Again, a state is not made up only of so many men, but of different kinds of men for similars do not constitute a state. So that we ought not to attain this greatest unity even if we could, for it would be the destruction of the state. I am speaking of the premise from which the argument of Socrates proceeds, ‘that the greater the unity of the state the better.’ Is it not obvious that a state may at length attain such a degree of unity as to be no longer a state? since the nature of a state is to be a plurality, and in tending to greater unity, from being a state, it becomes a family, and from being a family, an individual for the family may be said to be more than the state, and the individual than the family. Further, as a means to the end which he ascribes to the state, the scheme, taken literally is impracticable, and how we are to interpret it is nowhere precisely stated. And the principle on which Socrates rests the necessity of such an institution evidently is not established by his arguments. There are many difficulties in the community of women.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |