Download PDF The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization, by Arthur Herman
To conquer the problem, we now offer you the modern technology to get the publication The Cave And The Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, And The Struggle For The Soul Of Western Civilization, By Arthur Herman not in a thick printed documents. Yeah, reading The Cave And The Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, And The Struggle For The Soul Of Western Civilization, By Arthur Herman by on the internet or obtaining the soft-file simply to read can be one of the methods to do. You may not really feel that reviewing a publication The Cave And The Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, And The Struggle For The Soul Of Western Civilization, By Arthur Herman will certainly serve for you. Yet, in some terms, May people successful are those who have reading habit, included this kind of this The Cave And The Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, And The Struggle For The Soul Of Western Civilization, By Arthur Herman
The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization, by Arthur Herman
Download PDF The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization, by Arthur Herman
When you are rushed of work due date and also have no concept to get motivation, The Cave And The Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, And The Struggle For The Soul Of Western Civilization, By Arthur Herman publication is among your remedies to take. Schedule The Cave And The Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, And The Struggle For The Soul Of Western Civilization, By Arthur Herman will give you the best resource and thing to obtain inspirations. It is not only about the works for politic business, management, economics, and various other. Some got jobs to make some fiction works likewise require inspirations to overcome the job. As just what you require, this The Cave And The Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, And The Struggle For The Soul Of Western Civilization, By Arthur Herman will possibly be your selection.
Often, checking out The Cave And The Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, And The Struggle For The Soul Of Western Civilization, By Arthur Herman is really boring and it will take very long time starting from obtaining the book and start reading. Nevertheless, in modern era, you could take the creating innovation by making use of the web. By internet, you can see this page and begin to search for guide The Cave And The Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, And The Struggle For The Soul Of Western Civilization, By Arthur Herman that is needed. Wondering this The Cave And The Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, And The Struggle For The Soul Of Western Civilization, By Arthur Herman is the one that you require, you could choose downloading. Have you understood how to get it?
After downloading and install the soft data of this The Cave And The Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, And The Struggle For The Soul Of Western Civilization, By Arthur Herman, you could begin to read it. Yeah, this is so enjoyable while somebody needs to review by taking their huge publications; you are in your new way by only manage your gizmo. And even you are working in the workplace; you could still use the computer to read The Cave And The Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, And The Struggle For The Soul Of Western Civilization, By Arthur Herman completely. Certainly, it will certainly not obligate you to take many pages. Just page by web page depending upon the time that you have to review The Cave And The Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, And The Struggle For The Soul Of Western Civilization, By Arthur Herman
After knowing this quite simple method to check out and get this The Cave And The Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, And The Struggle For The Soul Of Western Civilization, By Arthur Herman, why do not you inform to others concerning in this manner? You could inform others to visit this website and also go with searching them favourite publications The Cave And The Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, And The Struggle For The Soul Of Western Civilization, By Arthur Herman As recognized, right here are great deals of listings that supply numerous kinds of publications to accumulate. Merely prepare few time and internet links to obtain the books. You can really take pleasure in the life by checking out The Cave And The Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, And The Struggle For The Soul Of Western Civilization, By Arthur Herman in an extremely straightforward manner.
Arthur Herman has now written the definitive sequel to his New York Times bestseller, How the Scots Invented the Modern World, and extends the themes of the book—which sold half a million copies worldwide—back to the ancient Greeks and forward to the age of the Internet. The Cave and the Light is a magisterial account of how the two greatest thinkers of the ancient world, Plato and Aristotle, laid the foundations of Western culture—and how their rivalry shaped the essential features of our culture down to the present day.
Plato came from a wealthy, connected Athenian family and lived a comfortable upper-class lifestyle until he met an odd little man named Socrates, who showed him a new world of ideas and ideals. Socrates taught Plato that a man must use reason to attain wisdom, and that the life of a lover of wisdom, a philosopher, was the pinnacle of achievement. Plato dedicated himself to living that ideal and went on to create a school, his famed Academy, to teach others the path to enlightenment through contemplation.
