01
Plato is one of the most important political philosophers in the history of Western thought. Plato's political philosophy, the layman does not necessarily know much, but knows what he called the "philosopher king".
Plato was the king of the kingdom of ideas, but he was never regarded as the philosopher king of reality. Plato, whose parents were both political families in Athens, had ambitions to enter politics at a young age, but the political situation in Athens was quite chaotic at that time: the 27-year-long Peloponnesian War ended in the defeat of Athens, and the "Thirty Tyrants" overthrew the democratic system, but was soon overthrown by the people, and the restored democrats executed Plato's teacher Socrates.
Plato was very disappointed with the development of Athenian politics, did not devote himself to Athenian politics, but traveled to various places, went to Asia Minor, Egypt, Italy and other places, studied philosophy, astronomy, mathematics, examined the political system and law in various places, and later studied and lectured, attracting a group of young followers. One of them, Dion, was the brother-in-law and minister of Dionysius I, the tyrant of Syracuse in the western powerhouse. Through Dion's introduction, the 40-year-old Plato crossed the sea to Sicily in an attempt to persuade Dionysius I to adopt what he considered to be a good government. But the meeting between the tyrant and the philosopher became a conflict, and Plato was almost executed, but although he was spared death by Dion and others, he was sold as a slave.
After being rescued and returned to Athens, Plato established the famous Athenian Academy. Twenty years later, Dionysius I died, and Dion succeeded his son Dionysius II to the throne, inviting Plato to Syracuse again. At the age of 60, Plato did not hesitate, but finally went. Dionysius II was good at philosophy and literature, and at first treated Plato with courtesy. But in the short-term political struggle at the court, Dion was exiled, and Plato, though retained, was placed under near house arrest and was later allowed to return to Athens, where he assured his tyrant that he would return to Syracuse in the future. A few years later, in order to fulfill his promises, and because of Dionysius II's gesture that he would soon allow Dion to return to his country, Plato crossed the sea to Sicily for the third time. This time, the situation did not improve much, and after two years, it was fruitless. For the next dozen years, Plato focused on the work of the academy and did not get involved in actual politics.
Plato's experience is much in comparison with our sage Kong, although the historical-political environment in which the two lived was very different. Confucius stood thirty years later, after that, while recruiting students, he went to the State of Qi to seek Shi, Qi Jinggong did not use, and he returned to the Country of Lu to continue studying and teaching. At that time, the political situation in the state of Lu was quite turbulent, confucius did not seem to see a good opportunity to engage in politics, until the age of 50, he became an official, and later became a Sikou, and did some things, such as the fall of the three capitals, the shao zhengdi, should be in order to restore the orthodox status of Lu Jun from the three Huan, but somehow, he was not very popular with Lu Jun, did it for a year or two, and resigned. After that, he went to several other countries to seek a career.
Confucius was very particular about "kings and subjects", but his loyalty was different from the fact that there was only one emperor to be loyal to in later generations, and there was a "two-way choice" between kings and subjects. He was appointed in Weiguo and Chen Guo, the appointment period was very short, and most of the rest of the time he was bumpy on the road, experienced many dangers and obstacles, Chen Cai ran out of food, was trapped in Kuang, and was ridiculed many times by hermits such as Chu Crazy. In his later years, Confucius returned to Lu again and concentrated on writing and teaching.
02
Plato and Confucius, each the greatest political philosopher in the West and the East. But why can't they make a difference in realpolitik?
Maybe it's not meeting the Lord. Lu Aigong was not very much like the Ming Lord, and Confucius probably did not give him sufficient trust when he was a minister. But what kind of lord did Confucius want to meet? Emperor Han gao? Tang Taizong? The Kangxi Emperor? Confucius looked forward to the Holy King, and Plato tried to persuade the tyrants, as if they all admitted that a king could walk the way. The phrase "the way of the king" sounds good to hear roughly, but it sounds like a political-historical figure is just a tool of political philosophers. This is certainly not the case. We have only seen philosophers used as tools by kings, and we have never seen kings used as tools by philosophers. Emperor Wu of Han said that he was a confucian master, but he was practicing the way of Confucius? Later generations said that the Qin government system was practiced in many generations, and some people said that the emperor himself at that time said it politely: the system of this dynasty, the king hegemony mixed use. This word "use" is used well -- Confucianism, easy to use, not good to use, Zhu Yuanzhang gave an order, and then deleted it.
Since the monarch is not stupid enough to become a tool of the philosopher, why does the philosopher not take his place and really become the philosopher king? The question is, if Zhongni had the world, would he really be able to open up the peace of all worlds? Philosophers also became kings, the most famous of which was the Roman Emperor Aurelius, a good Roman Emperor, and so on.
Confucius and Plato's politics ended in failure, which is nothing, there are always successes and failures in doing things; it can be asked, have they ever had any hope of success? Have the political ideals of Confucius or Plato ever been realized in later generations? Perhaps, the politics of philosophers is not possible to achieve? But to say this seems to be to demean philosophers, who among us would not come up with a beautiful picture of the people becoming rich and the country strong?
The reason why philosophers cannot be kings is the simplest reason, because political philosophy has little to do with what is commonly called politics in the narrow sense. The first meaning of narrow politics is power, the second meaning is the art of governance, and the primary task of political philosophy is to explore the purpose or meaning of politics. What is the purpose or meaning of politics? In the words of Sije Aristotle: to guarantee a good life for man. What is a good life? Are there different good lives for different groups of people? What kind of politics helps preserve and enrich the meaning of life? What kind of political system best guarantees a good life? There are, of course, no obvious answers to these questions, and that is why there is a variety of evolving political philosophies.
