Back to Plato

(This is a review of the second, revised edition)

"Platonism and the World Crisis" is an Irish pamphlet containing articles by John M. Dillon, Brendan O'Byrne and Tim Addey. Of these, Dillon is the most well known. He is a renown scholar of Platonism and Neo-Platonism, and apparently a Platonist himself. O'Byrne and Addey are also Platonists.

I admit that I was somewhat intrigued by this. I didn't know flesh-and-blood Platonists existed today, at least not outside religious circles. But apparently they do. At least on the Green Island!

The main course in this pamphlet is Dillon's lecture, which he has apparently given in such diverse places as Novosibirsk and Addis Ababa. Dillon is difficult to pin down on a traditional left-to-right spectrum, but then, he's a Platonist. He comments on three aspects of the present world crisis: ecology and overpopulation, the conflict between Christianity and Islam, and the general breakdown of political authority. The solutions he offers are based on a creative re-interpretation of Plato's dialogue "The Laws".

Dillon wants to halt immigration to Ireland and by implication Western Europe, while creating a steady-state economy and promote zero population growth. No more handouts for those who have more than three children! A surprisingly large number - and a very lenient solution. But perhaps Catholic Ireland isn't China? The author isn't uncritical of Plato's dialogues "Republic" and "Laws", but he nevertheless believes that Plato can teach the modern world a thing or two. As a good (and old) Irishman, Dillon also has a soft spot for a certain Dev, better known as Eamonn De Valera.

Concerning Christianity and Islam, Dillon calls for a dialogue and tolerance. He is opposed to the US occupation of Iraq and Western support for Israel. Professor Dillon wants Christianity and Islam to allegorize their respective holy scriptures, especially the Christian idea that Jesus was "physically" the Son of God. Clearly, the author has some sympathy with pagan polytheism, which made it possible to worship the gods while seeing them as allegorical symbols of a unified divine realm, and to acknowledge foreign gods as equally "real", even incorporating them in the local pantheon if need be. Something tells me Dillon's proposals won't be readily accepted by the monotheists. He recommends the approach of Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola. I'm not sure what approach Ficino had, although some suspect that he was a pagan in Christian garb. Pico was very eclectic and attempted a grand synthesis of all philosophies, but I'm not sure if he ever succeeded.

The weakest part of Dillon's lecture is the third part, where he bemoans the breakdown of political authority in the Western democracies. In reality, this breakdown of trust is a *good thing*, precisely because of the world crisis. The politicians are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Dillon wants the state to become more collectivist, and calls for "National Service", apparently a kind of labour conscription for people aged 18-20. The young adults should also be taught basic philosophy and history. Those who refuse to participate will be stripped of citizenship rights. The idea is suspiciously similar to Robert Heinlein's "Federal Service" in the novel "Starship Troopers". But then, I always suspected that Heinlein got his idea from Plato, or even democratic Athens. Dillon admits that the national service didn't go down well with his student audience in Novosibirsk, who associated it with the Komsomol! They were, of course, right. Personally, I have no problem with "national service", but the question is, do we really want to serve the present system? I don't think so. The ghost of "Dev" presumably agrees with me on that one (I'm more into Connolly, by the way).

Brendan O'Byrne's article is more philosophical, and argues that the root of our present crisis is the rejection of Platonist realism. Francis Bacon and Descartes are pinpointed as the main culprits - again. O'Byrne also complains about modern science being about technology and mastery of nature, rather than the disinterested search for truth.

Tim Addey's introduction strikes me as very naïve. He hopes that the present governments of the world will eventually come to their senses and adopt Platonism, turning themselves into "philosophical democracies". Unless I'm mistaken, Plato already tried *that* approach on Dionysius and Dion.

"Platonism and the World Crisis" is a curious pamphlet in many ways, but for those who are tired of the traditional ideologies (left and right), it might nevertheless be of some interest. Back to Kant? Why not go all the way, back to Plato?