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 To speak first of the classics\u2019 attitude towards democracy, the premises: \u201cthe classics are good,\u201d and \u201cdemocracy is good\u201d do not validate the conclusion \u201chence the classics were good democrats.\u201d It would be silly to deny that the classics rejected democracy as an inferior kind of regime. They were not blind to its advantages.<\/span> The severest indictment of democracy that ever was written occurs in the eighth book of Plato\u2019<\/span>s<\/span> Republic<\/i><\/span>. But even there, and precisely there, Plato makes it clear<\/span>\u2014<\/span><\/strong>by coordinating his arrangement of regimes with Hesiod\u2019<\/span>s<\/span> arrangement of the ages of the world<\/span>\u2014<\/span><\/strong>that democracy is, in a very important respect, equal to the best regime, which corresponds to Hesiod\u2019<\/span>s<\/span> golden age: since the principle of democracy is freedom, all human types can develop freely in a democracy, and hence in particular the best human type.<\/span> It is true that Socrates was killed by a democracy; but he was killed when he was 70; he was permitted to live for 70 long years. Yet Plato did not regard this consideration as decisive. For he was concerned not only with the possibility of philosophy, but likewise with a stable political order that would be congenial to moderate political courses; and such an order, he thought, depends on the predominance of old families. More generally, the classics rejected democracy because they thought that the aim of human life, and hence of social life, is not freedom but virtue. Freedom as a goal is ambiguous, because it is freedom for evil as well as for good.<\/span> Virtue emerges normally only through education, that is to say, through <\/span>the formation of character, through habituation, and this requires <\/span>leisure on the part of both parents and children. But leisure in its turn requires some degree of wealth<\/span>\u2014<\/span><\/strong>more specifically a kind of wealth whose acquisition or administration is compatible with leisure.<\/span> Now, as regards wealth, it so happens, <\/span>as Aristotle observes, that<\/span> there is always a minority of well-to-do <\/span>people and a majority of the p<\/span>oor, and this strange coincidence <\/span>will last forever because <\/span>there is a kind of natural scarcity. \u201cFor <\/span>the poor shall never cease out of the land.\u201d I<\/span>t is for this reason <\/span>that democracy, or rule of <\/span>the majority, is government by the uneducated. And no one in his senses would wish to live under such a government.<\/span> This classical argument would not be stringent if men did not need education in order to acquire a firm adhesion to virtue. It is no accident that it was Jean-Jacques Rousseau who taught that all knowledge which men <\/span>nee<\/span>d in order to live virtuously is supplied by the conscience, the preserve of the simple souls rather than of other men: man is sufficiently equipped by nature for the good life; man is by nature good. But the same Rousseau was compelled to develop a scheme of education which very few people could financially afford.<\/span> On the whole the view has prevailed that democracy must become rule by the educated, and this goal will be achieved by universal <\/span>educa<\/span>tion. But universal education presupposes that the economy of scarcity has given way to an economy of plenty. And the economy of plenty presupposes the emancipation of technology from moral and political control.<\/span> The essential difference between our view and the classical view consists then, not in a difference regarding moral principle, not in a different understanding of justice: we, too, even our communist <\/span>coe<\/span>xistents, think that it is just to give equal things to equal people and unequal things to people of unequal merit. <\/span>The<\/span> difference between the classics and us with regard to democracy consists exclusively in a different estimate of the virtu<\/span>e<\/span>s of technology. But we are not entitled to say that the classical view has been refuted. Their implici<\/span>t<\/span> prophecy that the emancipation of technology, of the arts, from moral and political control would lead to disaster or to the dehumanization <\/span>of man has not <\/span>yet been refuted.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Next paragraph<\/a><\/p>\n Previous paragraph<\/a><\/p>\n Para referirnos en primer lugar a la <\/span>actitud de los cl\u00e1sicos respecto de la democracia, <\/span>las<\/span> premisas: <\/span>\u00ab<\/span>los cl\u00e1sicos son buenos<\/span>\u00bb<\/span> y <\/span>\u00ab<\/span>la democracia es buena<\/span>\u00bb<\/span> no pueden llevarnos a la conclusi\u00f3n de que <\/span>\u00ab<\/span>los cl\u00e1sicos eran buenos dem\u00f3cratas<\/span>\u00bb.<\/span> Ser\u00eda una tonter\u00eda <\/span>negar<\/span> que los cl\u00e1sicos despreciaban la democracia como a una clase inferior de r\u00e9gimen. No les pas<\/span>ab<\/span>an desapercibidas sus ventajas.<\/span> La censura m\u00e1s severa que se haya escrito contra la democracia aparece en el libro octavo de La <\/i>R<\/i>ep\u00fablica<\/i> de Plat\u00f3n. Pero a\u00fan ah\u00ed, y precisamente ah\u00ed, Plat\u00f3n deja claro \u2014<\/span>coordinando su presentaci\u00f3n de los reg\u00edmenes con la presentaci\u00f3n de Hes\u00edodo de las edades del mundo1<\/a><\/sup>Vide Trabajos y d\u00edas<\/em> 106-201.