North American Philosophical Publications

Plato, Popper, Strauss, and Utopianism: Open Secrets?

Author(s): Melissa Lane
Source: History of Philosophy Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 119-142
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of North American Philosophical Publications
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27744811 .
Accessed: 07/08/2011 16:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Illinois Press and North American Philosophical Publications are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to History of Philosophy Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

History

of Philosophy

Volume

16, Number

Quarterly
2, April 1999

PLATO, POPPER, STRAUSS, AND

UTOPIANISM: OPEN SECRETS?
Melissa

Lane

I. Openings
is openly
that the Republic
taught in mid-century
a
a
text
totalitarian
has
which
text,
avowedly
dangerous
Karl
as a Utopian
Leo
ideal by generations
sanitized
of exegetes.
been
is secretively and
Strauss
taught some years later that the Republic
the
text, a text which warns
ironically an anti-totalitarian
against
Popper

and

ideal.
danger of being sanitized by exegetes as a Utopian
and Strauss
share a common
clear that Popper
foe: that
it as a Utopian
which sanitizes
the Republic
ideal. Their
to this foe, which is in both cases a political
opposition,
a matter

So

far it is

reading

of

opposition
is however

of different moods.

of the
exercised
sanitization
is more
by the idealist's
Popper
it a political
dream or harmless
Platonic
piety.
city, his considering
so
The idealist is mistaken
and
about the value of the Platonic
city,
is more
exercised
the
its danger. Strauss
idealist's
utopianism,
by
his

it a political
is mistaken
The
idealist
possibility.
so
its
and
the
of the Platonic
city,
danger. Against
to
seeks
idealist, Popper
provoke
justified fear; Strauss,

considering
about the point
sanguine
to eliminate

unjustified

hope.

also share another

foe:
and Strauss
Popper
Both consider
historicism
label "historicism."
reason. The idealist poses,
to both, a political
an intellectual
cist poses
in the first instance

what

both

of them

to be

the enemy of
the histori
danger;
danger
(though one

can
So far a sentence
may become
by Strauss
political).
speak for both: "We are forced to suspect that history is the guise
in our age."1 But in this case
in which dogmatism
likes to appear
are
not only their moods,
of historicism
but their very definitions

which

at odds.

119

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY QUARTERLY

120

from
standards
is the error of deriving
For Popper, historicism
as an inevitable
and teleological
conceived
of history
the course
who wrongly merges
fact with
is the Marxist,
process;
paradigmatic
in
sins
historicist
in
ends
and
clinging
Popper's
value,
apocalypse.
clash of critical reason.
the changing
to fixed standards
outside
to his
standards
is the error of confining
historicism
Strauss,
no
on
hold
them
and allowing
present
periods
torically demarcated
is the relativist social scientist, who wrongly
paradigmatic
allegiance;
histori
Strauss's
fact from value, and ends in nihilism.2
separates

For

to
available
cist sins in denying that there could be fixed standards
a reason based on nature (or "natural right"). The intellectual danger
it is rather relativ
for Strauss
is any sort of dogmatism;
for Popper
a
in
has
taken
"our age"
peculiar refuge in dogmatism.
ism, which only
These
tensions

I shall suggest,
In each case one
and more
interesting

views
of historicism
create,
respective
in their readings
of Plato.
for both men

is at odds with another

plank of the polemic
is an historicist,
when what he
that Plato
claims
claim. Popper
is
value
of
standard Plato
the
the
is
in
attacking
strongest
(Popper)
the
that
Plato
denies
claims
of
Strauss
sets independent
history.
in the Republic,
when
in speech
of the city he depicts
possibility

of
is the separation
in defending
is strongest
(Strauss)
a
as
be
of
it
will
whether
from
the
standard
question
city
sets of
In considering
these two externally
realized.
conflicting

what

he

that

views
the order
imposed
by the argument
conflicting
internally
Strauss
before Popper.
takes Strauss
(in one of his voices)
charges
not
is
If against
Strauss
of the just city
that realization
possible.
one
must con
then against Popper
the just city is proved possible,
Before turning to the substance
it is indeed desirable.
sider whether

of these
charging

it is well to ask what

however,
questions,
of Plato as Utopian.
and refutation
II. Utopianism:

Some

is at

stake

in

Contexts

and historically
linked thematically
attack on Plato was
Popper's
as dangerous,
and
with a wave of attacks on utopianism
dogmatic,
on
in
and
1957
A
conference
Politics,"
"Utopianism
delusionary.

Political Centre and attended

by the London Conservative
or
of them emigres
and others, many
J. L. Talmon,
by Popper,
or Soviet
the view that
from Nazi
exiles
epitomised
tyrannies,
was
at
the core of
noble
but
the
impulse
tyrannical
utopianism
of
Plato
and Marx
communism
(as Popper's
pairing
particularly
sponsored

as such.3 Central
and totalitarianism
suggested)
was the image of utopia as a "blueprint of society

to such polemic
as a whole,"4 and

PLATO, POPPER, STRAUSS, AND UTOPIANISM

121

as ruthless
to enforce
revolutionaries
social
seeking
to the blueprint
of Burke's
hated
(cousins,
perhaps,
The
intellectuals).
image of the Utopian
society as a
on
of
at
foreclosed
the
its
question
blueprint
possibility,
directing
means
to
the
and
tention
of
ways
immediately
implementation.
was also attributed
to the Utopian blueprint,
Perfection
and Hun
of Utopians
conformity
rationalist

garian
emigr?
an unnecessary

Aurel

Kolnai

standard

charged
for human

that perfection was not only

and action but an actu

value

one.5

ally debilitating

shared this intellectualist

Not all students of totalitarianism
view
on
more
of the subject?Hannah
Arendt
the
totali
placed
emphasis
of the shared world than on its dream of a better
tarian unmaking
it could eas
it was
influential
and widespread.
one?but
Moreover,
conservative
ily be merged with more general
scruples and outlook.
while
social engineering
Popper himself defended piecemeal
a
to
what
he
took
be
the
for
demand
radical
Utopian
rejecting
other critics?including
of society as a whole,
Strauss
remaking
into a suspicion
tended to elide their anti-utopianism
of reformist

Though

impulses

as such.

from the late

Already
Shklar and George Kateb

such as Judith
youthful thinkers
warn
to
the
stentorian
sought
untangle
and change from what they saw as a real

1950s,

ings against political hope

shift in the meaning
and possibility
of utopia.6
historical
of an historical
shift called into question
the Popperian,
thesis of an essential
ally anti-utopian/anti-communist,

The

thesis

and gener

continuity
as a
that the idea of utopia
Utopian literature and
blueprint
emerged only in nineteenth-century
as at Brook Farm or
communal
(above all in America,
enterprises
on
a view of progress
notion
of
the
The
Oneida).
blueprint
depends
coin
which
of More's
situates utopia not "nowhere"
(the meaning
a
in
These
future.7
modern
and
achievable
but
(reachable)
firmly
age)
between

Plato

and Marx.

Shklar

argued

Shklar
contrasted,
claimed, with the classical
which
the classicizing
existed
"neither
More)
cluding
nor in the future."

utopias

Shklar
probable
Strauss

observed

that "[The

classical

but of the

(in
utopias
in the past

is a vision not of the

utopia]
This is a sentence which Leo

'not-impossible.'"8
could have written. Shklar considered
to underwrite
inadequate
hope or optimism

the Utopian vision to

be
about the potentiali
on
that it did not foreclose
ties of human
action, but she insisted
of political
I shall now argue,
the sheer possibility
change. That,
was the most consistent
view as well. If I continue
part of Strauss's
to use

the term

"utopia"

for the ideal

city, ruled by philosophers,

of

122

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY QUARTERLY

I do so while
crucial differences
acknowledging
Republic,
Plato and More,9 and between Plato and writers of the last
two centuries,
with the terms used by Popper
but in consonance
who so ardently
and Strauss
and their historical
contemporaries

Plato's

between

debated

the value
III.

of utopianism

Strauss:

and

Is Plato's

its place
Utopia

in Plato.

