Image by Onur Kaya, via pexels.
by Tomas Rocha
It seems to me that many intellectuals disdain money, as they view it as an obstacle to pursuing knowledge. The world is obsessed with money, as it buys us food, shelter, and the means to live a happy life. Money is also tied to systems of power, and is used by those systems to obscure truth and control people, often through their own volition. This essay will argue that since money is an obstacle as demonstrated in Plato’s Republic and Bertolt Brecht’s Life of Galileo, people must transcend material dependence to seek intellectual truth effectively. Money in this essay is the thing of money, not necessarily economics, or the concept of money, although I will certainly address them. I will analyze parts of Republic and Life of Galileo, then examine money’s role in these texts, reflecting on the similarities before presenting a conclusion that will reflect on how these texts both try to imagine a world where all are able to live with the fullest possible powers of knowledge.
In the Republic, Plato first introduces money as a tool. Plato initially lays out a system based on the exchange of goods for currency which functions as a way for wage earners to live by selling services rather than goods. (Plato 1992, 372a p. 47) The text suggests that Plato would support capital in society, though only for the lower class. Plato characterizes this basic city as a “city of pigs,” and in the structure of his Kallipolis, he is clear that higher classes, such as guardians, should not touch money or riches. Furthermore, Plato states “aren’t virtue and wealth so opposed that if they were set on scales, they’d always incline in opposite directions? …when wealth and the wealthy are valued or honoured in a city, virtue and good people are valued less and less.” (Plato 1992, 550e p. 220) Clearly Plato views money as inherently base, associating it with the lower class and a lack of virtue, from which the intellectual classes must be kept separate.
Money is truly a secondary concern that most are obsessed with, according to Plato, a person should be concerned with the mastery of their soul and the virtue that comes from that mastery. In fact he structures his Kallipolis based on a soul, each class representing a different part of the soul. (Plato 1992, 435c p. 110) The appetitive class of workers must produce enough to keep the intellectual philosopher kings alive as they seek out truth and guide the masses as they are defended by the honour seeking guardians. Through this, knowledge is acquired and those who seek it are supported, and the only function money has is to keep the large working class alive as well. Plato’s elitism is blatantly apparent, but is his attempt to mitigate the evils and issues in the world. Plato’s frustration is compounded by the Greek city states around him (all of which to Plato are not sufficiently concerned with knowledge or the good).
In the Life of Galileo, Galileo is concerned with staying alive, and needs money to pay bills and live, which is a fact the Sartis family constantly emphasizes. Galileo’s world values knowledge only for its utility, in other words, its ability to make money. “When you are selling knowledge you can’t ask more than the buyer is likely to make from it.” (Brecht 1982, p. 17) Galileo demonstrates this when he sells the telescope design to Venice. (Brecht 1982, p. 20) He regards the money as merely a means to an end, secondary to his concern for staying alive to pursue astronomy. For Galileo, money represents the conflict between survival and learning. He eventually caves to this desire for survival, due to the church’s threats of torture and imprisonment. The church knows at least some of Galileo’s theories are correct (at least privately in reference to the shipcharts) (Brecht 1982, p. 92) but they try to force Galileo into silence to cling to power. After he recants his beliefs, the Church keeps him imprisoned, writing articles that support the church’s dominion. With his material needs taken care of, Galileo tries to help smuggle out his authentic studies, but ultimately regards himself as a traitor. He feels he betrayed science by falsifying his true claims and betrayed himself by failing to show moral and epistemic courage. The play suggests furthermore that Galileo betrayed society by helping the church cling to power, and encourages that if Galileo had defended his beliefs (presented as self-evidently true) and risked death, he could have triggered a social and intellectual revolution, but his desire to live was too great, so he aided the church in deceiving the public. In other words, Galileo ultimately chooses material concerns out of necessity and fear.
Both Brecht and Plato view money as an obstacle, and their texts critique their societies. For Brecht, the problem is not money itself, but the systems that force everything to bend to it. Whenever society assigns monetary value to everything, one cannot find priceless things such as higher knowledge. One needs money to get food and resources, otherwise, they are unable to fully pursue thought. The text suggests that money is associated with life and power: “If you live grandly enough you can afford to sweep the board.” (Brecht 1982, p. 56)
Brecht seemed to sympathize with communism, as at the end of the play, Galileo hands over some of his work to Andrea so it can be published uncensored in Holland. This would support science and the truth and knowledge that come from it as supposedly communist.