<\/span><\/span>\u2014<\/span> que, en un aspecto muy importante, la democracia es<\/span> igual al mejor r\u00e9gimen, que corresponde a la <\/span>E<\/span>dad de oro <\/span>descrita por Hes\u00edodo. <\/span>Este aspecto es: <\/span>dado que el principio de la democracia es la libertad, todos los tipos humanos pueden desarrollarse libremente en una democracia, y por lo tanto, en particular, el mejor tipo humano. Es verdad que S\u00f3crates fue muerto por una democracia; pero lo mat\u00f3 cuando ten\u00eda setenta a\u00f1os; <\/span>se le permiti\u00f3 vivir por setenta largos a\u00f1os.<\/span> Plat\u00f3n, sin embargo, no pens\u00f3 que esta consideraci<\/span>\u00f3n fuera <\/span>decisiva. <\/span>Pues no solo le interesaba la posibilidad de la filosof\u00eda, sino que ten\u00eda el mismo inter\u00e9s en<\/span> un <\/span>orden pol\u00edtico estable que fuera compatible con las pol\u00edticas moderadas; y tal orden, pensaba, depende del predominio de las familias antiguas. <\/span>En t\u00e9rminos generales,<\/span> los cl\u00e1sicos rechazaban la democracia porque pensaban que <\/span>el objetivo<\/span> de la vida humana y, por tanto, de la vida social, no radica en la libertad, sino en la virtud. La libertad como <\/span>objetivo<\/span> comporta muchas ambig\u00fcedades, porque es libertad tanto para el bien como para el mal. La virtud, normalmente, surge s<\/span>o<\/span>lo a trav\u00e9s de la educaci\u00f3n, es decir, a trav\u00e9s de la formaci\u00f3n del car\u00e1cter, <\/span>a trav\u00e9s de <\/span>la creaci\u00f3n de h\u00e1bitos, lo cual requiere posibilidad de tiempo de ocio, tanto por parte de los padres como de los hijos. Pero el ocio, por su parte, exige un determinado nivel de riqueza; m\u00e1s concretamente, exige una clase de riqueza cuya adquisici\u00f3n y administraci\u00f3n sea compatible con <\/span>el disfrute<\/span> del tiempo libre. <\/span>Ahora bien, en lo que respecta a la <\/span>riqueza, sucede, como ya observa Arist\u00f3teles, que siempre los bien situados son unos pocos y los pobres son la mayor\u00eda. Esta extra\u00f1a coincidencia, por otra parte, perdurar\u00e1 para siempre porque existe una especie de escasez natural. <\/span>\u00ab<\/span>Pues no faltar\u00e1n pobres en esta tierra<\/span>\u00bb.2<\/a><\/sup>Deuteronomio<\/em> 15, 11<\/a>. En\u00a0Mateo<\/em> 26, 11<\/a> Cristo se expresa en t\u00e9rminos similares.<\/span> P<\/span>or esta raz\u00f3n, la democracia, <\/span>como<\/span> gobierno de la mayor\u00eda, es el gobierno de <\/span>los incultos, <\/span>y nadie <\/span>en su sano juicio desear\u00eda vivir <\/span>bajo un gobierno <\/span>de tal \u00edndole<\/span>. Este argumento cl\u00e1sico no ser\u00eda riguroso si los hombres no necesitaran educaci\u00f3n para adherirse firmemente a la virtud. No <\/span>es casualidad<\/span> que fuese J.-J. Rousseau el que ense\u00f1ara que todos los conocimientos que el hombre necesita para vivir virtuosamente le vienen dados por su conciencia, que es patrimonio de las almas sencillas y no de los dem\u00e1s hombres: el hombre est\u00e1 suficientemente dotado por la naturaleza para <\/span>la vida buena<\/span>; el hombre es bueno <\/span>por naturaleza<\/span>.<\/span>3<\/a><\/sup>Esta \u00faltima afirmaci\u00f3n es por la que, a manera de eslogan, sera recordado Rousseau, cfr.\u00a0Discurso sobre el origen y los fundamentos de la desigualdad entre los hombres<\/em>, parte 2 (1755). Con todo, ser\u00e1 el principio rector con posteriores aplicacioes en muchas de sus grandes obras.<\/span><\/span> El mismo Rousseau, sin embargo, se vio obligado a desarrollar un programa de educaci\u00f3n que muy <\/span>poca gente <\/span>podr\u00eda <\/span>permitirse<\/span> econ\u00f3micamente.4<\/a><\/sup>Cfr. El Emilio, o De la Educaci\u00f3n<\/em>.<\/span> E<\/span>n <\/span>general<\/span>, ha prevalecido la opini\u00f3n de que la democracia tiene que convertirse en el gobierno de los instruidos; y esa meta s\u00f3lo puede lograrse a trav\u00e9s de una educaci\u00f3n universal. Pero la educaci\u00f3n universal presupone que la econom\u00eda de la escasez ha dejado paso a una econom\u00eda de la abundancia. Y la econom\u00eda de la abundancia, por su parte, presupone la liberaci\u00f3n de la tecnolog\u00eda de todo control moral o pol\u00edtico. La diferencia esencial, por tanto, entre el punto de vista cl\u00e1sico y el nuestro no consiste en una interpretaci\u00f3n diversa de los principios morales, ni en un modo distinto de comprender la justicia: nosotros tambi\u00e9n pensamos, incluidos nuestros contempor\u00e1neos comunistas,<\/span>5<\/a><\/sup>Recuerde el lector que esta conferencia fue pronunciada en 1954.<\/span><\/span> que es justo tratar igual a los que son iguales y en planos de desigualdad a los que poseen m\u00e9ritos desiguales. La diferencia entre los cl\u00e1sicos y nosotros, respecto de la democracia, se basa exclusivamente en una distinta estimaci\u00f3n de <\/span>las virtudes<\/span> de la tecnolog\u00eda. Pero no tenemos derecho a decir que la concepci\u00f3n cl\u00e1sica ha sido refutada. Todav\u00eda no est\u00e1 demostrado que sea falsa su <\/span>impl\u00edcita <\/span>profec\u00eda, seg\u00fan la cual la emancipaci\u00f3n de la tecnolog\u00eda y las artes de todo control moral y pol\u00edtico conducir\u00e1 necesariamente al desastre y a la deshumanizaci\u00f3n del hombre.<\/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