Possible?

In turning to Strauss, we must first of all acknowledge

that he did
not himself begin with Plato. His first three books, after a disserta
tion on F. H. Jacobi
(1930), were on Spinoza
(1935), Maimonides
Hobbes
In the
(1936).
(1935),
and, on taking refuge in England,

Preface to the English

edition of the Spinoza
book,
autobiographical
in the context of
written
in 1962, he situates his study of Spinoza
Franz
For
call to a Jewish
existentialism.
religious
Rosenzweig's
was
to
if
could
be
returned
wrong
Strauss,
"orthodoxy
only
Spinoza
in

every

respect."10

As it happened,
found in his studies that Spinoza
however, Strauss
(and the Enlightenment
critique of religion which he inaugurated)
was only half wrong. His mockery
of religion11 could deride but not
so
it.
Reason
disprove
prevailed
only
long as it ignored the possibil
of
elsewhere
revelation
Strauss
called "the mystery
(what
ity
genuine
so
as
it obscured
of the providential
the distinc
order"12); only
long

true and false prophets;

tion within religion itself between
and only
a religion which
so long as it confronted
itself aimed to be in some
measure
a pure
concludes
that Calvin (symbolizing
rational. Strauss
to
is
immune13
non-rational
faith)
critique.
Spinoza's
to the slow
had contributed
in being half wrong,
Spinoza
of
of the Epicurean
transformation
critique
religion (the critique of
as the Jews saw it the hedonis
religion as terrible and frightening,
But

tic criticism)
into the modern
of religion
rejection
as comforting. The hedonist's
desire
for peace

but

way to the puritan's

intellectually
his "conscientious
atheism which

of the

consciences
it was

And

not,

refusal
upright
is itself a descendant
of Biblical
to a "self-destruction
contributes

by way of Nietzsche's
analy
of the Jewish
and Christian
increasing
emancipation
turn against
which eventually
their own roots in faith.
this observation
which
led him to wonder whether
the

or classical

medieval

terrible

This, Strauss
implies,
which we may understand

morality."14
of reason,"
sis

not as

from fear gives

to be consoled,

traditions

of rationalism?traditions

which

had

or turned against
the modern,
cannibalised
faith?were
to
his
bound
studies of Maimonides15
and
implode. Hence,

like

equally
Al-Farabi,

and

eventually,

inter alia,

of Plato,

Aristotle,

Thucydides,

PLATO, POPPER, STRAUSS, AND UTOPIANISM

123

and Xenophon.
this broad agenda, Plato, and
Despite
can be seen to occupy a special place in
his Republic,

Aristophanes,
in particular
work.

Strauss's

was
for Strauss
special
importance
in
his
of
review
the
collec
Burnyeat
posthumous
by Myles
in Platonic
Political
in
tion of Strauss
articles, Studies
Philosophy,
a
of Books.16 His article attracted
host
the 1985 New York Review
of Plato's

indication

One

raised

of angry
a cause
method

letters

and

two further

exchanges,
a

identified
Burnyeat
was
doctrine. The method

c?l?bre.11
and

from his

study of Maimonides.
must
the gentlemen
learn,"

The

of
becoming
something
fundamental
Straussian

that of esotericism,
derived
was
"the great lesson

doctrine

to
the "limits of politics." According
is that a just society is so improbable
that
a
to bring it about.
In the 1960s this became:

"Its content

Burnyeat:
one can do nothing
to Burnyeat,
Strauss,
just society is impossible."18 While
according
in Machiavelli,
found this same doctrine
Maimonides,
Xenophon,
the linchpin of his case was Plato's
and Aristophanes,
Republic.19
"Let us be
continued:
Burnyeat
is wrong, the entire
tion of Plato

clear

edifice

if Strauss's

that

falls to dust.

interpreta
If Plato
is the

that ordinary
believes
him to be, there
radical Utopian
scholarship
as
no
is
the unanimous
conservatism
of the classics,"
such thing
to be found about the nature and practicabil
but instead a debate
on to defend
himself went
his
ity of a just society.20 Burnyeat

as just such a radical Utopian, who meant

of Plato
interpretation
of
affirm in the dialogue
about the possibility
what he had Socrates
in
in
the
described
deed
just city
speech.
realizing
some caveats
about Platonic
raised
already
utopianism
to the conclusion
of this
II, I shall leave this question
is to show that while
is
Strauss
paper. At present my concern
means
as
to
to
Plato
affirm
the
that
wrong
just city
deny
possible,
are more
than
his views
(if internally
complex
contradictory)
Having
in Section

allows. The
Burnyeat
is itself at odds with
about
ancient

the nature

denial
Strauss's

of the possibility
more
general,

of the political
defend.

standard

of the Republics
city
claims
and valuable,

which

Plato

(and

other

philosophers)

first Strauss's
the possibility
of the
arguments
against
in
realized
the
which
sug
just city,
city
speech, being
(arguments
to signal
just such an impossibility).
gest also that Plato meant
are themselves
twofold. One
These
arguments
possibility
against
Consider

I shall not consider

in any detail, examine what the city
set, which
a
in order to establish
in speech has to exclude from its conception
so
eros
as
must
tame
and
exclude
the
far
city
just regime:
possible

124

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY QUARTERLY

seem to intimate
of the body.21 These
considerations
arguments
so far as communism
in particular
that such a city is not possible,
must deny the privacy of the body and female equality the physical
the sexes. But there are two weaker
differences
between
directions
in which
the
would

also tend. They might establish

that
are
the
but
this
just city
unnatural,
required
by
were
as
that they
Strauss
himself ad
impossible;
structures may well be established
which violate

such arguments

institutions
not prove

could

mits,22 political
his (and what he takes to be Plato's)
of nature. Or they
conception
as reflections
on the peculiarity
may be taken even more weakly
to the
and stringency of justice and the just city, without prejudice
of its possibility.

question
More

than these intimations

about nature is Strauss's
challenging
in Books V and
attack on the claims which Socrates
makes

frontal
VI

the three

for the just city?equality

of
required
of
and
and
sex,
children,
property;
guardians;
to stress
It is important
that
philosopher-rulers?are
possible.
are
so
asserts
that
these
Socrates
that
Strauss's
possible,
explicitly
to the contrary must
conclusion
invoke
the formal pattern
of
as
a
recurrent
which he detected
in political
esotericism
theme
that

institutions

communism

female

is famously
studies of Maimonides.
Esotericism
to falsify and I do not attempt here to weigh the case for
and against
it. My more
limited aim is to shift the burden of proof
that
of
Strauss's
standards
by showing
strategy was to undermine
to
he
had
himself
which
Socrates
than
rather
imputed
possibility
as Socrates'
the standards
which are explicitly established
own.23
thought
difficult

from his

A brief review of the Republic

at this point may be helpful. By
the end of Book
IV Socrates
has concluded
the account
of a virtu
ous city, ruled by guardians who have women,
children, and property
in common,
and has
in it and, with the city as
identified
justice
in
to
turn
to discuss
the
he
four vicious
proposes
pattern,
soul;
cities.

