Parte de:<\/span><\/p>\n \u00bfQu\u00e9 es la Filosof\u00eda Pol\u00edtica? \/ II. La soluci\u00f3n Cl\u00e1sica<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Por Le\u014dnardus Str\u016bthi\u014d<\/span><\/p>\n\n We have suggested that the Athenian stranger had gone Crete in order to civilize an uncivilized society, and that he had do<\/span>ne <\/span>this out of philanthropy. But does not philanthropy begin at <\/span>home? <\/span>Did he not have <\/span>more <\/span>pressing duties to perform at home? <\/span>What <\/span>kind of man is the Athenian stranger? The <\/span>Laws<\/i><\/span> begins with <\/span>the word \u201cGod\u201d: it is <\/span>the only Platonic dialogue which begins in <\/span>that <\/span>manner. There is one and only one Platonic dialogue which en<\/span>ds <\/span>with the word \u201cGod\u201d: the <\/span>Apology of Socrates<\/i><\/span>. In the <\/span>Apology <\/i><\/span>of <\/i><\/span>Socrates<\/i><\/span> an old Athenian philosopher, Socrates, defends <\/span>himself <\/span>against the charge of impiety, of not believing that the gods <\/span>worshipped by the <\/span>city of Athens exist. It seems that there is a confli<\/span>ct <\/span>between philosophy and <\/span>accepting <\/span>the gods of the city. In the<\/span> <\/i>Laws<\/i><\/span> an <\/span>old Athenian philosopher recommends a law about impie<\/span>ty <\/span>which renders impossible the conflict between philosophy and <\/span>the <\/span>city, or which brings about harmony between philosophy <\/span>and <\/span>the city. The gods whose existence is to be admitted by eve<\/span>ry <\/span>citizen of the city of the <\/span>Laws<\/i><\/span> are beings whose existence can <\/span>demonstrated<\/span>. That old Athenian philosopher of the <\/span>Apology of <\/i><\/span>Socrates<\/i><\/span> was condemned to death by the city of Athens. He was given an opportunity to escape from prison: he refused to avail himself of this opportunity. His refusal was not based on an appeal to a categorical imperative demanding passive obedience, without \u2018if\u2019<\/span>s<\/span> and \u2018but\u2019<\/span>s<\/span>. His refusal was based on a deliberation, on a prudential consideration of what was the right thing to do in the circumstances. One of the circumstances was Socrates\u2019 old age: we are forced to wonder how Socrates would have decided if he had been 30 or 4o years old instead of 70. Another circumstance was the unavailability of a proper place of exile: where should he flee? He seems to have a choice between law-abiding cities nearby, where his life would be unbearable, since he would be known as a fugitive from justice, and a lawless country far away, where the prevailing lack of order would make his life miserable. The disjunction is obviously incomplete: there were law-abiding cities far away, for instance on Crete, which is mentioned as a <\/span>l<\/span>aw-abiding place in the very deliberation in question. We are entitled to infer that if Socrates had fled, he would have gone to Crete. The <\/span>Laws<\/i><\/span> tells us what he would have done in Crete after his arrival: he would have brought the blessings of Athens, Athenian laws, Athenian institutions, banquets, and philosophy to Crete. <\/span>(<\/span>When Aristotle speaks about Plato\u2019<\/span>s <\/span>Laws<\/i><\/span>, he takes it for granted that the chief character of the <\/span>Laws<\/i><\/span> is Socrates.<\/span>) <\/span>Escaping to Crete, living in Crete, was the alternative to dying in Athens. But Socrates chose to die in Athens. Socrates preferred to sacrifice his life in order to preserve philosophy in Athens rather than to preserve his life in order to introduce philosophy into Crete. If the danger to the future of philosophy in Athens had been less great, he might have chosen to flee to Crete. His choice was a political choice of the highest order, It did not consist in the simple subsumption of his case under a simple, universal, and unalterable rule.