The patriarchy of reason as we know it
The act of philosophizing is one that every individual will inevitably engage in at some point in their life. This ability to enact reason in political, personal, religious, and even existential thought is a skill in which most philosophical streams aim to unravel and debrief through the use of the abstract and theoretical. However, what can be said about the figures behind which such foundations of philosophy are constructed? The framework for philosophy and reason as we know it was debated by Socrates and his fabricated patriarchal lineage of students, Plato, and Aristotle during the period of 400-300 BCE. As Athens experimented and birthed new democratic structures, the city flourished with debate, scholarship, and radical ideas. But the question remained: Who would nurture and legitimize this emerging intellectual order? In the collective imagination, Athens needed a symbolic, central Father figure.
Plato’s Republic is perhaps the most conducive example of an ideal state’s establishment, with its relevance remaining extremely pertinent in modern literature and political theory. The narrative of the book follows Socrates, Plato’s teacher and mentor, as he addresses every facet of social and political life. What’s interesting about the dictation of the book is the method through which Socrates guides his interlocutors into agreeing with him on every point made. By employing the Socratic method (that is, questioning and countering opponents with questions), it is reminiscent of a wise and “all-knowing” Father who is guiding a child to the “correct” way of thinking, or the right answer—shedding away their ignorance by enabling subtle guidance.
This Fatherly nurturing of thought and guardianship quickly becomes an overarching theme of the Republic, as the ideal standards of social hierarchies are created. Plato positions fellow philosophers, including himself, as the “Guardians” of the theoretical city, responsible for overseeing its functioning and ensuring its proper order. They are the ones who determine the level of education of citizens, their roles, and the operation of the city. These “king philosophers” are born naturally superior and are bred for this lineage of rule. Remarkably, this rule over the ideal city is not endeavoured or suggested from a place of pining for power, but rather from a place of protectiveness over the city and its citizens. Socrates demonstrates this Fatherly ideal clearly when he compares how a ship’s captain is only a good captain when he cares for his crew and the overall shape of his ship. Using this metaphor to refer to the citizens and the city, Socrates asserts that the head of the family must be level-headed, wise, and act in the best interest of his children and home.
Through his students, Socrates’s legacy and life’s work were documented and praised. As if avenging and honouring a lost patriarch, Plato and later Aristotle devoted their lives’ work to studying philosophy within the context of what Socrates had already laid out. Athenian politics, in their many complexities, also served as an opportunity for other philosophers to record and write down what Socrates himself taught but never documented, addressing various orders and topics such as politics, family, roles, and gender. Not only were philosophers cast as the abstract leaders of the city, but they were also expected to carry this responsibility into the literal world, establishing themselves at the head of the dinner table as a Father would. The lineage of philosophy and reason has been dominated by these same patriarchal ideals. Most mainstream philosophies that have arisen since the Ancient Greek tradition still examine these ideals of familial structures. More recent philosophers, such as Nietzsche, examine these ‘Fathering’ relationships as psychological and generational. Across periods and thinkers, the figure of the ‘Father’ persists in philosophical discourse, transcending time and remaining a dominant motif in scholarship.
As I considered this month’s Strand theme, I felt compelled to write about some of the most infamous ‘Daddies’ known to scholarship worldwide. While they serve(d) as classical geniuses for medieval, Renaissance, and contemporary thinkers, this patrilineal distinction of philosophy is a timeless theme in academia. Considering they reappear constantly in media and literature, it is important to understand why. How can we interpret the work of these scholars now, as twenty-first century thinkers who value diversity and fairness? How can we examine and garner insight from their words while maintaining our own city’s foundational morals? That, my dear reader, is up to you. As Socrates once said, “I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.”