Communist in this sense means that science should be accessible and shared by all, rather than kept by the elites or obscured. If Galileo’s society supported knowledge for its own sake, and allocated resources to it instead of upholding outdated beliefs for power (as the church did) Galileo could have pursued this new knowledge to the extreme. Brecht dramatizes Galileo as a secular figure as well, yet a critic like Stark would argue that “he is a scientific hero or villain” in that Galileo capitulates to the church’s demands and helps them keep science as a tool for elites.[1] He does this not out of self interest or ambition, rather, Galileo wants to live, and does not want to be a martyr for science. He is not a hero villain, rather “a hero coward” with whom the audience can relate to. (Stark 2024 p. 147) Stark even claims that the play leaves the tension between Galileo being a traitor to the people (by recanting) and Galileo being a scientific hero inconclusive. (Stark 2024 p. 147) Yet to this critique I would argue that Galileo is not a villain, rather is human, who cannot be perfect, and this imperfection is also a device used by Brecht towards a greater critique of the systems of power in Brecht’s time, to show that both sides can be flawed, but their actions are what matter. Even in his defeat, Galileo released his findings so another society could use it to continue his pursuit. He published his findings at the end of the play, and only recanted because he was threatened with torture. The church hid Galileo’s findings, despite knowing it to be true. Galileo is meant to be an intellectual in a system that does not support him, who wishes he did not have to reject truth to live, yet is forced into doing so, because he too is indoctrinated into the society he aims to challenge, and is knowingly complicit, even to the point of guilt about it.
Galileo’s publishing The Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences supports the view that anyone can understand the knowledge in there, as opposed to Plato’s genetic view of knowledge expressed in his eugenics. Brecht’s views of learning seems to be more similar towards Plato’s initially articulated view that one cannot learn anything if they are not willing to listen, meaning that if people possess the ability to listen and understand things, they will be able to learn and appreciate knowledge. (Plato 1992, 321c p. 2) If Galileo’s ideas were unintelligible, why would the church fear the populace learning them, and why would smuggling them out to the public be worthwhile? (Brecht 1982, p. 113). Galileo’s ideas are not supposed to be loved by all, or understood, instead a genius who understands them can come from anywhere in the populace. The text is not necessarily a critique of anti-intellectual greedy people, rather the systems that make it harder to escape this desire for material objects.
Brecht writes in a way to critique the systems of power around him, as he wrote during the time of the Cold War, and was accused of communist sentiments by the United States government. During the Cold War, the USA doubled down on tradition and religion in order to distinguish themselves from the Soviet Union, and Brecht also spoke of this, through his plays. Now Brecht had communist sentiments [2], and it has been argued that the Life of Galileo has a communist message (in that the play certainly has a moral in which if science was public instead of held by the elites, people would be better off), yet I want to address first how the play speaks to power. Brecht’s theory of drama as described by Couvalis is that the dramatist must act against established power systems and suggest that there are alternate ways of being. (Couvalis, 1987 p. 117-118) In addition Brecht aims to create “alienation effects,” an effect that can “cause audiences to be surprised by familiar items so that they will regard them as requiring explanation.” (Couvalis, 1987 p. 118-119) Couvalis demonstrates that Brecht is trying to create a relatable human character, who is also slightly different from the people he is with. These alienation effects are demonstrated in his mythologizing yet humanizing of Galileo’s character, as the show addresses his duality as a traitor, hero, and person. This can be compared to Plato’s designs in Republic in that the philosopher king is a person, but is one who is able to operate outside of the common systems of power, in order to teach the viewers about the world. The character of Galileo aims to educate the audience and the people of his world that power can be challenged, but it requires group effort and may bend against the power of established systems, and show that it is not always an easy process. “He wants drama, through A-effects, present an explanation of the causes of human behavior…” (Couvalis, 1987 p. 120) According to Couvalis’s dramatist account, Brecht aims to present a realistic plan towards revolution, the communization of science, and a cautionary tale, that one should challenge social powers, but they will be ultimately vulnerable to the fact that they are human.