But

Polemarchus

and Adeimantus

interrupt him, backed by

Glaucon
and (interestingly)
and challenge
him to
Thrasymachus,
discus
of sex and children which had been
the community
inti
at 423e.
mated
for the guardians
to confront
Socrates
proceeds
three "waves" of disbelief
and scorn in regard to his proposals
for
the guardians
of the city. It is in confronting
these waves
that the
whether
such
institutions
would
be
is
first
question
raised,
"possible"
of whether
So
paired with the question
they would be "beneficial."
at 437c

asserts
that the argument
Socrates
he has just given for
the guardians
of both sexes to share all activities
in common
shows
that it is "both possible
and beneficial."
He then poses
the next,

PLATO, POPPER, STRAUSS, AND UTOPIANISM

125

bigger, wave, that sex and children are to be common, and suggests
between
benefit
that he distinguish
and possibility,
considering
of
benefit first and possibility
afterward.24 After a long discussion

to the city by such communism,

the unity accruing
ending up with
avows
the unity which
should obtain
all
Glaucon
among
Greeks,
or beneficialness
of the desirability
of
himself utterly convinced
is it possible,
the plan. But, he insists on knowing,
and if so, how?
I suggest, Socrates
In answering,
invokes two distinct senses of
The first deals with the appropriate
standard
of proof.
possibility.
"the nature of acting to attain less truth than
It is, Glaucon
agrees,
(473a).
So, Socrates
continues,
speaking"
to present it as coming into
don't compel me unnecessarily
it in speech. But ifwe
being in every way in deed as we described
are able to find that a city could be governed in a way most closely
approximating what has been said, say that we've found the possi
bility of these things coming into being on which you insist.

Then

(473a-b)25
Andr?

Laks

has

stresses

Laks

discussion
given a valuable
that this is not a Kantian

of this passage.26
of possibil

account

rightly
a possible
differs from a real object
concept
ity, on which
only
as
exists. Socrates
insofar
the object actually
instead suggests
that
a perfect model
differs from a possible
real object insofar as the

real object, because

fall short in
existent, will inevitably
actually
some respects
in com
of the model.
The imperfections
of action
as the
to
and
what
the
Timaeus
parison
speech,
perhaps
specifies
mean
in
in
of
matter
the
that
say
Forms,
imperfections
receiving
to realize

ing it is possible

a model

one

the
already
acknowledges
nec
which
such realization
limitations,
defects, and imperfections
on the Kantian
account, a concept is simply
essarily entails. Whereas
in an actually existing object, on what I shall
and exactly replicated
a model
account
to the
call the "artisan"
is transferred
(or Form)
existing

and

object

thereby

altered.

sets the level of accuracy

of possibility
a
If it
just city is possible.
sought for the overall proof of whether
it will be so not in perfectly replicating
is possible,
the model
but
features have been (imperfectly)
transferred
insofar as the model's
now turns to the question
to the object. Socrates
of the means
by
This

"artisan"

account

smallest
be done?the
and in
change27 in number
a
on
into
based
the
model
power
city
bring
being.28
is if "the philosophers
The single and needful change
rule as kings
or those now called kings and chiefs genuinely
and adequately
phi

which

this could

which

losophize,

could

and political

power

and philosophy

coincide

in the same

126

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY QUARTERLY

to unleash
the third, biggest,
This tenet threatens
(473c-d).
place"
scorn and attack.
wave of public
and most dangerous
This

that there will be

such a literal co-incidence

claim

"no

rest

from

ills for the

of philosopher
takes as central?and

without

and

cities"

ruler

is pre
the
claim
which
Strauss
takes
cisely
literally?in
contrasts
between
his frequent
"classical"
and
"mod
developing
I will return to it shortly. It is therefore
ern" political
philosophy.
instead of taking the claim about
odd that in the article on "Plato,"
at literal

coincidence
arguments

which
We

possible.
There

face value,29 he urges skepticism

toward
offers to show that such a coincidence

the

Socrates

must

examine

are

those

two routes

arguments

and

that

is

skepticism.

to the coincidence

of philosophy
evidently
can acquire
either philosophers
rule. As Socrates
suggests,
to philosophy.
returns
to
He
power, or rulers can be converted
the possibility
of each course
in Book VI
consider
first
(having
are lovers of knowledge,
not opinion,
shown that philosophers
and
and

in the cities,30
useless
why they are indeed at present
reason
not
for
the
the
dual possi
And
these
many believe).
though
reason
or
is
bilities
both of these
any
("I deny that there
why either
in a striking
499c) are defended by Socrates
things is impossible,"
from the lack of known past or
way. He twice denies that induction
explained

present

philosopher-rulers

proves

that the coincidence

is impossible.

first time, at 499c-d,

he denies
that it would
be "impos
some
to be compelled
to take
for philosophers
"by
necessity"
a
or
in
the unknown
future. The
past, present,
city either
charge of
he denies
second time, at 502a-c,
that it is "impossible"
that chil
The

sible"

natures without
should not preserve
their philosophic
so
to
is exactly
and
accede
The
rule.31
corruption
philosopher-ruler
on the basis
as plausible,
as a black swan: the fact
of induction,
that none has never been seen is no good reason to deny the possi
bility of its existence.32
dren

of rulers

one
anti-inductive
deal with physical qualities,
When
arguments
on one's metaphysics)
way to blunt their force or even (depending
to physical natures.
is to appeal
defeat them altogether
The fact
ever
seen
that no humans without
skin
have
been
does
epidermal
a
not leave open the anti-inductive
that
human
without
possibility
such skin might one day appear, because
skin is
having epidermal
a necessary
one
Whether
part of the human
biological
makeup.
say the same
is that Plato

swans, I don't know. The important

to defuse this line of objection
pains
by
his
interlocutors'
Socrates
that philosophi
gain
agreement
having
notes
cal natures have in fact been known to exist. As Adeimantus
could

point

about

takes

black

127

PLATO, POPPER, STRAUSS, AND UTOPIANISM

even
natures
of his own accord, there are some who are philosophic
in existing cities?though
to the cities
they are (he charges) useless
is to deny
That established,
all that remains
(487d; cf. 491a-496e).
can rely on induction
from the fact that all
that the opponent

to the
present
regimes have been unphilosophic,
a
of
In dealing with the philoso
philosophic
impossibility
regime.
from the regime as a whole,
the
then, in distinction
pher-rulers
or
of possibility
is indeed the replication
conception
appropriate

known

and

past

All that separates

of a
the possible
concepts
or
a
to
to
ruler
from
rule,
coming
philosopher
coming
philosophise,
is the actual coming-into-existence
of such persons.
their instantiation

Kantian

conception.

nowhere

Strauss

the fact that

deed

been

deals

with

the naturalness

established.

He

this argument
against
of certain philosophic

directs

his

criticism

induction

or

souls

has

in

instead

at

the

could be induced to rule. Now,

mechanisms
by which philosophers
once the city has been founded, Socrates
is clear that those edu
to the city for
will owe a debt of gratitude
cated as philosophers
and so will rule to pay their debts, out of their
their educations
sense of justice (520a-c,
thus countering Glaucon's
that
suggestion
an injustice to force them to return to
it would do the philosophers
on the problem of the
therefore concentrates
the cave, 519d). Strauss
to rule.33
foundation of the just city by the bringing of philosophers

comment one of the two routes to

In so doing he ignores without
which Socrates
had identified; that is, the possibil
the coincidence
while
ity that rulers or children of rulers may learn to philosophise

to power (473d-e;
cf. 502a-b:
"that in all of
already having access
time not one of all of them [children of rulers born philosophers
by
could ever be saved, is there anyone who would argue
their nature]
on the willingness
concentrates
of phi
instead
that?").34 Strauss

losophers born without power to rule, and his claim, spelled out in
is that the rule of the philosophers
is stymied
The City and Man,
cannot be persuaded,
"The philosophers
circle.
they
by a vicious
can only be compelled
to rule the cities."35 This
he
compulsion,
But since the phi
only be effected by the multitude.
to
have
the
would
multitude
that the latter
losophers
persuade
will be reluctant to do this
should compel them, and the philosophers

argues,

could

that "the just

they would prefer to be left alone, he concludes
to rule."36
city is not possible because of the philosophers'
unwillingness

because

at least two ways

out of this
however,
Republic,
signals
several times (e.g., 499b-c,
circle.37 First, Socrates
500d;
in a pregnant passage
in Book I38)mentions
that
the possibility

