[1263b]
[1]
Selfishness on the
other hand is justly blamed; but this is not to love oneself but to love oneself
more than one ought, just as covetousness means loving money to
excess—since some love of self, money and so on is practically
universal. Moreover, to bestow favors and assistance on friends or visitors or
comrades is a great pleasure, and a condition of this is the private ownership
of property. These advantages
therefore do not come to those who carry the unification of the state too far;
and in addition to this they manifestly do away with the practice of two
virtues, temperance in relation to women (for it is a noble deed to
refrain from one through temperance when she belongs to another) and
liberality in relation to possessions (for one will not be able to
display liberality nor perform a single liberal action, since the active
exercise of liberality takes place in the use of
possessions).Such legislation therefore has an attractive appearance,
and might be thought to be humane; for he who is told about it welcomes it with
gladness, thinking that it will result in a marvellous friendliness of everybody
towards everybody, especially when somebody denounces the evils at present
existing in states as due to the fact that
[20]
wealth is not owned in common— I mean lawsuits
between citizens about breach of contract, and trials for perjury, and the
flattery of the rich. But the real
cause of all these evils is not the absence of communism, but wickedness, since
we see far more quarrels occurring among those who own or use property in common
than among those who have their estates separate; but we notice that those who
quarrel as a result of their partnerships are few when compared with the total
number of private owners. And again it is just to state not only all the evils
that men will lose by adopting communism, but also all the good things; and life
in such circumstances is seen to be utterly impossible. The cause of
Socrates' error must be deemed to be that his
fundamental assumption was incorrect. It is certain that in a way both the
household and the state should be a unit, but they should not be so in every
way. For in one way the state as its unification proceeds will cease to be a
state, and in another way, though it continues a state, yet by coming near to
ceasing to be one it will be a worse state, just as if one turned a harmony into
unison or a rhythm into a single foot. The proper thing is for the state, while being a
multitude, to be made a partnership and a unity by means of education, as has
been said before and it is strange that the very philosopher who intends to
introduce a system of education and thinks that this will make the city morally
good should fancy that he can regulate society by such measures as have been
mentioned instead of by manners and culture and laws, just as the legislator
introduced community of property in Sparta and Crete by
the institution of public messes.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.