However, the same Academy that spread Plato’s teachings also fostered his greatest rival. Born to a family of Greek physicians, Aristotle had learned early on the value of observation and hands-on experience. Rather than rely on pure contemplation, he insisted that the truest path to knowledge is through empirical discovery and exploration of the world around us. Aristotle, Plato’s most brilliant pupil, thus settled on a philosophy very different from his instructor’s and launched a rivalry with profound effects on Western culture.
The two men disagreed on the fundamental purpose of the philosophy. For Plato, the image of the cave summed up man’s destined path, emerging from the darkness of material existence to the light of a higher and more spiritual truth. Aristotle thought otherwise. Instead of rising above mundane reality, he insisted, the philosopher’s job is to explain how the real world works, and how we can find our place in it. Aristotle set up a school in Athens to rival Plato’s Academy: the Lyceum. The competition that ensued between the two schools, and between Plato and Aristotle, set the world on an intellectual adventure that lasted through the Middle Ages and Renaissance and that still continues today.
From Martin Luther (who named Aristotle the third great enemy of true religion, after the devil and the Pope) to Karl Marx (whose utopian views rival Plato’s), heroes and villains of history have been inspired and incensed by these two master philosophers—but never outside their influence.
Accessible, riveting, and eloquently written, The Cave and the Light provides a stunning new perspective on the Western world, certain to open eyes and stir debate.
Praise for The Cave and the Light
“A sweeping intellectual history viewed through two ancient Greek lenses . . . breezy and enthusiastic but resting on a sturdy rock of research.”—Kirkus Reviews
“Examining mathematics, politics, theology, and architecture, the book demonstrates the continuing relevance of the ancient world.”—Publishers Weekly
“A fabulous way to understand over two millennia of history, all in one book.”—Library Journal
“Entertaining and often illuminating.”—The Wall Street Journal
- Sales Rank: #449450 in Books
- Published on: 2013-10-22
- Released on: 2013-10-22
- Original language: English
- Number of items: 1
- Dimensions: 9.51" h x 1.36" w x 6.35" l, 2.12 pounds
- Binding: Hardcover
- 704 pages
From Booklist
Herman (How the Scots Invented the Modern World, 2002) boils Western philosophy and culture down to two competing notions: the idealism of Plato and the empiricism of Aristotle. Plato, says Herman, asks, “How do you want your world to be?”; Aristotle, on the other hand, asks, “How do you fit into the world that already exists?” Walking through two and a half millennia of Western thought, Herman emphasizes that the two philosophies—the material and the spiritual aspects of existence—have repeated themselves through Western history, waxing and waning and remaining in tension with each other to the present day. Romanticism? Poetry? Totalitarian dogmatism? That’s Plato. The U.S. Constitution? The Manhattan Project? Modern consumer culture? That’s Aristotle. If it sounds like a sweeping polemic, that’s because it is; Herman seems to revel in overbroad claims, particularly when he’s talking about modern phenomena. Beneath all the broad assertions and polemic showiness, however, lies a serious argument for the primacy of Plato and Aristotle and the essential dynamism of a culture that embraces both philosophies.
Review
Praise for The Cave and the Light
“A sweeping intellectual history viewed through two ancient Greek lenses . . . breezy and enthusiastic but resting on a sturdy rock of research.”—Kirkus Reviews
“Examining mathematics, politics, theology, and architecture, the book demonstrates the continuing relevance of the ancient world.”—Publishers Weekly
“A fabulous way to understand over two millennia of history, all in one book.”—Library Journal
“Entertaining and often illuminating.”—The Wall Street Journal
Praise for Arthur Herman
Gandhi & Churchill
Finalist for the Pulitzer Prize
“You finish the book knowing that you can evaluate the world today, particularly modern India, with more knowledge and insight.”—USA Today
“Scrupulous, compelling, and unfailingly instructive . . . a detailed and richly filigreed account that introduces the Anglo-American reader to many facts and vivid if little-known personalities, both English and Indian.”—Commentary
Freedom’s Forge
“A rambunctious book that is itself alive with the animal spirits of the marketplace.”—The Wall Street Journal
How the Scots Invented the Modern World
“Professor Herman demonstrates an infectious and uplifting passion for his subject. Unlike many academics, he is a natural writer, weaving philosophical concerns seamlessly through a historical narrative that romps along at a cracking pace, producing a text that is highly accessible without compromising the rational quality of his argument.”—The Guardian
About the Author
Arthur Herman is the bestselling author of Freedom’s Forge, How the Scots Invented the Modern World, The Idea of Decline in Western History, To Rule the Waves, and Gandhi & Churchill, which was a 2009 finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. Dr. Herman taught the Western Heritage Program at the Smithsonian’s Campus on the Mall, and he has been a professor of history at Georgetown University, The Catholic University of America, George Mason University, and The University of the South at Sewanee.
Most helpful customer reviews
110 of 128 people found the following review helpful.
Enquire Within About Everything...
By FictionFan
In this comprehensive view of the last 2,500 years, Arthur Herman sets out to prove his contention that the history of Western civilisation has been influenced and affected through the centuries by the tension between the worldviews of the two greatest of the Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. And for this reader at least, his argument is a convincing one.
The book covers so much in terms of both philosophy and history that a full review would run to thousands of words. Happily that's not going to happen here, dear reader. I will simply say that, from knowing virtually nothing about philosophy, I now feel as well informed as if I had done an undergraduate level course in the subject.
Herman starts way back at Socrates and brings us right up to the philosophers of the late twentieth century. He begins by giving a fairly in-depth analysis of the chief insights of both Plato and his former pupil Aristotle, using Plato's metaphor of the cave and the light to show how their views diverged. He shows Plato as the mystic and idealist, believer in the divinity of Pythagorean geometry, advocate of the philosopher king, believing that the route to the light of wisdom is available only to some through contemplation and speculation and that these few should set rules for the rest to follow. Aristotle is shown as the man of science and common sense, believing that there is much to be learned from an examination of life in the cave itself and advocating that all men (sorry, women, you'll have to wait a couple of millennia) should be involved in government with the family at the heart of society.
Herman takes these rival viewpoints (which I have grossly oversimplified and can only hope that I've got the basics approximately right) and shows how each has achieved ascendancy at different points in history. And what a journey he takes us on! The fall of Greek civilisation, the Roman Empire, the birth and rise of Christianity, the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages, Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, Revolution and on past the rise of totalitarianism to the end of the Cold War. Phew! At each step along the way, he discusses the leading philosophers of the time, linking the chain of development of the various schools of thought back in a continuous line to one or other of Plato and Aristotle - occasionally both - and showing how the thinkers of the time affected the politics of nations. To my personal delight, he pays considerable attention to the Scottish contribution to the Enlightenment.
This is not just a history of philosophy and philosophers though - like philosophy itself, it covers just about every area of human interaction. The book provides the clearest overview I have ever read of the rise and development of Christianity, the divisions and schisms, the beliefs of the various factions. Herman leads us through from the Old Testament, St Paul, St Thomas Aquinas, Abelard, Erasmus - well, you name them, they're here. He tells us about the people as individuals as well as their beliefs, so we learn about their backgrounds, where they were educated, whom they were influenced by and whom they in turn influenced.
On politics, amongst many other things, Herman writes in depth about the philosophers of the French Revolution, the founding of the American constitution and the rise of Nazism and fascism. He convincingly argues that the twentieth century history of the parallel rise of democracy and totalitarianism was seeded in the divide between Aristotle and Plato over two millennia earlier. Again the links in the chain are carefully connected - from Plato to Karl Marx, from Aristotle to Karl Popper.
The third main strand is science, and again Herman leads us through the ages, showing the close interconnection between the development of science and philosophy, together with the influence of scientific advancement on religion and politics - and vice versa.
Herman's writing style is amazingly accessible considering the breadth and depth of the information that he conveys. He doesn't over-simplify, but explains clearly enough for the non-academic to follow his arguments. My review suggests that he treats each of the strands separately, but in fact he tells the story in a linear fashion, weaving all the strands together, so that a very clear picture is given of the different stages of development of each at a given point in time. At points where it might all get too confusing, he takes the time to repeat the basics to put them into the context of the period he's discussing, meaning that this poor befuddled reader didn't have to keep flicking back to remind herself of who believed what.