The
vicious
and

"necessity"

will

compel

the philosophers

to rule. The

association

of

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY QUARTERLY

128

runs deep
in Plato's
with compulsion
thinking, being a
necessity
can
of
the
where
the
theme
for
Timaeus,
example
Demiurge
major
as
as
is
with
world
make
the
compatible
necessity's
sway.39
good
only
its
is not; it wreaks
is personified,
the Demiurge
Whereas
necessity
con
of
matter.
Strauss's
effects largely through the recalcitrance
jecture
account
its work

that

the

citizens

of the pervasive
through matter

must

Platonic
or fate;

the philosophers
takes no
can do
that necessity
expectation
to be
it needs no human exponents

compel

to rule, the philosophers

would
If compelled
by necessity
cosmos
to
of
the
material
and
fateful
dictates
the
responding
it seems quite plausible
rather than to the pleas of their subjects;
effective.

be

that Plato
causally

would

envisage
effective role.

necessity

as at least

able

to play

such

is the role of
dilemma
The second potential way out of Strauss's
several times in the course of Socrates'
the lawgiver(s) who appear
of the just city being realized
(520a
argument about the possibility
are outside
the closed
circle of
These
d, 521b, 539e).40
lawgivers
in which
the stale
Strauss
and multitude
perceives
philosophers
as indeed the legendary
of the Greek
cities stood
lawgivers
the per
apart from the cities they served. A lawgiver can provide
are
will
what
which Burnyeat
suasive arguments
precisely
argues41

mate,

compel

the philosophers

to rule.

does not celebrate

this possibility,
that Strauss
It is surprising
as
the figure of the "wise legislator"
since he elsewhere
recognises
for meeting
"the political
the best way seen by the "classics"
prob
in reconciling
the requirement
for wisdom
lem [which] consists

he is reticent about
for consent."42 Perhaps
the requirement
in treating the Republic
because
there Socrates
this possibility
styles
is so
the gentlemen
with whom Strauss
and Adeimantus,
Glaucon
as
in
of the city
the "lawgivers"
much
concerned,
speech. To con
with

to rule, would
ceive them as lawgivers,
persuading
philosophers
seeks
press them into the service of the Utopian revolution Strauss
nor
to deny. But
it must
that neither
Glaucon
be remembered
nor anyone else could singlehandedly
create a philoso
Adeimantus
to create a philosohically
governed
regime, simply
pher, necessary

Persuasion
and compulsion
apply
by following a political blueprint.
once
a
nature has endured uncorrupted,
educated
philosophic
only
a good education,
and these cannot
himself or herself or received
be forced into existence beyond the attainment of philosophy as such.

cannot defend the view that the

I conclude
then that Strauss
means
to
of the just regime coming
the
possibility
deny
Republic
at the outset that given his more
into existence.
But I suggested

PLATO, POPPER, STRAUSS, AND UTOPIANISM

129

in any
he would
to try to do so.
contrasts
the classical

and the moderns,

general views about the ancients
case have been wiser
and more
consistent
not
Repeatedly

his writings,
Strauss
can
come
into being through chance,
regime
in
that
the
best
teaching
regime must be altered

throughout
that the best

teaching
with the modern
so as
character

to guarantee
its actualisation.43
hold
The ancients
of undistorted
which
standards
up
they don't guarantee
can be applied,
ever or exactly as they are (the possibility
of repli
on chance, while the possibility
of transferring
cating them depends
alter them). The moderns
have re
them to reality would precisely
a model

that project, having distorted and debased

their standards
linquished
so as to guarantee
This is a mordant
their applicability.
version of
Judith

Shklar's

the classical

observation,
is not
utopia

quoted
a matter

of
earlier, that the possibility
of great probability;
Strauss

the rightful point that its possibility may rest for its realiza
or chance. But to assert that the Platonic
ideal
tion on coincidence
as
was
to
to
meant
be
sometimes
Strauss
realize,
impossible
city
did, was to deny the very value of this insight.
adds

If Plato

that only chance or coincidence

could preserve
was
averse
not
to the use of
for rule, however,
he
or deceit (such as the "noble lie") by the lawgivers of a

insisted

philosophers
propaganda
city in order

secure

to

Plato
rule. Popper44
philosophic
charges
of
him
for
and
force:
deceit,
propaganda,
precisely
to the moderns,
the great adversary
Plato
is not, as for Strauss,
And so having decided
that the best
but their greatest
precursor.
we
to
must
is
meant
be
of
confront
the Republic
possible,
regime
we
should not be tempted by this very
potent challenge:
Popper's
with

the use

since far from it being desirable

to realize
Platonic
possibility,
a regime, it would be a criminal betrayal
of freedom.
IV. Popper:

Is Plato's

Utopia

Desirable-or

such

Dangerous?

is a masterful
that Plato
and economic
argues
political
a radically
a
of
and
pessimistic
philosopher
history,
sociologist,
. As
one
into
he per
aristocrat
rolled
all
reactionary
sociologist
strain of empire, loss of empire, and
ceived that the class tensions,
of
As philosopher
protracted wars had worn down many Athenians.

Popper

an historicist,
that the law of history was
declaring
But as reactionary
aristocrat
he opted for a heroic
degeneration.
social engineering,"
belief in a form of "utopian
seeking to arrest
nature
to
return
and
the
tribal
still alive in
ways
antique
change,

history

Crete
what

he was

and

Sparta,
he understood

and radically
eliminate
as justice and happiness.

freedom

in favour

of

130

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY QUARTERLY

I shall argue
is wrong
that Popper
about historicism,
holism,
in the Republic,
but right about the issue
and, in part, happiness,
of freedom.
to historicism
It is in connection
that his book mani
one
we diagnosed
fests an internal contradiction
to
the
in
parallel
Strauss.
The problem
is that Popper's
of historicism
to
ascription

is in flat contradiction
with his ascription
of Utopian
social
official definition of historicism
engineering.45 On Popper's
through
out The Open Society
and Its Enemies,
historicists
(par excellence
are
in
can be
to
volume
believe
that
II)
supposed
Hegel
nothing
Plato

done

to alter

the

standard

course

and

of history,

which

also

both

fulfills

offers the only

it. Utopian
engi
efforts to remake

possible
automatically
on the other hand,
are heroic
in their
neers,
determinism
would
society from the ground up. The historicist's
seem to contradict
of the engineer's
fresh start.
any possibility
tries to evade

this contradiction
in various ways. At one
that historicism
Plato
his political
gave
end, or
an
ideal
while
af
model,
past,
by identifying
Utopian
engineering
this leads him to the strange assertion46
forded his means;
that the
an actual past and perfect regime
of Book VIII describes
beginning
Popper
point he

asserts

rather than the regime

in speech with which
the
deteriorating,
has been concerned.
A page later, he describes
Plato's
argument
as "a law of increasing
historicism
the
corruptibility,"
emphasizing
an
a
is
modal
This
odd
and
awkward
of
necessitar
ending.
grafting
ian outlook

onto Plato, at odds alike with the analysis

of possibility
it would behoove
we've
to accept (he must
just given, which
Popper
or it would
think Plato believes
this evil regime possible
be less
on Plato's
as bona
and with the insistence
credentials
pernicious)
was doubt
fide Utopian
Plato with historicism
engineer. Charging

and the background

by the coming attack on Hegel
so prevalent
to the Marxist
of
in the
history
philosophy
was
in
which
atmosphere
Popper
writing. But whatever

less motivated
hostility
wartime

it can't survive his admission

the reason,
in the ninth chapter that
Plato's
of Utopian
brand
social
"is just the kind of
engineering
are either unaf
to
attract
all
those
who
methodological
approach
or
fected by historicist
them."47
prejudices
reacting against
So much

for Plato's

historicism.

account

There

is more

to be

of Popper's
of Plato's
genuine
sensitivity
the way that the aristocrats
in Athens
had lost control
their brutish failure in 404 B.C. to win back the hearts

behalf

said

on

to history:
of politics,
and minds

of the people,
and the widespread
admiration
for the still archaic
as
of
ways
(he quotes Gomperz
Sparta
referring to this tendency
we
the Athenian
of
the
Friends
of
must
But
Laconia"48).
"Society

PLATO, POPPER, STRAUSS, AND UTOPIANISM

turn now

that Plato

proves

the charge

to Popper's
claim
as
to be as confused

Popper

contrasts
dub

is a holist, a charge
of historicism.

