing a product.  There is great value in a set of same products to be not similar.  I noticed through the years that business terms and industry terms crept more and more into education speak.  It may be a coincidence but I doubt it.  Language usually reflects how people think about things.

In production of an object, there is great value in sameness.  But a human is not a product, but a distinct individual with intellect.  

How does making kids into a product comport with all this talk about individuality and thinking outside the box?  What we are doing with nationalized tests and national standards is creating uniformity.  This is weird in terms of all this talk of diversity, divergent thinking and independent thinking.  Those are smoke screens for what is actually happening.  What we have is a push to create uniformity in thought on a number of areas.  I once had In School Suspension duty one period a day at West G.  Boring job, but in the suspension room were text books for examination for adoption on a shelf.  So I picked up American history books and selected a period.  I chose the abolitionist movement.  It mentioned famous Black activists who worked for it, certain groups who did the same.  But not a word of the real hot bed of the abolitionist movement:  the churches.  I wonder why.  I noticed, too, that when it came time to discuss the modern civil rights movement that Martin Luther King was referred to as Dr. King, never Reverend King.  His reference to news papers at the time was always Reverend King.  The civil rights movement first began and maintained its drive in the churches.  Yet, the insistence of some for the necessity of uniformity and the zeal for some committee to decide what topics to approach, how to approach these and how long, controls in a nuanced manner what people know about something and how they feel about particular individuals, ignored some interesting facts.

I showed Inherit the Wind several times in class.  It portrays in a fictional manner the trial which took place in Tennessee years ago.  A teacher was on trial for teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution.  Frederick March, Spencer Tracy and Gene Kelly gave impressive performances.  We had been translating selections from Cicero where he presented arguments on difficult and controversial topics.  We watched the movie 20 to 30 minutes each day followed by a series of questions to make sure the students followed the arguments.  The main point of the movie was that the teacher was not permitted to express his views on a controversial subject.  The court room exchanges were engaging and dramatic.  At the end of the movie, I gave a brief presentation on Intelligent Design which has been relentlessly attacked by many.    I then asked my students to write a paper constructing an argument why a teacher should be allowed to present a case for Intelligent Design.  

I was looking for two things- 1. I wanted the students to take arguments used in the movie to justify why someone should be allowed to present an argument for a controversial topic such as ID, 2. I wanted the students to confront the defense of an idea with which they might not agree.  

How would a review committee of Common Core (or by whatever name it goes) feel about my idea?

One more.  I taught Latin a particular way.  Others I knew by the dozens taught another way.  Some used one textbook method, others a different one.  Each method was quite different from other systems.  It would never occur to me to dictate to another Latin teacher, which book to use, which method to employ, what history topics to cover or what was valuable in an author.  Each teacher must employ that system which best suits their nature and personality.  To enforce my views upon them would be a disaster.  And that is what we have with CC.  

I suggest that any system which sets standards for education contains the values and views of those committee members who write out the program.  Their values may be fine points, but their values and the necessity for uniformity end up preventing alternate views, alternate views which just may increase admiration for those values of the committee or even improve them or perhaps cause those to be rejected.  At the heart of this is the ability to critique a viewpoint, the right to think outside the box and the right to think.  This is a dangerous path we have taken. 

776. Cicero on Politics and the Limits of Reason, by Jed. W. Atkins.

776.   January 16, 2018.  Cicero on Politics and the Limits of Reason, by Jed. W. Atkins.  Atkins advances the argument that Cicero argues in De Republica and De Legibus that reason and the perfect natural law are the essential weapons for a statesman to have.  But these tools need to be put into play in light of history, the people of a particular nation, their customs and in light of chance circumstances which take place.  He also argues that the De Republica and De Legibus were meant to be taken together.  Atkins asserts that Cicero felt that politics, reform and the goals of perfection must be viewed in terms of the art of what is possible.  Hence the title of the book:  Cicero on Politics and the Limits of Reason.

It is interesting that Atkins feels compelled to deal with the view of a long list of scholars who find it almost impossible to imagine that any Roman, let alone Cicero, could possess the innovative intellect of a Greek.  It has always struck me that Classicists can possess deep seated prejudices just like anyone else.

I would recommend reading Bruce Frier’s, The Rise of the Roman Jurists and Alan Watson’s The Spirit of Roman Law.  These would be of great value in assessing Cicero’s innovative nature and the arguments presented by Jed. W. Atkins.