The second cause is the defectiveness of most of those of most those giving themselves to wisdom, if they lack [even] one of those qualities that we said were conditions of the wise one who is truly wise. It is rare that there is one in whom those qualities exist to perfection; and even when he is to be found it is with difficulty that this knowledge--i.e., philosophy--is perfected in him. Those virtuous qualities are, off all things, what most hinder many of those growing up in these cities from [from pursuing] philosophy. The case here is like the case of many of the sick whose disease is aggravated by excellent food. Similarly, if the proper place and nutrition are not found for them, the seeds of the best plants will turn into the very worst of the bad kinds. Such is the case with these virtuous natures when they grow up in these [defective--ES] cities and are badly educated. Hence the causes of the great evils in these cities are none other than these individuals...From this class of humans originate the sophists who rule over cities, blaming the beautiful things such as wisdom and rest, and praising the base things and in general all the evils laid down in cities. Their thought and their rulership over the cities: this indeed is the greatest of the causes for the loss of wisdom and the extinguishing its light.--Ibn Rushd, On Plato's Republic, second treatise, 63.27-64.13, translated by R. Lerner.
For much of the the quoted passage, Ibn Rushd follows Republic 491 quite closely. So it is no surprise that Ibn Rushd is (not unlike Al-Farabi) unabashedly a hierarchical epistemocrat in his political philosophy. It is also no surprise that like Plato sophists are the bad guys. I don't recall a passage in Plato (but maybe a reader can help) in which the sophists are associated with, even identified as, the effects of bad education/cultivation/institutions on the best souls. But it's a nice touch that may well be in the spirit of Plato. (My one hesitation would be that it is more natural to read Socrates as having Alcibiades in mind as the kind of character described at 491.)
I think Ibn Rushd innovates, however, by treating badly trained experts as the source of ushering in a (new) dark ages. These experts value, say, utility and gain. (It's hard not to think of our central bank experts and other bank regulators.) Part of the problem with modern expertise is, shall we say, aesthetic--the modern experts lacks a sense of nobility of finer things in life (even though undoubtedly many will appreciate luxury commodities). And this lack informs their disastrous decisions according to Ibn Rushd. Of course, and this is recognizably Platonic, Ibn Rushd also thinks they lack the skill needed for the job -- the proper art of ruling.
In context, Ibn Rushd's clearly also has the so-called "Mutakallimun" in mind (see 66.23ff) when he is describing the 'sophists.' These are the scholastic, Islamic theologians that he thinks of as improperly trained in philosophy and the practical arts. That is to say, Ibn Rushd is also (maybe even primarily) attacking badly functioning theocracy (one that also misunderstands revelation). Some other time, I return to Ibn Rushd's more general attitude toward the political role of religion.
But here I close with a more general observation. It is often the case that the better sort of distrust of politically involved experts comes from a spirit of democracy and moral equality. But as Ibn Rush reminds us, there is also a more elitist distrust of politically involved 'experts:' experts can be skilled, of course, but they are not trained to be wise.
Comments