131
which

(whom I shall for

"equalitarians"
For
the
"individualists").
latter, the end of the
the freedom of the individual;
for the holists, the

greater
clarity
state is to protect
end of the individual

"holists"

with

is to maintain

the stability of the state.49 This

is ill-suited to the Republic
and to
however,
to press. Stability
the charges
is on anyone's
Popper most wants
at best an ancillary
account
end, and normally not much more than
or program
a means;
in itself. Popper
it is not a political
purpose

definition

seems

the

of holism,

to mean

individual

that the holist

values

treated

the state over the individual,

as a means
to the end of the

merely
of Platonic
end, he offers one formulation
justice.
it is simply defined by
because
links holism and happiness
Justice
is in the interests of the best
thinks, as that which
Plato, Popper
a property of the whole
state. It is made,
he suggests,
rather than
state.

To

a relation

being

this

between

individuals.

in the Book IV city of

justice, as finally identified
to be a kind of
is difficult to describe
exactly; it appears
guardians,
consists
in each class agree
Moderation
shadow twin of moderation.
It is true that

class to rule, which is for it to do

ing that it is best for the guardian
in each class doing
consists
its own work.
its own work. Justice
on relations between
This is a property of the whole which depends

so ultimately
It cannot,
between
individuals.50
classes,
in the
holism
and happiness
do the work of connecting
however,
it to do. This
is because
of
the holism
would wish
way Popper
sense
a
in
is
in
this
property
unexceptionable;
justice
describing
individual

between
individuals
obtains
do,
only when certain relations
to
"means"
it in no way makes
individuals
the
only
"justice." Just
in classes behaving
the justice of the
individuals,
justly, constitute
means
are
to
not
the
end
of
whole
justice, but constitu
city; they

which

tive of that end.

can only be happy by being just, so Socrates
and
argues,
to
their
be
class
task.
and
just by keeping
only
assigned
the just city in speech goes to
of the effort of constructing

People
they can
Much

that the ruling class will not desire to abuse their power;
ensuring
aim of the policy of communism
this is the whole
(as first prefig
to this education,
in Book
ured
[the guardians]
III, "in addition
must be provided with houses
and other property
such as . . . not
to rouse them up to do harm to the other citizens"
[416c]). Indeed,
Adeimantus
be happy

has ultimately
at all (419a). The

to be assured
city may

that they will themselves

be technically
(the
exploitative

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY QUARTERLY

132
philosophers
ing class)
distinguished
own

to live off the surplus product of the work

is paternalist
and
carefully
justification
of individuals to serve a tyrant's51
from the conscription

will
but

have

its

ends.

It is in this

context

to
might be thought
Adeimantus
assessed.

that

another

substantiate

the

passage

which
(420a-421c)
must
be
of holism

charge
be
won't
that the guardians
as
to
live
let
alone
austerely
happy, having
exceptionally,
especially,
are
as
at
not
that
do.
Socrates
says
aiming
they
lawgivers
they
one
the
them
in
then
class
city,
putting
happy
exceptionally
making
The
of the city as a whole.
at the happiness
but rather aiming
is concerned

faith that the

is to undermine
the aristocratic
thrust of the passage
as itwere
and well-being,
proper end of the city is their satisfaction
is appeal
of the rest of the city. Socrates
of the welfare
regardless
we
common
more
the
would
call
sinister
than
what
to
ing
nothing

to make
each
is that one can't aim in politics
good. The point
or class as happy as they could be in isolation, but rather
individual
as a whole,
that is, for the
to legislate
for the city considered
to
their
is
and
what
of individuals
interaction
promote
required
an
as
means
a
to
end in the
is exploited
If anyone
happiness.

as Adeimantus
here suggests,
it is the philosopher-rulers,
to rule when they would prefer not to
forced by necessity
the citizens whom
do so?not
they make,
by ruling, live just and
lives aiming at the good.52 But that point, grist rather to
moderate
has been discussed
mill than to Popper's,
Strauss's
above; the phi
to rule is required
for them to be good
reluctance
losopher-rulers'
to rule can include necessity,
persuasion
rulers, yet their motives
Republic,
who are

of being ruled
the possibility
covering
perhaps
a
or
for
their
education
of
debt
the
repayment
worse),
the just city.
(both

by someone
once within

comes
the holist
to substantiating
Popper
not
at
aim
the
is not that the city does
good of
charge, however,
but that it does not aim at the good of all individuals
individuals,
the vicious ones from the outset. And
indeed excludes
and
equally,
Perhaps

this

the closest

in terms

is expressed

of what

cities

Platonic

calls aestheticism.
Popper
for beauty's
sake."53 This

"The

is con

composes
politician
as a social engineer, his urge to "wipe
to his "utopianism"
[the] tablet clean" (501a) and start afresh. Now this aestheticization
It does suggest that
for concern.
of the state is a legitimate matter

nected

the state need

them before
who

remain).

take people
just as it finds them, but can purge
to
"their" good (the good of those
out
obtain
setting
holist. The
Yet illiberal as this is, it is not necessarily
not

PLATO, POPPER, STRAUSS, AND UTOPIANISM

133

be to do good to the individuals

aim of the state may nevertheless
them into treating
its stabil
remain, rather than to conscript
a
means.
as
an
of
end
instead
ity

who

Not

charge of holism, then, but the substantive

charge
the freedom and equality
the failure to respect
of
case against Plato. Even if
is the core of Popper's

the formal

of illiberalism,
each individual,
one holds that the end of making
people happy justifies the means
it is incontestably
of force, fraud, and inequality,
true that what is
to one
lost is the freedom to be free of tutelage, to do what appears
is
This
real
best rather than (what someone
best.
judges) genuinely
in the city described
in the Republic
does
of the Laws passage54 which
quire the dubious documentation
a passage
as his epigraph,
is devoted
which
emblazoned
loss

of freedom

not

re

Popper
to the
part, com

of military
for his
(Strauss,
requirements
discipline.
on this passage
ments
that to read it as totalitarian
would
be to
It is
"Athenian"
of
the
of
all
the
the
Laws.55)
city
ignore
ingredients
s program,
of the Republic
of the city
the essence
the very marrow
a possible
in the dialogue
is considered
city, to
argued
of license
and leave them only the liberty to be
deprive
people
as the ability to
to reason. Freedom
understood
found in obedience
is liberty and what
for oneself what
license
is indeed the
decide

which

I have

price to be paid
a genuine
clash

for the just city. Popper

confronts
a choice to be made.

his

reader

with

of values,

is straightforward:
For Popper,
that choice
between
the closed
tribalism and individualism,
society and the open society, between
reason
between
and freedom. He considers
to be genu
hierarchy
an
in
in
which
realizable
criticism
is free
open
society
only
inely
and

it wastes
into dogma. For Strauss,
equal; otherwise
and
between
the
city is not straightforward
philosophy
an
closure of the horizon
city is
imperfect but necessary

individuals

the choice

at all. The
which reason

must protect, and from which reason must also pro

tect itself. It is true that one must choose which of philosophy
and
the city is to gain one's highest allegiance,
but because
philosophy
on and in part defends
can
in part depends
the city, this choice

never

be radical

or complete.

is that Plato
open secret on which both thinkers converge
is,
after all, a Utopian.
should agree (admitting
that he is not
Popper
to urge
after all an historicist)
though he is justified in continuing
that this utopia
is really dystopic. Strauss
should agree (admitting
stan
that he does
indeed hold out the best regime as a possible
The

in continuing
to urge that this utopia
dard) though he is justified
own
its
realization.
The common
does not guarantee
foe of both

134
has

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY QUARTERLY

out to be,

turned

friend

of each.