Plato wrote the Republic to critique the systems of power around him, specifically the various Greek city states, which he believed did not prioritize knowledge. This had been demonstrated in his life, as Athens put his teacher Socrates to death, as he challenged the roles of gods in society, which was built around working and producing to honour these gods and those around them (similar to Galileo’s Venice). Plato structures Kallipolis where those seeking knowledge must renounce the systems of production and material goods, riches, and their base desires (taming their souls). People should not pursue money, instead knowledge of themselves and the world, so if money opposes virtue, it also opposes enlightenment. Money forces people to devote their time to unproductive, unvirtuous practices, and keeps them in the cave. A society ruled by money may try to find knowledge, but the desire to survive will ultimately be of greater concern. [3] Aside from the consideration that the two desires between knowledge and survival may be inequivalent, Plato states the allegory of the cave demonstrates that: “Education is not what some people declare it to be… …putting sight into blind eyes… …(rather) the power to learn is present in everyone’s soul and that instrument with which each learns is like an eye that cannot be turned around from darkness to light.” (Plato 1992, 518c p. 190) People possess the ability to find good; enlightenment, or education, is the act of seeing what one already knows, remembering the perfect forms. So instead of a society that devotes its time to production, a society should be structured to educate, as a happy life may not come from simply living, or seeking knowledge, or earning money, but it in itself brings us closer to an “inconceivably beautiful thing… (which) …provides both knowledge and truth and is superior to them in beauty.” (Plato 1992, 509a p. 182) This is the good that Plato desires for everyone to find, what he thinks will make us happy, an enlightenment of sorts.
If all people have a soul, then they possess the ability to have rational thought, and simply need to listen to others to learn and eventually find Plato’s good. According to Brecht’s views, all the populace can think rationally, (if they are willing) to learn, and appreciate knowledge and find the good. Elites seek to make people unwilling to listen, or prevent them from listening, so they may have power. Now Plato’s methods of overturning power are coercive, revolutionary, and wholly attempt to restructure society and government, for the common reason of creating a society where all can benefit from the value of knowledge. Plato’s lies (such as through the Myth of the Metals) and blatant elitism are to create structures to support learning, and create classes (philosopher kings and guardians) that have greater intellectual and social power than the workers. [4] They also seek to deceive and control the populace, but Plato cannot rob the populace of the internal abilities they possess in their soul, only prevent people from finding them through distracting them by giving them material freedoms (such as economic and sexual freedom) and lying. To Plato, deception is also for the mob’s own good, as the populace needs a fixed direction to go towards, and a medium to interpret knowledge for them, as the populace can also be dangerous to themselves. [5] The populace may not support finding knowledge or even understand it all the time, as they are imperfect, so Plato wants perfect philosopher kings to teach society how to behave and be happy, and by teaching, the populace will have the benefits of knowledge and the good.
Plato would see Galileos’ society as improperly structured, as it not only does not support intellectuals, but actively rejects any challenges to beliefs.[6] Society’s economic systems suppress courage by indulging our desires, distracting us from what truly matters to intellectuals like Plato. Without that focus, so-called intellectuals (or as Plato would call them sophists) like Galileo’s church may use those same chains on intellectuals, and keep them from finding more. Sophists are considered the greatest enemy to Plato’s philosophers, as they often do not grasp the full extent of knowledge, but still preach to the masses as if they do, and they do not have courage to look beyond it. They taint these masses into submitting to authority and a further blindness. (Plato 1992, 489c p.163) Galileo reflects on this same thing in saying: “A human race… …shambles around in a pearly haze of superstition and old saws, too ignorant to develop its own powers, will never develop those powers you people are revealing to it.” Thus science and intellectual thought exist to help educate the soul internally, to help one know themselves.
This process requires courage from both the intellectual and the student to face the inevitable obstacles. (Brecht 1982, p. 108) This courage according to Plato could be a preservation of those skills of reasoning and rationality within the soul, and continue towards rational expression and philosophical thought. If there were no obstacles to begin with aside from oneself (as opposed to one’s creations), then that wisdom would be easier to access.
Both Plato and Brecht imply that if a society values knowledge above all, it must remove all obstacles binding us to the material world. Money, food, and power distract and hinder us from perceiving the world correctly. People create the concept of money, but it has no true value beyond what people decide. The value of knowledge to Plato is not created by people, as it possesses innate virtue and goodness. Knowledge carries within it a good that is intrinsic (good for its own sake), which is different from money, which is only an instrumental good (it is a tool that can help you get things). One would assume then, the relationship between economics and the pursuit of knowledge should be one where information is public, constantly evolving, and the people researching it are given resources they need to thrive. Thought should be done for greater understanding of our world and of ourselves, not for money, utility, or power. But the pursuit of knowledge and the pursuit of happiness are not necessarily the same, so society may be better not investing absolutely in knowledge. Galileo’s findings were appreciated in time, but this was hardly the ideal outcome, as if Galileo had not recanted the church would have been unable to repress that intellectual truth, and this may have allowed society to better educate themselves using that knowledge, and then use it to speak against the power the church had. While Plato argues for pursuing knowledge at all costs, one may hesitate to agree completely, lest another Galileo comes and disproves his beliefs. The initial argument that people should discard money if they aim to efficiently seek intellectual truth is a noble pursuit, but may not be the best one. Yet it seems to me that repression of knowledge is not good, pursuing knowledge should be supported by society. Both should be in a balance, and life and happiness should remain a priority for all people, whether it is perfect or not, there should be attempts for progress towards these indescribably beautiful values.
