Platon - ojciec totalitaryzmu?

In the article, the problem of extremely different interpretations of "Republic” by Plato, has been presented. The author attempts to answer a question: What influences the fact that some people are negatively affected by a piece of art while others positively. This situation is caused by an ambiguity of Plato's language in his works.  Scholars are under great impact of their differing worldviews and also their attitude towards empirical and nonempirical reality while estimating or perceiving a given utopia. The evaluation of human consciousness, mentality, changes of political systems and civilisational changes, scientific and technical progress have also influenced the attitude towards what could be and is not, and towards what is possible or impossible.  The author states that difficulties that hinder unambiguous estimation of Plato lie in the following reasons: all Plato's works, including the most important: Republic” and "Laws”, depicting a vision of ideal political system are closely connected with mythology, and in that situation it becomes highly difficult to separate the truth from a myth. Secondly, Plato frequently uses allegory or metaphors in his dialogues, as well as irony or jokes while describing serious issues. All those factors blur the clarity of understanding his ideas.  The author formulates a statement, that a critic Karl R. Popper, too hastily named Plato the father of totalitarianism, as he was influenced by strong emotions created by historical events of the years 1917-1945. The fact that the author is irritated and appalled by the deeds of the XX century war criminals is fully understandable and reasonable, but the same attitude towards this ancient scholar and his political ideas seems to be inappropriate and erroneus.

REFERENCES:

• Arendt H., Korzenie totalitaryzmu, t. 1, Warszawa 1993.
• Backer R., XX-wieczny wariant platońskiego państwa. Gnoza polityczna jako determinanta działań totalitarnych struktur, [w:] Polityczna obecność filozofii, M. Szulakiewicz (red.), Toruń 2002.
• Berlin I., Cztery eseje o wolności, Warszawa 1994.
• Dahl R. A., Demokracja i jej krytycy, Kraków 1995.
• Epstein M., Thew Phoenix of Philosophy: On the Meaning and Significance of Contemporary Russian Thought, [w:] SYMPOSION. A Journal of Russian Thought, Los Angeles, Charles Schlacks, Jr., Publisher, University Of Southern California, vol. 1, 1996.
• Fustel de Coulanges N. D., La Cite Antique, t. 3, Paris 1878.
• Jaeger W., Paideia, tłum. M. Plezia, t. II, Warszawa 1962.
• Miklaszewska J., Antyutopia w literaturze Młodej Polski, Wrocław 1988
• Palacz R., Klasycy filozofii, Zielona Góra 1995.
• Parniewski W., Szkice z dziejów myśli utopijnej (od Platona do Zinowjewa), Łódź 2000.
• Pieszczachowicz J., Wyspa utopia i jej przeciwnicy, „Literatura” 1990, nr 2.
• Platon, Państwo, Warszawa 1994.
• Platon, Prawa, tłum. i oprac. Maria Maykowska, Warszawa 1960.
• Popper K. R., Społeczeństwo otwarte i jego wrogowie, t. I, Warszawa 1993.
• Rousseau J. J., Emil czyli o wychowaniu, Wrocław 1955.
• Sieroń I., Status jednostki i państwa w greckiej polis w świetle filozofii Sokratesa, Platona i Arystotelesa, Katowice 2003.
• Smuszkiewicz A., W kręgu współczesnej utopii, „Fantastyka” 1985, nr 33.
• Świętochowski A., Utopie w rozwoju historycznym, Warszawa 1910.
• Tocqueville de A., O demokracji w Ameryce, t. 2, Kraków 1996.
• Walczyk M., Idee polityczne Platona a totalitaryzm, czyli o nadużywaniu pewnego pojęcia, „Civitas” 1998, nr 2.