Thrasymachus,
have

Republic

in terms of consistency
at least, the partial
that dialectical
like the taming of
lesson,
Perhaps
is the open secret which these two students
of the
uncovered.
V. Utopianism:

Some

Conclusions

to conclude

that the Republic

is indeed
in political
of utopia
theory tend to
one
a
two poles. On the
text is
oscillate
between
hand,
Utopian
to provide a blueprint
for an ideal city, ready?as
assumed
Popper
to seize and set to work. Burnyeat's
vin
feared?for
revolutionaries
as a "radical Utopian"
seems to assume
dication
of Plato
such an

does it signify, then,

What
a Utopian
text? Discussions

unproblematic

transfer

from words

to deeds.

as naive
or re
however,
easily criticized,
texts.
In
texts
of classic
ductive
may
reaction, Utopian
as satiric: far from being blueprints,
instead be interpreted
their
as wholly
on
is instead viewed
critical. Most
function
commonly
such views, Utopian texts are read as a satire on existing institutions;
Such

approaches
of the value

in More's

are

for example,
the eponymous
inhabitants?though
more
far
virtuous
and charitable
than
lacking revelation?appear
a
as
on
variation
the sixteenth-century
It
is
this
theme
English.
Utopia,

as proposing
new institutions
only
and ultimately
ridiculous
impos
not to existing Athenian
the satire
sible. For Strauss,
applies
in the
institutions
but to the very ones dreamt up by Socrates
course of the dialogue.

that Strauss
reads the Republic
to satirize
them as themselves

nor utopia
as satire helps us to un
as blueprint
utopia
on which as has been
A better approach,
derstand Plato's Republic.
to converge,
shown Popper
and Strauss
have reason
treats utopia
as a standard which
so far as pos
to realize
it would be desirable
Neither

of which will precisely

and necessarily
sible, but the realization
is
from the standard.
The question
involve departure
of possibility
it
is
of
then at the core of utopia
the
but
satire)
partisans
(against

to questions
the
and material
about modification
(against
seekers of blueprints).
And this question
of possibility
is one which,
I have argued, Plato leaves open without
either optimistic blandish
or pessimistic
ment
insist that it is possible
for
tinge. One must
linked

even while admitting

natures
to arise and be preserved
philosophic
a bare openness
to
is
here
that it is exceedingly
unlikely.56 Hope
on
and
less confident than the Christian
virtue
reliant
possibility,
of God's active benevolence.57
chance rather than on the underwriting

PLATO, POPPER, STRAUSS, AND UTOPIANISM

135

to possibility?
is the payoff of this ascetic
The
approach
Some
political payoff is not very great, but I think it is discernible.
one who has been brought to affirm the possibility
and desirability
no
cause
to become
have
of such a transformation,
though they
What

actively
nitely

revolutionary
appear, must

unless
remain

and

until

alienated

a philosopher
should
some extent from

to

defi
their

which affirms that

existing regime. They cannot give it allegiance
or
a
is
the best simpliciter.
Theirs
such
regime is the best possible,
an inner estrangement
to the possibility
is oriented
which
of the
does not lead to imme
best. Politically,
then, this acknowledgement
or concerted
action, though it does not rule this out in the
to possi
But the real payoff of this approach
circumstances.
right
not
in
I
its
for
think,
bility is,
implications
immediately
politics,
but for philosophy.
diate

nature
is that a philosophic
needful
thing politically
and develop
So
(and then gain power).
uncorrupted
to
in
to
nurture
is
task
and
the most
engage
important
philosophy
as well as the capabilities
in the
of others,
one's own capabilities
one
to
nature.
them
be
that
The
devel
that
may prove
among
hope
the
of
is
and
opment
immediately
philosophy
unpostponeable,
The

should

one

arise

cannot be made
task (even though philosophers
possible,
political
this as the task, the ques
nature). With
by effort alone, without
or necessary
tions of whether
the ideally best city are misleading
are beside
to inspire hope
the point of the Platonic
and action
of the one thing
they rush ahead, omitting the nurturance
agenda:
So Plato's
needful, philosophy.
but insistent
his unoptimistic
philosophy

King's

arising,

turns out to depend

utopianism
to the possibility
commitment

on
of

personified.58

College, Cambridge

NOTES
1. Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History
versity of Chicago Press, 1953), p. 22.
2.

Ibid.,

3.

See,

p.
e.g.,

(Chicago

and London:

Uni

reprinted

from

18.
J. L.

Talmon,

"Utopianism

and

his address to that "summer school" in Utopia,

York: Atherton Press, 1971), pp. 91-101.

Politics,"

ed. George

Kateb

(New

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY QUARTERLY

136

4. K. R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, vol. I: Plato

don: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1945; 5th edition, 1966), p. 159.
5. Aurel Kolnai,
"The Utopian
Other Papers, ed. Francis Dunlop
Athlone, 1995), pp. 1-129.

(Lon

in his The Utopian Mind

and
Mind,"
(London and Atlantic Highlands, N.J.:

The Decline
6. Judith N. Shklar, After Utopia:
of Political
Faith
Princeton
(Princeton:
University Press, 1957); George Kateb, Utopia and
Its Enemies
(Glencoe, 111.:The Free Press, 1963).
in her Political
7. Judith N. Shklar, "What is the Use of Utopia?"
Thought and Political Thinkers, ed. Stanley Hoffman, with foreword by
George Kateb (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), pp. 175-192.
8. Judith N. Shklar, "The Political Theory of Utopia: From Melancholy
to Nostalgia,"
Daedalus
94, no. 2 (Spring 1965): 367-81,
reprinted in
at p. 164.
Shklar, Political Thought and Political Thinkers, pp.161-174,
of these great differences were brought out by Richard Tuck's
unpublished paper read at the 1998 American Political Science Associa
or Nowhere." Tuck observes that
tion meeting,
"Thomas More: Utopia
More is an inheritor of, and so contender with, Cicero as well as Plato,
and shows how the Roman tradition shapes his powerful concern with
the moral and political character of the person proposing utopia.
9. Some

10. Leo

Sinclair

Strauss,

"Preface,"

Spinoza's

(New York: Schocken

Books,

Critique

of Religion,

trans.

E. M.

1965), p. 15.

11. Ibid., p. 146 and passim.

12. Leo Strauss,
1958), p. 197.
13.

Strauss,

14.

Ibid.,

Thoughts

Spinoza's
p.

onMachiavelli

Critique,

(Glencoe,

111.:The Free Press,

191-97.

pp.

30.

sent Strauss back to the content of what he eventually

15. If Spinoza
called "classical political rationalism," Maimonides
provided the method
of esoteric reading which he adopted as a standing hypothesis which
proved almost always to be confirmed. But I shall treat it as a hypothesis
and so consider his reading of Plato on its own merits. The question of
what counts as proof of such a hypothesis was debated by Harvey C.
Mansfield,

Jr.,

and

J. G.

A.

Pocock

in

relation

to

Strauss's

reading

of

Machiavelli, Mansfield maintaining that one proven esoteric instance counts

as would "the discovery of a single footprint not one's own on the beach
of an island one had thought to be uninhabited."
J. G. A. Pocock and
on Strauss's Machiavelli,"
Politi
Jr, "An Exchange
Harvey C. Mansfield,
cal Theory 3, no. 4 (November 1975): 372-405, quoted at p. 404.
16. The Strauss collection, the contents and order of which
dictated, is edited by Thomas L. Pangle (Chicago and London:
of Chicago Press,
review was published
1983). Burnyeat's
without a Secret," New York Review of Books, May 30, 1985,

he himself
University
as "Sphinx
pp. 30-36.