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Next paragraph<\/a><\/p>\n Previous paragraph<\/a><\/p>\n Hemos <\/span>indicado que <\/span>el extranjero ateniense hab\u00eda ido a Creta con el fin de civilizar una sociedad inc<\/span>ivilizada<\/span>, y que lo hab\u00eda hecho por filantrop\u00eda. Pero \u00bfno <\/span>comienza la filantrop\u00eda en <\/span>nuestra <\/span>casa<\/span>? \u00bfNo ten\u00eda el ateniense obligaciones m\u00e1s urgentes que atender en <\/span>su tierra<\/span>? \u00bfQu\u00e9 clase de hombre es \u00e9ste <\/span>extranjero ateniense<\/span>? <\/span>Las leyes<\/i><\/span> comienzan con la palabra <\/span>\u00ab<\/span>Dios<\/span>\u00bb:<\/span> es \u00e9ste el \u00fanico di\u00e1logo plat\u00f3nico que inicia <\/span>de esta manera<\/span>. <\/span>Tan solo hay un \u00fanico di\u00e1logo plat\u00f3nico que <\/span>termina con la palabra <\/span>\u00ab<\/span>Dios<\/span>\u00bb<\/span>\u2014<\/span>: la <\/span>Apolog\u00eda de S\u00f3crates<\/i><\/span>. En la <\/span>Apolog\u00eda <\/i><\/span>de S\u00f3crates<\/i><\/span>, el viejo fil\u00f3sofo ateniense, S\u00f3crates, se defiende contra la acusaci\u00f3n de impiedad, de no creer que existen los dioses que la ciudad de Atenas adora. Parece como si existiere una incompatibilidad entre la filosof\u00eda y la aceptaci\u00f3n de los dioses de la ciudad. En <\/span>Las leyes<\/i><\/span>, un viejo fil\u00f3sofo ateniense recomienda una ley sobre <\/span>la <\/span>impiedad que hace imposible el conflicto entre la filosof\u00eda y la ciudad;<\/span> da lugar a la<\/span> armon\u00eda entre la filosof\u00eda y la ciudad. Los dioses cuya existencia tiene que ser admitida por todos los <\/span>ciudadanos<\/span> de la <\/span>Polis<\/i><\/span> de <\/span>Las leyes<\/i><\/span> son seres cuya existencia puede ser probada. Aquel viejo fil\u00f3sofo ateniense de la <\/span>Apolog\u00eda de S\u00f3crates<\/i><\/span> fue condenado a muerte por <\/span>la<\/span> ciudad de Atenas. <\/span>Se le dio la oportunidad de escapar de <\/span>su aprehensi\u00f3n, pero <\/span>se neg\u00f3 a aprovecharla. Su negativa no se <\/span>basaba en una apelaci\u00f3n a un imperativo categ\u00f3rico que demandase obediencia pasiva, sin <\/span>\u00ab<\/span>peros<\/span>\u00bb <\/span>ni condiciones. Su negativa estuvo basada en una deliberaci\u00f3n, en una consideraci\u00f3n prudencial de lo que ser\u00eda lo correcto en esas circunstancias. Una de las circunstancias era la avanzada edad de S\u00f3crates: estamos obligados a preguntarnos por el proceder de S\u00f3crates si hubiese tenido 30 o cuarenta a\u00f1os en lugar de 70.<\/span> Otra circunstancia era la <\/span>ausencia de disponibilidad de un lugar<\/span> apropiado para el exilio: \u00bfA d\u00f3nde <\/span>podr\u00eda<\/span> huir? Parece que hubiera tenido que elegir entre las ciudades <\/span>respetuosas de la ley<\/span> cercanas, donde su vida ser\u00eda <\/span>insufrible al ser conocido como un fugitivo de la justicia, o un lejano pa\u00eds sin ley en que el desorden predominante hiciera su vida desgraciada. <\/span>La disyunci\u00f3n es, obviamente, incompleta: exist\u00edan ciudades lejanas respetuosas de la perdurabilidad ley, pongamos por caso Creta, que precisamente es mencionada entre las respetuosas de la ley en la propia deliberaci\u00f3n <\/span>en cuesti\u00f3n<\/span>. <\/span>Estamos, pues, autorizados a inferir que si S\u00f3crates hubiese huido <\/span>habr\u00eda ido a <\/span>Cr<\/span>eta. <\/span>Las leyes<\/i><\/span> nos dicen lo que hubiese hecho en Creta despu\u00e9s de su llegada: habr\u00eda introducido en Creta <\/span>los dones de <\/span>Atenas, sus leyes, sus instituciones, sus banquetes y su filosof\u00eda (cuando Ar<\/span>ist<\/span>\u00f3teles <\/span>refiere a<\/span> Las leyes<\/i><\/span> de Plat\u00f3n da por supuesto que el personaje principal de <\/span>Las leyes<\/i><\/span> es el propio S\u00f3crates). Escapar a Creta y vivir all\u00ed era la alternativa a morir en Atenas. <\/span>Sin embargo, <\/span>S\u00f3crates <\/span>eligi\u00f3 morir en Atenas. S\u00f3crates prefiri\u00f3 <\/span>sacrificar su vida para salvar la filosof\u00eda en Atenas antes que salvar su vida para introducir la filosof\u00eda en Creta. <\/span>Si el peligro para el futuro de la filosof\u00eda en Atenas hubiera sido me<\/span>nos grave<\/span>, podr\u00eda haber optado por huir a Creta<\/span>. Su elecci\u00f3n era una decisi\u00f3n pol\u00edtica del m\u00e1s alto nivel; no se trataba simplemente de <\/span>resolver su elecci\u00f3n bajo el marco <\/span>una regla simple, universal e inalterable.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Siguiente p\u00e1rrafo<\/a><\/p>\n P\u00e1rrafo anterior<\/a><\/p>\n Ir al inicio de esta entrada<\/a><\/p>\nLe<\/span>\u014d<\/span>nard<\/span>\u012b<\/span> Str\u016bt<\/span>h<\/span>i<\/span>\u012b<\/span> verba<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n
Hisp<\/span>\u0101<\/span>nice<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n