There is so much in the book that I found this review particularly difficult to write. If I have given any idea of how impressive I found it, then the review has worked. That's not to say I didn't disagree with Herman from time to time. On occasion I felt he was stretching his argument a bit too far, perhaps, and once or twice he would make a sweeping statement completely dismissing conventionally held views in favour of his own. And towards the end I felt he was allowing his own political viewpoint to show through a little too much, in favour of 'Aristotelian' capitalism as opposed to 'Platonic' socialism for instance (though he pulled that back a little in his conclusion). But the very fact that, by the end of the book, I occasionally felt in a position to question his stance showed me how much I had gained from reading it. Not the lightest read in the world, but for anyone who wants to understand the fundamentals and history of Western philosophy, highly recommended.
(Phew! Made it in less than 1000 words - just! Apologies!)
Arthur Herman has been a Professor of History at various universities in the US and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 2008 for his book Gandhi and Churchill.
NB This book was provided for review by the publisher, Random House.
258 of 314 people found the following review helpful.
Neither Beautiful Nor Good
By InterestedObserver
I regret having to provide a negative review for a book that takes the Ancients seriously, but I do feel some responsibility to put forward a more critical opinion in order to counterbalance the general praise Herman's book has received so far, both in this review section and in the media at large.
Herman proceeds from a delicious but ultimately fraught grand thesis: Plato the idealist and Aristotle the realist have determined the structure of Western Civilization through their diametrically opposed philosophical inquiries. In staking this position, Herman has adopted a rather standard interpretation of the relationship between the two great Greeks in their metaphysical and epistemological studies. Plato, so the story goes, believed in mysterious entities called Forms (Eidos) available only to the intellect and whose presence provides the foundation for all material beings. Aristotle, so the story continues, eschewed the Forms for an empiricism that begins with particular material beings as the most real beings and then proceeds toward generalizations, not unlike the inductive method scientists employ today and whose methodological validity can be traced all the way back to Aristotle himself.
From reading Herman, you would not gather that this strict demarcation between the two philosophers is at best a contentious claim and at worst an outright deception. The last paragraph of Roger Kimball's review in the Wall Street Journal points toward this problem with "The Cave and the Light," but fails to stress just how large a problem it really is. Kimball quotes Book VII of The Republic, a worthy selection, and comments that "Plato isn't the thoroughgoing Platonist he is sometimes taken to be." Right. Whether Plato actually believed in the Forms as metaphysical entities is debatable---his Seventh Letter indicates that he did not---and whether Aristotle believed that his own inquiries were as opposed to his master's as Herman holds is likewise debatable. Herman takes the words Plato puts in his interlocutors' mouths as Plato's own, a juvenile mistake and one that indicates a fundamental inability to read a Platonic dialogue. Herman's entire thesis depends upon this very shallow interpretive approach. Where deep thought and a deft touch are required, Herman substitutes light skimming and a heavy hand.
My verdict may seem harsh, but when one puts forward such a bold claim as Herman has---and hopes to reap monetary and laudatory rewards from such a claim---then one invites criticism. While "The Cave and the Light" is a book of popular philosophy and not a text by an actual philosopher, I do not see how a serious person could, in good conscience, recommend this book to anyone who prefers the truth over convenient narratives designed to sell en masse.
171 of 217 people found the following review helpful.
Author's selective burning of Plato and Aristotle creates much heat, little light, and lots of misinformation
By J. A Magill
After most revolutions tire of fighting their enemies, they begin executing their friends. Having led the "Terror," Saint-Just stepped to the Guillotine. Trotsky's final reward came in the form of an ice pick to the ear. The National Review stalks GOP party meetings in search of "Republicans In Name Only" (RHINOs) whom they can declare outside the "Big Tent" and target for defeat. American conservatism may claim many enemies on both sides of the isle, but in his new book, The Cave and the Light: Plato vs. Aristotle and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization, American Enterprise Institute scholar Arthur Herman argues that they have focused far too much on modern targets. Herman's previous worked sought to rehabilitate Joseph McCarthy. Here he has bigger fish in mind. Now he sets his sights on ancient greatest thinkers. Using a blizzard of charges from the calumnious to the absurd, Herman struggles to explain why all that is dangerous in modern thought, from Communism to radical Islam, finds its roots in the work of Socrates' chief student, Plato, even as all that is right (Capitalism, freedom, etc) springs from Plato's chief student, Aristotle. In this simplistic dichotomy can also be found the central flaw of Herman's thesis; few readers with much familiar in his portrait of either of these ancient thinkers, let alone his often specious summaries of the great philosophers who came after them.