PLATO, POPPER, STRAUSS, AND UTOPIANISM

137

17. "The Studies of Leo Strauss: An Exchange," New York Review of

"Lessons of Leo Strauss," New York
Books October 10, 1985, pp. 41-44;
Review of Books, October 24, 1985, p. 56; "Further Lessons of Leo Strauss:
An Exchange," New York Review of Books, April 24, 1986, pp. 51-53. All
include
18.

responses
Burnyeat,

from

Burnyeat.

"Sphinx,"

p.

31.

19. Strauss had reviewed books on Plato since the 1940s, notably in a
review article of John Wild's Plato's Theory ofMan ("On a New Interpre
tation of Plato's Political Philosophy," Social Research 13, no. 3 [September
in any depth only in the 1949
1946]: 326-67). But he treated the Republic
lectures which became Natural Right and History, the 1962 lectures which
became The City and Man (Chicago: Rand-McNally,
1964); and the article
of Political Philosophy
"Plato" for the encyclopedic History
which he
edited with Joseph Cropsey (Chicago: Rand-McNally,
1963; 3rd edition,
1987), pp. 33-89 (this last to be cited below as "Plato").
20. Burnyeat,
"Sphinx," p. 35. In n. 10 to this page, Burnyeat notes
that Strauss himself once believed Plato to be such a radical utopian, in
of Hobbes:
Its Basis and Its Genesis,
his book The Political Philosophy
trans. Elsa M. Sinclair (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936; reprinted 1952);
see

161-2.

pp.

21. Strauss,
"Plato," pp. 48-51 and passim, argues that: the city/soul
analogy itself abstracts from the body at the outset; erotic desire is sub
ordinated with the other desires to thumos or spirit in the soul; the
the
privacy of the body is violated by (or perhaps renders impossible)
for
and
communism
the
of
and
of
the
female
program
guardians;
equality
denies the sexual differences involved in procreation.
male guardians
Dale Hall, "The Republic and the 'Limits of Politics,'" Political Theory 5,
no. 3 (August 1977): 293-313,
shows (in my judgment) that none of these
that
the
ideal
establishes
city is impossible to realize. Allan Bloom,
points
"Response

to Hall"

in

the

same

volume,

pp.

reverts

315-330,

to

the

"ri

and "absurd" aspects of the proposals

for boys and girls to
diculous"
exercise naked together and for the difference between male and female
to be compared to that between bald and hirsute men (p. 324), and ob
serves

more

generally

that

"many

things

which

are

not

natural,

and

even

against nature, can come into being" (p. 316). This raises the difficult
or coming into being to be
question of whether Plato meant naturalness
the decisive criterion of the possibility of the just city, given the many
indications that the city is an artifact; see the next note, below.
22. Strauss, "Plato," p. 52: "the question to which Socrates and Glaukon
[sic] return is not the same one which they left.The question which they left
[citing 466d] was whether the good city is possible in the sense that it is in
agreement with human nature. The question to which they return [citing
is whether the good city is possible in the sense that it can be
473b-c]
brought into being by the transformation of an actual city" (466d). Strauss's
invocation of this contrast commits him to the view that things may be
possible which are not natural in his sense.

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY QUARTERLY

138

23. The present paper sidesteps a direct confrontation with irony as

in
If one adopts the widespread
view that "Socrates"
with esotericism.
the Republic is not a character meant to represent the historical Socrates,
but to present views which Plato himself had developed
(whatever the
or

character's

own

Plato's

attitude

to

those

then

views),

any

irony

must

has argued inter

be Platonic rather than Socratic. Alexander Nehamas
of
the
the
that
Platonic
involves
reader's response
irony
inadequacy
estingly
to the arguments presented,
in The Art of Living: Socratic Re?ections
from Plato to Foucault
(Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of
California Press, 1998), pp. 19-45; John Seery suggests that Plato's irony
which means that his utopia "is not
is an affirmative double-perspective,
to be taken completely literally" but "retained, in thought and imagina
...

tion

as

in

moment,"

suggestive

as

"Politics

the Themes of Descent and Return in Plato's

at p. 245.
16, no. 2 (May 1988): 229-256,

Ironic

Republic,"

On

Community:

Political

Theory

24. Socrates
does a bit of feinting here, first pretending
that the
question of benefit is obvious and that he would rather consider the
question of possibility. But when Glaucon
challenges him to consider
to
off
the
he
of
both,
put
question
possibility in the way that "idle
begs
men" do (457e-458b).
He then gets so carried away with discussing
the
laws of war needed to maintain
the unity of the Greeks that Glaucon has
to drag him back to the pending problem of possibility at 471c.
I find it clear and literal, I use the translation
25. Because
in The
Republic of Plato, trans, with notes and interpretive essay by Allan Bloom
(New York: Basic Books, 1969). None of my claims hinge on translation.
26. Andr?
tween Plato's
1990):
27.

Be
Laks, "Legislation and Demiurgy: On the Relationship
and Laws," Classical Antiquity 9, no. 2 (October
Republic
pp. 214-216.
209-229,

Roberto

has

Unger

attacked

the

measure

commonsense

of Utopian

possibility in terms of "closeness" to existing institutions, noting that on

such a test, the fall of the Berlin Wall must have been judged virtually
in August
1989. Tests of possibility should instead, Unger
impossible
urges, be linked to analysis of the "trajectories of context change" which
would be required to bring the envisioned changes into being; see Roberto
Social Theory in
Mangabeira
Unger, False Necessity: Anti-Necessitarian
the Service of Radical Democracy
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1987), pp. 330-331. Plato's anti-inductive argument pays attention, I shall
argue, to just such causal pathways, as Socrates notes here that a large
change

may

28.

Laks,

pivot

on

smaller

one.

Contrast

the

causally

untethered

messianic hope which Jacques Derrida finds inMarx, in Specters ofMarx:

The State of the Debt, The Work ofMourning, and theNew International,
trans. Peggy Kamuf (New York and London: Routledge, 1994), p. 21.
"Legislation

and

Demiurgy,"

p.

215,

observes

the

change

from the general possibility of the model being realized, to the "related
but different" question
of the possibility of the philosopher-king
(the
"means," in my terms, of realizing the model). But having observed this

PLATO, POPPER, STRAUSS, AND UTOPIANISM

139

change of focus he does not identify the new notion of possibility which
in the text, below.
this new question brings with it, as discussed
29. He is, however, not wholly consistent in leaving this point behind,
the claim that the political reforms are not
and sometimes juxtaposes
re
likely with the intimation that they are impossible. A representative
to the effect that
mark: "there are also a few indications in the Republic
the longed-for reformation is not likely to succeed on the political plane
or that the only possible
reformation is that of the individual man."
Strauss,

p.

"Plato,"

34.

nature can
30. At present, Socrates
suggests, the best a philosophical
to avoid being attacked
do is to keep quiet and mind his own business,
and killed for opposing injustice in the cities. Living thus privately and
free from injustice is "not the least of things," Adeimantus
comments,
but

to

according

Socrates

"not

the

greatest

. . . for

either

in a

suitable

regime he himself will grow more and save the common things along with
This remark summarily disposes of the objec
the private" (496a-497a).
tion that the philosophers will have no reason to rule, if not expressly the
to do so (although,
claim that they will have no subjective motivation
seem
to
would
be
motivated
necessarily
by reason).
being philosophers, they
31. Adeimantus's
reply the second time makes
plain that this is a
criticism of induction: to Socrates'
remark "that in all of time not one of
all of them could ever be saved, is there anyone who would argue that?"
he answers "How could he?"(502b).
32. Myles Burnyeat, who kindly read an earlier version of this paper,
suggested to me that Socrates himself may be implied as the person who
the possibility, in the "transfer" sense at least,
most closely approximates
of the philosopher-king
is said to
(cf. Phaedo
188a, in which Socrates
of all those Phaedo has known). This
have been the wisest phronimotatou
is powerful, though I find much of the dialogue's
poignancy, and Plato's
ambition, in the fact that the historical Socrates himself was unable to
establish such a reign, and that he never seems to have tried to do so.
I find it textually inexplicable that Strauss ignores the alter
33. While
native route, in which children who will inherit power are born philosophic,
it is true that the tension between philosophizing
and ruling which for
Bloom at least is at the core of the difficulty is not eased by this alterna
tive.