Political philosophy overlaps with politics in the narrow sense, because politics in the narrow sense is of course deeply related to whether the people live a good life, but it must not single-handedly create or maintain the form of government and governance. Shang Martin, Han Fei, and Li Si's expositions of power and governance were far more elaborate and practical than Confucius's, and several of these political scientists were very successful in realpolitik, although their personal endings were not necessarily wonderful. When Shang Martin ruled Qin, "let the people be Shiwu, and the Priest sits together." Those who do not tell the adulterers will be beheaded", those who talk about politics, even if they are obedient, they are also "chaotic people", "move to the border cities, and the people will not dare to discuss orders"; and such laws have been implemented for ten years, "the road is not left behind, the mountain is not a thief, and the home is enough... The great rule of the countryside", which may also be said to be a scene of rule over the world, but you just can't see the spontaneous life of someone in it.
Comparing Zeng Hao's wish of "bathing in Yi, dancing in the wind, and returning with a chant", compared with the wucheng city ruled by Confucius to Ziyou and hearing the sound of strings and songs, we can see what is politics with a purpose for life and what is politics that overrides life. Of course, "good life" is a standard that no one agrees with and has never changed, but it is generally inseparable from the well-off livelihood, the society is relaxed, and the common people are loving, educated, characterful, and capable, in short, it is roughly the society in which parents want their children to live. Even parents who advocate authoritarian politics and like to accuse adultery will not want their children to live in a society where "those who do not accuse adulterers will be cut off."
03
I am afraid that people have always associated political philosophy, consciously or unconsciously, with the art of power and the art of governance. Now, if we understand the purpose of politics as guaranteeing a good life for man, then politics here is politics in a very broad sense. This kind of politics in a broad sense is not only the cause of politicians.
A good social life is created and maintained by a wide variety of other activities. These activities, for the sake of convenience, may be referred to as culture and education in general. In Confucius's imagination, the ancient saint kings were not mainly the so-called politicians of later generations, and in the three generations of the great rule, culture and religion were the mainstay, and narrow politics only played an auxiliary role. If Confucius's so-called rule of virtue is understood as a kind of governance technique under the narrow sense of politics, it is natural to feel that the old master is too pedantic. But when Confucius talked about politics, the main content is not today's politics, but today's culture and education. Xiao Gongquan was right: Confucius "believed that the main work of politics is to transform people, not to govern people, and even less to govern things." Therefore, politics and education work together. Pericles called Athens a Greek school, which had a similar meaning.
Philosophers may have the ambition to make contributions to the world, Confucius said: "Those who are useful to me, the period of time is only enough, three years to achieve." "He hasn't worked anywhere for three years, but what will he accomplish after three years?" Confucius was enshrined in later generations as "Su Wang", and the title of "Su Wang" seemed a bit ridiculous to my unclassified ears. Why should a philosopher be king? Regardless of whether the philosopher has the idea of making meritorious contributions to the world, in the end, his main merit lies in culture and education. Confucius's short political career, let alone Chinese history, probably did not play a special role in the political structure of the time. Confucius's liturgical thought, as well as the people-oriented thought advocated by Confucius and Mencius, shaped the important character of Chinese politics. Political-history is not the history of the implementation of political thought, but without political thought, the so-called history is only a court drama of the emperor and the general, and there is no political-history. Without Confucius and Mencius, China's politics-society for more than two thousand years would not have been what it actually was.
Whether the three generations are like Confucius said, it is unknown. We know in general that in ancient history, culture, religion, religion, and politics in the narrow sense were not as clearly distinguished as later generations. In any case, as long as politics is separated from culture and religion (or, in the old parlance, governance from Taoism), I will say that a country is not led by politicians alone, but by politicians and the cultural and religious elite. The national halls of many European countries are flanked by politicians from the country's history on one side and philosophers and artists on the other, which roughly reflect this concept.
Culture, education and politics each have considerable independence, and culture and education can certainly not replace politics. The Wang Dao faction claimed that as long as the benevolent government was administered to the people, "it would be possible to make the system of the Qin and Chu jianjia and sharp soldiers", which not only deceived others, but also mistook the nature of their work. Conversely, the cause of culture and education cannot be entrusted to politics in the narrow sense. The monarch philosopher is the most terrible king. Yongzheng was not satisfied with being emperor, they also had a set of philosophies, and the culture and education of those eras were particularly withered. As long as the rulers brought culture and education under their jurisdiction, there was no need to talk about revitalizing culture and religion. Politicians inevitably want to turn culture and education into ideological tools, and even if they are a little polite, they always ask: What can culture and education do for politics? Poor people of our culture do not hesitate to ask this question, as if day and night are sharing the worries of the rulers.
We might as well ask: What can politics do for culture and education? Because a good life is inseparable from the prosperity of culture and education. Of course, as Bodan said, the state has a body and a soul, and the soul is more advanced, but the needs of the body are more urgent. In an emergency situation, the needs of the higher levels must be conceded in the face of the needs of the lower levels according to the urgency of the situation, but the politics of the consistent domination of culture and religion is doomed to be a bad politics.
Philosophers were not born to be kings, and kings cannot replace philosophers, and a meaningful political body can only be created and maintained by the cooperation of politics and culture and religion. Whether a politician is good or not, in addition to his ability in narrow politics, must also be determined by the degree of respect for cultural and educational independence. Some historians do not understand this, go against our intuition, and list Alexander the Great on the side of Qin Shi Huang and Napoleon on hitler's side. As for the self-proclaimed thinkers and cultural people, they on the contrary infinitely admire those overlords who have brutally harmed culture and religion, and it is inherently not enough to talk to them about ideology and culture.
Source: New Century