Refugees from Philosophy 101 will recognize the first portion of Herman's argument: from the Agora forward one can trace most philosophical disputes back to Aristotle's rejection of his teacher Plato. Yet for Herman this 2,400 year old disagreement is fundamentally Manichean: everything good, beautiful, and light arose from Aristotle, while all that is pernicious, destructive, and dark can be traced back to Plato. If that argument appears simplistic, it sounds no less so after 700-plus pages. In Herman's construction, Aristotle is "the father of modern science [and] logic... [who] looks steadily forward," while over on the dark side, "Plato...[spoke] for the theologian, the mystic...One gave us the US Constitution, the Manhattan Project and shopping malls. The other gave us Chartres Cathedral but also the gulag and the Holocaust." Aristotle is nothing less than Jefferson's intellectual grandfather. And Plato fans? "Pol Pot [and] the Ayatollah Khomeini...[a] huge admirer of Plato's Republic." Kohmeini's favor must for Herman be particularly important, earning as it does more than one mention. And if this were not enough, he further poisons the pot by naming a variable rogues gallery as Plato fans: Robespierre, Marx, and - for good measure - Hitler. Thank goodness for us, Aristotle came along to rescue us from Plato's clutches: "Plato looks constantly backwards, to what we were, or what we've lost or to an original of which we are the pale imitation or copy...Aristotle, by contrast, looks steadily forward to what can we can be rather than what we were. His outlook is by its nature optimistic: "The universe and everything in it is developing towards something continually better than what came before," including ourselves. It is truly a "philosophy of aspiration," and for Aristotle the world we make for ourselves continually reflects it. In that sense, Aristotle is the first great advocate of progress - and Plato, creator of the vanished utopia Atlantis, the first great theorist of the idea of decline.
Only the very cautious reader will note this passages red flags with regard to Herman's method. The quotes used come not from Aristotle but from Bertrand Russell's much criticized A History of Western Philosophy. Yet, as often as not Herman favors controversial secondary sources that fit his program and shows little patience for wrestling with complex original texts.
On the page, Herman's Aristotle is funhouse-mirrored into an unrecognizable Jeffersonian caricature. Consider for example his assertion that "Aristotle concludes that power belongs best with the people [my emphasis]." This claim would no doubt come as a surprise to many, not least of all Aristotle. For Aristotle no one political scheme was "best." Instead he divided governing schemes into three categories: Monarchy (rule of the one), Aristocracy (rule of the few), and Polity (rule of the many). Each possess strengths and weaknesses. Aristotle then further divided these into the "virtuous" (which strive for the "common advantage) and the"deviant" (where those in power serve not the general interest but only their own). He lays this scheme out in Book III of The Politics: "Tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all." As for "Polity," for Aristotle the rule of "the many" is hardly popular sovereignty as understood by any democrat, whether modern or back in ancient Athens. His "many" was not our many. Ancient Athenian democracy was far more democratic than any modern state that embraces that particular term. In Athens citizenship included every militarily trained Athenian male over age eighteen. Unlike our system of delegated political power, every Athenian citizen could count himself among the assembly and cast his own vote on any matter of legislation or policy. Athenians likewise distrusted delegation of judicial power and juries could consist of as many as 6,000 members.
One such Athenian mass jury condemned Socrates to death for expressing thoughts with which the majority disagreed. No surprise then that Plato and Aristotle alike saw free wheeling Athenian democracy as dangerous. Yet Herman considers only Plato's distrust for mass rule. Contrary to his argument, however, Aristotle likewise saw the masses as lacking the proper virtue to rule. As he clearly states in Book VII of The Politics, "The citizens must not lead the life of mechanics or tradesmen, for such a life is ignoble, and inimical to virtue. Neither must they be farmers, since leisure is necessary both for the development of virtue and the performance of political duties." Thus Aristotle's understanding of citizenship isa far cry from either that of Ancient Athens or our modern liberal image. Even mass citizenship, for Aristotle, means citizenship by a particular elite. Whether by ignorance or duplicity, Herman is all too willing to exploit such linguistic confusion around such terms to further his argument. Nor is this the end of Herman's efforts to prettify Aristotle and demonize Plato.
