Plato tried to define justice. He could not, and so he thought he could show what a "just" society was. Since then, dazzled by the cleverness of Socrates' dialog, people down the ages have tried to follow in Plato's steps. The trail has usually led to the repression of openness, of creativity and of freedom itself. It usually leads to a conservative obsession with the rule of an elite and the status quo.
Plato failed and so have many others, most of them but poor imitations of the master elitist. So why then should the following suggestions be any better? Put simply it is better to stumble along in the semi-darkness with what one has rather than believe that one is in the light just because an authority tells you it is so. However clever someone appears to be they are in the end not very much cleverer than us when it comes to ordering our own lives and it is we our selves who are in the end responsible for those lives. We cannot, and we dare not, take our brains out and hand them to a leader, a guru, a priest, a party nor to a system. We are responsible and no one else for the lives we lead, for the thoughts we think and for the words we speak. And no matter how often we have felt the burden become oppressive, we can never have cause nor reason for putting it down.
Plato sought for justice but started his plans for the "just" state with a lie. This is usually referred to euphemistically as "the foundation myth". He looked for "justice" and then told us that God had put into some people, gold; into others silver, and into the rest, bronze or iron. It was, of course, the ones with gold who were to rule, to be the guardians of the state. All the rest had to do was to get on with their jobs and leave thinking to the "men of gold".
The disenfranchised have traditionally followed three courses. They have given up entirely; they have rebelled, or they have thrown spanners in the works until the self elected and self opinionated elite have come to their senses or withered away. Traditionally the British have been good at the later and have been adept at showing that Jack is just as good as his master, whatever that master might think.
A "public philosophy" is the climate of opinion within a culture or a subculture. There may be differences and variations as in the British Isles. Up until this time it is probably those differences which have kept us reasonably sane. A multi-cultural society is a valuable thing and may enhance the public philosophy provided all the different groups can respect each other and learn from each other. The Jews have always been good at thi, both at fitting in and at being different. They can also tell very funny jokes at their own expense. A sense of humor is a blessing for any attempt at a public philosophy. One should always be able to laugh at oneself. One should never, with all our weaknesses, take ourselves too seriously.
With differences tolerated and respected. With good-natured humour giving us a perspective on ourselves. With these virtues to enable us to see our common humanity we ought to be able to find values, ideals and a shared ethical framework, which will enable us to rub along without too much in the way of social friction and bad temper. We should remind ourselves that, "a house divided against itself cannot stand". For in spite of the advantage of humour, too many people are taking themselves far too seriously. In spite of the advantage of our common rationality far to many of us refuse to think preferring Saturday night game shows and the euphoria driven by alcohol and by drugs.
We are a house divided because we do not have enough shared opinions, values and ideals.
Worse still we have lost the means of working towards agreements with those who differ from our views, preferring to throw bricks at people or their windows or to start a fight when we think we have a good chance of winning.
Yobs have put a student into intensive care; probably because he was in receipt of higher education and they are not. Young addicts burgle homes and terrorize the elderly. It is not just the habit that drives them but because they have the conviction they have a right to happiness and the only euphoria they understand is that which is fired by chemicals, by alcohol, by glue and by drugs.
And we tell them that "happiness" is the aim and the purpose of life then devalue that concept to that of "having fun". We take away from them the means and the understanding of the things that true happiness is; of love of family, of learning, of delight at beauty, of goodness and of truth.
