"When one is advising a sick man who is living in a way injurious to his health, must one not first of all tell him to change his way of life and give him further counsel only if he is willing to obey? If he is not, I think any manly and self-respecting physician would break off counseling such a man, whereas anyone who would put up with him is without spirit or skill. So too with respect to a city: whether it be governed by one man or many, if its constitution is properly ordered and rightly directed, it would be sensible to give advice to its citizens concerning what would be to the city’s advantage. But if it is a people who have wandered completely away from right government and resolutely refuse to come back upon its track and instruct their counselor to leave the constitution strictly alone, threatening him with death if he changes it, and order him instead to serve their interests and desires and show them how they can henceforth satisfy them in the quickest and easiest way—any man, I think, who would accept such a role as adviser is without spirit, and he who refuses is the true man. These are my principles; and whenever anyone consults me on a question of importance in his life, such as the making of money, or the care of his body or soul, if it appears to me that he follows some plan in his daily life or is willing to listen to reason on the matters he lays before me, I advise him gladly and don’t stop with merely discharging my duty. But a man who does not consult me at all, or makes it clear that he will not follow advice that is given him—to such a man I do not take it upon myself to offer counsel; nor would I use constraint upon him, not even if he were my own son. Upon a slave I might force my advice, compelling him to follow it against his will; but to use compulsion upon a father or mother is to me an impious act, unless their judgment has been impaired by disease. If they are fixed in a way of life that pleases them, though it may not please me, I should not antagonize them by useless admonitions, nor yet by flattery and complaisance encourage them in the satisfaction of desires that I would die rather than embrace. This is the principle which a wise man must follow in his relations towards his own city. Let him warn her, if he thinks her constitution is corrupt and there is a prospect that his words will be listened to and not put him in danger of his life; but let him not use violence upon his fatherland to bring about a change of constitution. If what he thinks is best can only be accomplished by the exile and slaughter of men, let him keep his peace and pray for the welfare of himself and his city."
- Plato, Letter no VII, 330c-331d
Among other things, this section of Plato's seventh letter is interesting as a perspective on Plato's most famous - and notorious - work, The Republic - where he let's Socrates argue for letting philosophers come to power through exiling every citizen older than ten years and begin a new education program. The Plato we meet in the letter explicitly argues against any such thing. Also, the Plato we meet here seems much less interesting in "changing the world". He is only interested in talking to those who actually want real change. This makes him sound much more like Epicurus - who withdrew from what he saw as a rotten society and formed a community together with people who appreciated his ideas - or a man like Seneca, who had no hopes whatsoever for a improved humanity but instead advised those wanting to change the world to focus on being a member of the brotherhood of those wanting to change themselves - the fellowship of the wise.
The debate on the authenticity of letter no VII is still not settled. I believe it was in fact written by Plato. Even if it wasn't, it is still an important ancient perspective on how important motivation is for any real change to happen.
No change without motivation
No change without motivation
No change without motivation
"When one is advising a sick man who is living in a way injurious to his health, must one not first of all tell him to change his way of life and give him further counsel only if he is willing to obey? If he is not, I think any manly and self-respecting physician would break off counseling such a man, whereas anyone who would put up with him is without spirit or skill. So too with respect to a city: whether it be governed by one man or many, if its constitution is properly ordered and rightly directed, it would be sensible to give advice to its citizens concerning what would be to the city’s advantage. But if it is a people who have wandered completely away from right government and resolutely refuse to come back upon its track and instruct their counselor to leave the constitution strictly alone, threatening him with death if he changes it, and order him instead to serve their interests and desires and show them how they can henceforth satisfy them in the quickest and easiest way—any man, I think, who would accept such a role as adviser is without spirit, and he who refuses is the true man. These are my principles; and whenever anyone consults me on a question of importance in his life, such as the making of money, or the care of his body or soul, if it appears to me that he follows some plan in his daily life or is willing to listen to reason on the matters he lays before me, I advise him gladly and don’t stop with merely discharging my duty. But a man who does not consult me at all, or makes it clear that he will not follow advice that is given him—to such a man I do not take it upon myself to offer counsel; nor would I use constraint upon him, not even if he were my own son. Upon a slave I might force my advice, compelling him to follow it against his will; but to use compulsion upon a father or mother is to me an impious act, unless their judgment has been impaired by disease. If they are fixed in a way of life that pleases them, though it may not please me, I should not antagonize them by useless admonitions, nor yet by flattery and complaisance encourage them in the satisfaction of desires that I would die rather than embrace. This is the principle which a wise man must follow in his relations towards his own city. Let him warn her, if he thinks her constitution is corrupt and there is a prospect that his words will be listened to and not put him in danger of his life; but let him not use violence upon his fatherland to bring about a change of constitution. If what he thinks is best can only be accomplished by the exile and slaughter of men, let him keep his peace and pray for the welfare of himself and his city."
- Plato, Letter no VII, 330c-331d
Among other things, this section of Plato's seventh letter is interesting as a perspective on Plato's most famous - and notorious - work, The Republic - where he let's Socrates argue for letting philosophers come to power through exiling every citizen older than ten years and begin a new education program. The Plato we meet in the letter explicitly argues against any such thing. Also, the Plato we meet here seems much less interesting in "changing the world". He is only interested in talking to those who actually want real change. This makes him sound much more like Epicurus - who withdrew from what he saw as a rotten society and formed a community together with people who appreciated his ideas - or a man like Seneca, who had no hopes whatsoever for a improved humanity but instead advised those wanting to change the world to focus on being a member of the brotherhood of those wanting to change themselves - the fellowship of the wise.
The debate on the authenticity of letter no VII is still not settled. I believe it was in fact written by Plato. Even if it wasn't, it is still an important ancient perspective on how important motivation is for any real change to happen.