Intent on dragging these ancient thinkers into every modern dispute, Herman conflates Aristotle with capitalism (and, of course, Plato with communism). While Aristotle saw the ownership of private property as ennobling and Plato saw great inequality between classes as a pernicious source of social friction, it is anachronistic to associate either with modern capitalism. Modern capitalism depends on far more than mere ownership. Neither thinker would likely much understand our modern belief in a natural right of property ownership. Yet Herman will have none of such fine distinctions. Consider for example, his description of the multitudinous virtues of a middle class Eighteenth-century English merchant: "Far from creating a poltroon, the Eighteenth Century saw the world of commerce creating a man who might have stepped out of the pages of Aristotle's Ethic. This was someone intellectually alert and morally centered, regardful of others by habit and therefore not inclined to extremes of behavior...Above all he is inclined to be tolerant of others [my emphasis], whether they are Christians or Muslims or Jews." A reader must wonder whether our merchant's Catholic neighbor- denied the right to own property until 1788 and enfranchised only in 1829 - would share Herman's rosy assessment. Such simplified schemes, however, remains essential to Herman's "history" of ideas: from Aristotle through Locke to the Framers flows all the "right" ideas, all realized - apparently- through the ennobling virtues of capitalism and private property. And private property is what inspires those dangerous shadows which lurk in our culture's darker corners: Plato and his intellectual children.
In Herman's tracing of Plato's "dangerous" thinking, he borrows liberally from Karl Popper. Herman, like Popper, sees Plato's flaws arising from multiple points, though primarily the Philosopher's anti-empiricism. For Plato, "truth" is deduced not through observation but through pure reason. The world exists not as a series of competing opinions, as in a democratic forum, but as an absolute, an absolute only recognizable if the world is properly understood. Of course, one can delete Plato's "truth" and replace it with a system built around racial superiority or class conflict, which is how Herman, and Popper in The Open Society and its Enemies, lay everything from Auschwitz to the Gulag at Plato's long-dead feet (not surprisingly, Herman never mentions that the second volume of Popper's work traces other modern evils back to Aristotle).
Not that Herman's simplistic division of Plato and Aristotle is wholly baseless. On the contrary, readers will recognize his view of their central conflict, with Plato's method of understanding reality through pure thought against Aristotle's reliance on empirical observation. Here again, however, in demonizing the former and polishing the latter, Herman fails to properly understand the strengths and weaknesses of either man's system. Certainly, one of Aristotle's contributions to thought is the importance of systemic understanding gained through observation. Aristotle's scheme, however, falls short in its dismissal of innovation. Just as understanding the point of biology is to allow one to maximize understanding and utilization -- but not improve -- of the animal's structure, so Aristotle understood the city. By analyzing various constitutions one can pick and choose from among their features; for Aristotle, however, imagining that one can come up with something wholly new is pure fantasy.
Yet Herman fails to understand the syncretic light thinkers have derived - and continue to derive - from mixing Plato and Aristotle's contradictory world views. Consider the American Framers who Herman would place squarely in Aristotle's column. Following Aristotle's method they derived their understanding of government through empirical inquiry: the experiences of the 13 colonies and states, Great Britain's Parliament, the failure of the Articles of Confederation, republics both extant and ancient. The Framers' aspirational understanding of rights, however, was pure Platonic universalism: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Likewise, when Martin Luther King Jr. offered his dream of universal justice, he was drawing from a Platonic understanding of an ideal for which humanity must eternally strive.
This division between the empirical and the reasoned likewise occurs when readers engage in the age-old argument of which of these thinkers is closer to the "modern" view. At first glance, Herman seems correct that it is Aristotle. A closer examination, however, breeds doubt. Where Aristotle defends women's subordination as nature's dictate, The Republic implicitly recognizes the potential for gender equality. In a passage subject to much academic debate, Plato's Socrates reasons that women of each class should engage in the same mental and physical training as men. The same problem can be seen in Aristotle's praise for the virtues of slavery (an often cited antebellum justification for that `peculiar institution') juxtaposed with Plato's belief in the universal quality of human reason. Perhaps the strongest example of the potential found in mixing these intellectual rivals comes from one of the thinkers Herman most despises, Jean Jacques Rousseau.