Bloom,

to Hall,"

"Response

328.

p.

34. R. H. S. Grossman, Plato Today (London: Allen and Unwin, 1937;

revised 2nd edition, 1959), p. 90, argues that Plato, head of an Academy
full of aristocrats and sometime tutor to a tyrant's son, might well have
this route to be direct and unproblematic:
assumed
"Plato disregarded
the

problem

of how

to

capture

power

dreamer, but because, in the revolution

of power would not prove difficult."
35. Strauss,
36. Ibid.

The City and Man,

not

because

he

was

an

of which he dreamed,

p. 124.

unpractical

the capture

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY QUARTERLY

140

are
that the philosophers
37. Note also Hall's
important observation
to
the
undertake
of
also said to be compelled
(forms
study
anagkaxo)
of the Good (519c) and to look toward the Good
leading to apprehension
it can't be utterly incompat
itself (540a). Whatever
compulsion means,
ible with the attractions of philosophy; see Hall, "The Republic," p. 302.
to
of the philosophers
It must also be observed that the unwillingness
rule is an important and deliberate part of the bulwark against their
then tread a fine line
abuse of power (e.g., 520d). Plato must necessarily
between insisting on their recalcitrance and on the necessity that they rule.
the question of why the
in Book I, Socrates anticipates
38. At 347a-d
are
lovers
to
neither of money nor
be
rule.
Since
should
they
willing
good
will
therefore
these
inducements
neither
of
serve;
"necessity and a
honor,
penalty" are required to compel them to rule, and "the greatest of penal
ties is being ruled by a worse man if one is not willing to rule onself."
Socrates goes on to intertwine the topics of necessity and the penalty of
being ruled by someone worse than oneself. He argues that it is already
believed shameful to seek rule without "awaiting necessity" (me anagken
he contrasts the false idea that "decent men" enter upon
perimenein);
or to be well off, with
rule as toward something good (hos ep'agathon)
the claim that such men rather enter upon rule as toward something
and not having anyone better or equal to
(hos ep anagkaion)
necessary
themselves to whom to entrust it (epitrepein). The necessity seems to lie
it
in the factual absence of anyone better or equal to rule, which makes
necessary for good men to rule in order to avoid paying "the greatest of
It is true that this is not strictly the material necessity of the
penalties."
since the notion of a penalty seems to allow for a choice albeit
Timaeus,
one constrained
the weighting of the
by a grave threat. Nevertheless
as
to strip the good
seems
to
to
intended
be
such
be
effectively
penalty
the force
choice in the matter?hence
potential rulers of any meaningful
ful

of

language

"necessity."

role of necessity in Platonic thought is surveyed by Gregory

Vlastos,
"Slavery in Plato's Thought," in his Platonic Studies (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1973), pp. 147-163.
39. The

40. These five references are precisely those given by Strauss, "Plato," in
the course of his argument there that the philosophers must be compelled.
41.

Burnyeat,

"Sphinx,"

p.

36.

The

necessity

involved

can

be

under

stood as a kind of teleological necessity, which just if and insofar as the

are good, they will be able to understand.
the
Compare
philosophers
stress on the lawgiver in Jeremy Waldron,
"What Plato Would Allow," in
Ian Shapiro and Judith Wagner DeCew, eds., Theory and Practice
(No
mos XXXVII)
(New York and London: New York University Press, 1995),
pp. 138-178, at p.155; notice also his succinct rejection of the "blueprint"
model of Utopian texts at p. 159.
42. Strauss, Natural
43. For
Machiavelli,

Right, p.141.

p.139; Thoughts
example, Natural
Right and History,
of Hobbes,
The
Political
p.150. This
p.173;
Philosophy

on
is a

PLATO, POPPER, STRAUSS, AND UTOPIANISM

44. Popper,

vol.1. Crossman,

The Open Society,

that

agrees

passim,

so in fact than the

theme in his writings, more

consistently articulated
Timits of polities'.

countenances

Plato

use

the

45. Ronald B. Levinson, In Defense

Press, 1953), p.506.

of Plato

141

Plato

Today, p.93 and

of propaganda.

(Cambridge, Mass.:

Harvard

University
46.
makes

The Open
Popper,
same
the
claim:

vol.1,
now

Society,
'Socrates

Strauss,

pp.32-3.
makes

strangely
assert

the Muses

enough,
that
the

good city was indeed actual in the beginning of time' ("Plato," p.61). The
only evidence for it that I can see is the use of past tense rather than
future or conditional in describing the degeneration
into the four vicious
a
to
but
is
natural
choice
this
avoid
awkward prose.
cities;
surely
enough
47. Popper,

The Open Society,

vol. I, pp. 138-9.

48. Ibid., p. 164, quoting T. Gomperz,

Greek Thinkers
John Murrah,
1902), Book V, chap. 13, 3 (German edition,

(London:
II, 407).

49. Ibid., pp. 87-90. Note that the holism in question here involves the
to the aims of the collective,
claim that the individual is subordinate
or epistemological
rather than any kind of methodological
view.
50. I am grateful to David Sedley for helping me
relation between whole and parts here.
51. Popper admits finally that he was
genuine hatred of tyranny; ibid., p. 150.

to be

supremely

when

Later,

happy.

to recognize

compelled

the

Plato's

to Adeimantus
here, however, is that any
if the individual guardians did indeed turn

52. Socrates'
first response
way he would not be surprised
out

to understand

some

are made

into

philosophers,

he reassures Glaucon
against the previous reproach that they will now
be
the ordinary
artisans
than
(466a-b).
Perhaps
surely
happier
real

Adeimantus's
53.

Ibid.,

p.

was

concern

more

elitism

than

holism?

145.

"The greatest principle of all is that no

54. In Popper's
translation:
body, whether male or female, should be without a leader. Nor should the
to letting him do anything at all on his
mind of anybody be habituated
own initiative; neither out of zeal, nor even playfully. But in war as well
as in the midst of peace?to his leader he shall direct his eye and follow
him faithfully. And even in the smallest matter he should stand under
For
leadership.
. . .
meals
only

example,
if he has

he
been

should
told

get
to do

up,
so.

or move,
...
In a

or wash,
word,

he

or

his soul, by long habit, never to dream of acting independently,

fact, to become utterly incapable of it" (Laws 942a-c).
55. Leo Strauss, The Argument
and London: University of Chicago

Press,

56. I have argued for a similar rejection

while keeping open the possibility

mism,

of Plato's
1975), p. 170.

and Action

take

should

Laws

his

teach

and

in

(Chicago

of both optimism and pessi

of the advent of the true

142

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY QUARTERLY

statesman, inM. S. Lane, Method and Politics in Plato's

bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 161-3.

Statesman

57. Socrates does say that "it won't be bad" if his companion
any saved philosophic nature to "a god's dispensation"
(493a).
58. This paper was
on

"Democracy

and

first drafted for the Princeton/Cambridge

its malcontents,

ancient

and

modern,"

held

(Cam
ascribes

Seminar
at

Cam

bridge in 1997; another version was read as "Utopia and the Problem of
For their
Possibility" at the 1998 American Political Science Association.
I am indebted to Danielle Allen,
comments on these or other occasions
Myles Burnyeat, Paul Cartledge, Jill Frank, Malcolm Schofield, and John
in whose classroom I first
Seery. I dedicate this paper to Paul Mertens,
the idea of utopia, and to the memory of Judith Shklar.
encountered