In this essay, I explored how money is an obstacle to the pursuit of knowledge. It is such for a variety of things, including social, economic, and political reasons, which further perpetuate its use in society, and cause people to care about it instead of knowledge. From this I now argue that money is not the main problem within these texts, rather the systems around it and how it is used as an obstacle by those in power and the systems that have been established to keep them in power. Plato and Brecht acknowledge these obstacles to varying degrees, and both argue that social change is necessary for intellectuals to pursue the highest knowledge and that our desires to live often get in the way of this pursuit. The authors do this both through what they argue and how they argue it. I demonstrated through examining Stark that Brecht addresses how Galileo both helps and hurts scientific progress, yet Brencht still wants to keep that progress in the hands of the people, as the character of Galileo is meant to be an attempt to critique power, and both Republic and Life of Galileo are written to critique the current systems of power. Republic imagines an alternative city state, and through examining the structure of the play of the Life of Galileo, one is given an artistic attempt to show the audience that they can embrace the philosopher/scientist despite their elitism, and through that embrace, all may share in the goods of knowledge. Yet the systems society created are still prevalent, and when they are as entrenched in society as money, the intellectual may never be able to educate the populace when they will not listen, and the intellectual will die if they themselves do not earn money to live. These creations unites many of the obstacles intellectuals struggle with, and chains people to themselves, fears, biases, and flawed perceptions of the world, and make them traitors to the truth within their souls, and unable to see what good may lie beyond it. If people came together as a community and broke free from these systems that seek to uphold, then they may be able to begin their education towards knowledge and the truth they seek, and that will give them meaning, joy, and fulfillment, instead of the fear, lies, and lifelessness found by pursuing money. Both Plato and Brecht vary in many ways, but are united in that they call for a revolution from the systems of power in their worlds through leaders who will educate the people.
Endnotes
[1] “They tore the telescope out of our hands and trained it on their tormentors, the princes, landlords and priests. These selfish and domineering men… …found that the cold eye of science had been turned on a primaeval but contrived poverty that could clearly be swept away if they were swept away themselves.” (Brecht 1982 p. 108) This demonstrates how society (when elites control it) constructs hardship for intellectuals, and uses the tools to control the populace.
[2] This is what I would consider common knowledge, but is also informed by an article written by Patchen Markwell, in which he examines Hannah Ardent’s polemic articles in response to some of Brecht’s poetry on communism and the Cold War. It is relevant to mention that she critiqued Brecht on his “navigation of the dual, sometimes conflicting, imperatives of remoteness and engagement that structure the poet’s vocation of truth-telling.” (Markwell 2018, p. 531) I include this addition because it is relevant to how Brecht in Life of Galileo writes, and for what purpose he is telling a story. According to Ardent and Markwell, Brencht attempts to navigate Galileo’s dualism and capture the emotional nuance of his situation while also portraying how he was both helpful and hurtful to science.
[3] This is contrary to one’s nature, as Plato also states that souls incline towards the good.
[4] “Workers” references the appetitive class, whom I also refer to as the populace or mob. As mentioned, these classes are constructs that Plato would enact to better control and restructure society. Brecht does not engage with class in the same way, as he mainly refers to people through the power that they have.
[5] The mob can be obsessed with the wrong things, like money. It is not their fault, because society could be structured around it entirely from the beginning. This demonstrates that worldly concerns when mixed with an unsupportive society can muddy the process of learning. All people also need to eat, and that can be used against them by actors who do not seek to gain knowledge, but rather seek to gain power or money.
[6] To the reader, it may seem odd how Plato may reject challenging truths, yet he would support it. Plato does not believe people know what truth is, they only see reflections of it, so from this principle, one can infer that he would welcome the socratic questioning of knowledge and truth, as long as it is done in earnest.
Bibliography
Brecht, Bertolt. Life of Galileo. Bloomsbury Publishing, 1982.
Couvalis, S. G. 1987. “Feyerabend’s Epistemology and Brecht’s Theory of the Drama.” Philosophy and Literature 11 (1): 117-123.
Markell, P. (2018). Politics and the case of poetry: Arendt on Brecht. Modern Intellectual History, 15(2), 503–533. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479244316000366
Plato, G. M. A. Grube. Republic. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc, 1992.
Stark, Alejo. 2024. “Brecht’s Life of Galileo: Staging a Theory of the Encounter of Practices.” Galilæana 21 (1).