For Herman, Rousseau is nothing less than Plato's most dangerous disciple. Rousseau is the man responsible for the Terror of the French Revolution, anarchism, Communism, Nazism and just about every other ill - impressive work for the son of a Genevan watch maker. Focusing on Rousseau's most famous book, The Social Contract, Herman argues that Rousseau follows closely in Plato's footsteps. "This was Plato in the raw, the unflinching moral absolutist who denounced the corruption of his native Athens and admired the austere warriors of Sparta. It was the would-be Philosopher Ruler who wanted to banish the arts and private property..." Now it is worth pausing here to note that, far from imagining himself as a "would-be Philosopher Ruler," Plato seems to have shown no appetite for engaging in politics beyond his academy, his only foray coming when as an old man he served as adviser to the king of Syracuse and his son's tutor. Moreover, even a cursory read demonstrates that Rousseau argued for a state not ruled by a king on high, but of free citizens engaged in self rule. Nor did Rousseau's method rely on Plato's pure reason. From the beginning of The Social Contract Rousseau draws on empirical evidence to support his understanding of the "state of nature" even as his ideal society borrows liberally from his native city-state of Geneva. Even the work's most famous line demonstrates the power found in utilizing both Aristotle and Plato: "...taking men as they are and laws as they may be...," an extraordinary mix of empirical examination and aspirational reason! Unfortunately Herman chooses not to engage Rousseau's actual thesis, but instead settles for his usual salvos of character assassination, shoddy analysis, and outright misrepresentation (as when he falsely claims that Rousseau's ideal state will abolish private property), all as part of his broader assault on Plato.
Herman's use of Rousseau to attack Plato (and vice-versa) demonstrates the core of his book's shortcomings:he condemns thinkers he doesn't like by attacking them for not being modern, even as he beatifies those of whom he approves by drowning them in a sea of anachronistic modern thought . Instead of trying to understand Plato and Aristotle in their own ancient context he seeks to drag them into our peculiar modern left-right political dichotomy, the former always in his scheme on the wrong side even as the latter is in every sense on the right. Consider for example his argument that sets Plato up as the grandfather of the modern welfare state:
Hegel is the true godfather of the nanny state, or welfare state - with Plato standing beside him at the baptismal font. Unemployment insurance, health and safety regulation, minimum wage laws and aide to dependent children, the income tax and federal deposit insurance: all these become justified as the State acting to protect us from ourselves, because the State is our Better and Higher Self.
Of course, one might look to the actual origins of the welfare state in Bismarck's realpolitik efforts to counter his social democrat opponents or, as described in President Lincoln's more generous practical thesis, that "The legitimate object of government is, to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves - in their separate and individual capacities." In such a formulation, the welfare state is no Leviathan, but instead the reflection of the members of a community acting collectively in purist of what they see as their individual self interest.
Herman, however, colorblind in his worldview, only perceives the world through the lens of a black and white conflict. In this duelist construction every thinker must be understood in the context of our current argument, their particular context merely incidental. Yet dismissing ancient thinkers for their failure to share our world view or understanding them exclusively as progenitors of our ephemeral disputes leaves the modern reader intellectually bereft, albeit feeling smugly superior. It tautologically condemns ancient thinkers for the sin of being ancient. One does not further his or her understanding by projecting our modern and post-modern ideas backwards onto thinkers for whom they would be somewhere between inconceivable and absurd. Instead of bending philosophers' works to suit our particular tastes by dragging them into our now, we do better extending our imagination in an effort to appreciate them in their own context. Yes, this demands a challenging feat of imagination. At the same time, It forces us to wrestle with the thinkers of the past instead of burying them.
***Review published in Open Letters Monthly (openlettersmonthly.com)
The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization, by Arthur Herman PDF
The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization, by Arthur Herman EPub
The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization, by Arthur Herman Doc
The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization, by Arthur Herman iBooks
The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization, by Arthur Herman rtf
The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization, by Arthur Herman Mobipocket
The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization, by Arthur Herman Kindle
