Platonic analysis offers a critical perspective for understanding the dynamics of contemporary politics, highlighting the risk of opinion and linguistic manipulation overshadowing the foundations of knowledge and critical reasoning. The gap between aletheia and current political discourse raises questions about whether it is possible to reestablish a relationship between philosophical thought and political action.

The issue of cognitive relativism on one hand and stable knowledge on the other is a central thread in Plato's dialogue The Sophist.

To explore the importance of this theme in Platonic thought, it is necessary to define what knowledge is for Plato. The epistemological inquiry is fundamental to defending against sophistic relativism. The idea that "man is the measure of all things" can lead to the dominance of opinion, to oppression, and not to stable knowledge.

Only the philosopher loves beauty in itself, not mere appearance.

Considering that the philosopher’s object is real and knowable, only they possess true knowledge. Science and opinion differ because the ontological value of their objects differs.

Science refers to true being, opinion to the opinionable, ignorance to non-being.

Plato treats opinion as a form of knowledge suited only to things that lie between being and non-being. Opinion cannot connect the soul with ideas, nor can comparing opinions distinguish truth from falsehood (Theaetetus 187b).

In Cratylus, Plato addresses the problem of language and knowledge: the best way to know things is not through their names, which are mere images, but through direct contact with the things themselves (438a).

A central theme in Theaetetus, following Cratylus, is to determine what constitutes knowing. In this dialogue, Plato refutes Protagoras's relativism—that man is the measure of all things—and Theaetetus's definition of knowledge as sensation, while presenting Parmenides's doctrine that all is stillness. The new definition of knowing posits that it is not the senses that perceive, but the psyche, which perceives through the senses. Furthermore, some things the soul knows directly without the intervention of the senses.

There exists knowing as opinion, but also a stable knowing, episteme, though it remains aporetically undefined.

Opinion (doxa) generally refers to any assertion, declaration, knowledge, or belief, whether or not it includes a guarantee of its validity. Plato sees opinion as something intermediate between knowledge and ignorance (Republic 478c), encompassing sensory knowledge. From this perspective, even true opinion does not remain fixed in the psyche until bound by causal reasoning, thus becoming science.

Doxa is the form of knowledge suited to the world of change, ambiguity, and contingency. On this point, three thinkers—Plato, Aristotle, and Gorgias—agree, despite often being at odds elsewhere. This suggests that doxa's connection to the ambiguous world is no coincidence.

For Gorgias and rhetorical thought, doxa is based on fragility and instability; those who follow it achieve only precarious positions. Knowledge, for Gorgias, is the impossibility of true knowledge. Far from belonging to the realm of episteme, doxa operates within the domain of kairos—the realm of possibility and ambiguity. The instability of doxa is fundamental, and no one highlighted its ambiguity more than Plato.

The first sophists emerged as specialists in political action, even before their successors. These men were devoted to human affairs—an inherently unstable realm where evaluating opportunities (kairos) is essential, as Aristotle notes (Nicomachean Ethics, II, 2, 1104a8-9).

The politician and the sophist thus occupy a realm far removed from that claimed by Parmenides and the philosopher: the realm of opportunity (kairos) and opinion (doxa), not knowledge (episteme).

The sophist, along with the rhetorician, is a technician of logos. Both encourage reflection on logos, using it as a tool to act upon others. The sophist constructs a building of words, highlighting the tension between two possible arguments on any subject and the contradiction of two theses on every problem.

The sophist, as a theorist of ambiguity, uses this tool to captivate adversaries through the logic of ambiguity—the triumph of the lesser over the greater. The goal of sophistry, like rhetoric, is persuasion and deception. For this reason, Plato aims to capture the sophist on the plane of pseudos (falsehood) and to unmask the master of illusion and fanatic of deceit even as they promote fiction as reality.

For the sophist, words and discourse are not tools for discovering truth; there is no difference between words and things. For Gorgias, pushing this conception to its limits, discourse reveals nothing, communicates nothing, and creates no form of connection with others. The power of logos is boundless: it brings pleasure, dispels troubles, fascinates, persuades, and transforms by enchantment. Thus, in this view, logos never aspires to reveal aletheia (truth) but is merely a game.

Sophistry, rhetoric, and eristics are foreign to the realm of episteme; words are always toys, playful tools with no claim to truth, persuasion, or competition. It seems, therefore, that philosophy is left with the problem of being and the domain of aletheia, the distance between words and things, between the "true" and the "deceptive."

The post-truth era

Platonic reflection on knowledge, opinion, and language raises issues deeply relevant to contemporary politics. Plato warns of the dangers of sophistic relativism and doxa, the unstable and contingent knowledge dominating opinions and decisions based on kairos (opportunity). These elements, far from being confined to the ancient world, characterize much of today's political discourse.

The Cognitive Relativism and the Era of Post-Truth

The Platonic issue of relativism manifests today in the era of post-truth, where the boundaries between truth and fiction grow increasingly blurred. The "politics of consensus," often built on emotional narratives and persuasive strategies, mirrors the sophistic logos described by Plato as a tool of fascination and deception. Contemporary politicians, like the sophists, seem to operate within the realm of doxa, crafting discourses aimed not at revealing truth but at eliciting adherence and consensus through the strategic use of language.

Plato’s critique of the sophist as a master of illusion finds a parallel in political and media figures who manipulate information. The proliferation of fake news and the polarization of debates underscore how doxa, rather than episteme, dominates public arenas.

Opinion and Science in Contemporary Democracy

Plato distinguishes opinion (doxa) from science (episteme), attributing to the latter the ability to connect with true being. This distinction raises critical questions about the relationship between competence and representation in modern politics. In democratic systems, the ideal of equality sometimes risks conflating the validity of anyone's opinion with that of specialized knowledge. The "crisis of elites" and the rejection of technical expertise reflect, in part, a reversal of Plato's principle that governance should belong to philosophers—those who possess stable and truthful knowledge.

The debate on climate change serves as a paradigmatic example: despite the vast body of scientific evidence (episteme), public opinion remains fragmented and influenced by counter-narratives often rooted in contingent interests and rhetorical strategies.

Politics as Opportunity: Kairos and the Time for Action

Politics, described by Aristotle as the art of kairos, or opportunity, remains a domain inherently tied to contingency. However, Plato emphasizes that excessive reliance on doxa and rhetoric leads to governance that is unstable, lacking solid ethical or rational foundations. This is reflected in contemporary politics, where decisions are often made in response to immediate crises rather than long-term visions. The speed of decisions dictated by media and public opinion accentuates this inclination toward kairos, making it challenging to pursue actions oriented toward the common good.

Language and Manipulation

Plato's vision of language as a tool connecting thought and reality contrasts sharply with the instrumental use of logos in contemporary political discourse. Today's political language, often reduced to slogans, simplified narratives, and soundbites, echoes the rhetorical "game" Plato criticizes in the sophists. If for Gorgias logos is mere possibility and a tool for persuasion, we witness today a similar reduction of political discourse to a technique of emotional manipulation, distancing it from the pursuit of aletheia (truth).

11-Dec-2024 by Beatrice