In Plato’s The Republic, much emphasis is placed on the need for philosopher kings. While this concept seems to have little prevalence in modern government, Socrates spends a significant portion of his work discussing the place of philosopher kings in a just city. Among other questions, Socrates addresses the necessity of philosopher-kings for a just city, the type of philosopher king that would be required, the relationship between said kings and the proverbial “cave,” the disadvantages to such a ruling power, and the possibility of justice in general.
Most obviously, Socrates discusses the necessity of philosopher-kings in a just city. He emphasizes this emphatically, pointing out that he sees a “necessity for those who are on the peaks of philosophy to take charge of a city…” (Plato 179). In his mind, politicians present a self-centered and distorted view of justice that is counteracted by the views of philosophers.
Politicians are corrupted by self-interest, fear of death, desperate attempts to gain as much power as possible, and lack of interest in the truth. Philosophers, on the other hand, seem to present a less biased view of governing. Because of their inherent interest in truth and the good, they become interested in what is best for a city, rather than being plagued by alternative desires within themselves. Plato even goes so far as to suggest that “no regime will ever become perfect…before some necessity chances to constrain those few philosophers who aren’t vicious, those now called useless, to take charge of a city” (Plato 178).
127 our experts are availableright now
As witnessed in our current political climate, we see similar attempts from our government. While it is obvious that we will not achieve Socrates’ standard of a “just city,” we still attempt to achieve as much justice as possible. From asking Trump to give up his connection to his business as he assumes the presidency, to continued probing into Hillary Clinton’s connection to Wall Street, people remain interested in finding leaders that are lacking in self- interest, and an appearance of public service. This, most certainly, was the appeal behind Bernie
Sanders. With little perceived self-interest, no visible connection to Wall Street, and an apparently deeply value-centered political platform, many were swayed by his approach to the political system. While that appearance may not be mirrored by reality, it showcases the desires of the American people to reach for something that looks at least remotely like a just city. Perhaps the decisions of the American people reflect that they have found in their hearts a Socratic cry for a new kind of ruler. Maybe it is their way of telling an extensive political system that “men who aren’t lovers of ruling must go to it; otherwise, rival lovers will fight” (Plato 199).
If we desire a philosopher-king, what should that king look like? Certainly Trump, Clinton, and Sanders are not an accurate depictions of philosopher-kings, despite their occasional hinting at such a style. As a primary characteristic of a philosopher-king, Socrates notes that they are forever caught up in the learning process. “About philosophic natures,” writes Socrates, “let’s agree that they are always in love with that learning which discloses to them something of the being that is always and does not wander about…..” (Plato 164).
According to the mind of Socrates, philosopher-kings don’t get degrees and then assume a position in government. Instead, they engage in a lifelong learning process where they continually seek out truth, continually prove themselves wrong, and continually reach for new levels of knowledge and understanding. He expounds on this further, noting that “true erotic passion for true philosophy flows from some divine inspiration into the songs of those who hold power or the office of king, or into the fathers themselves,” (Plato 179). Clearly, philosopher-kings are driven by an intense desire to learn the philosophical motivators of the world around us.
Beyond the need for a continual love of learning, Socrates argues that philosopher-kings seem to be marked by a love for all of reality. Stemming out of a love for knowledge, these rulers begin to love the world around them and all of its intricate parts. Perhaps this is a result of what they learn about the known universe. Perhaps it is because of their encounters with people of diverse social and political backgrounds.
Perhaps the love is purely a correlator. However, Socrates argues that these philosopher-kings, “…like the lovers of honor and the erotic men we described before, they love all of it…” (Plato 164). This love of everything produces in them a different style of ruling than is prevalent in our culture today. Rather than be motivated by preservation of self or familial interests. These rulers begin to increase in a desire to care for all equally, with justice. Socrates seems to agree with this idea, stating that, “It is…entirely necessary that a man who is by nature erotically disposed toward someone care for everything related and akin to his boy” (Plato 165). Love of learning is clearly connected to a love of all people.
Stepping further past these two deeply connected loves that produce just ruling, Plato goes on to point out that philosopher-kings with this background also have a distinct lack of taste for lies, treachery, and deception. These, to me, seems to stems even further out of the love of learning and people. Driven by wisdom and learning to care for the needs of others, truth becomes a necessary and governing element of government. Socrates says this himself, stating that philosopher-king rules have “no taste for falsehood; that is, they are completely unwilling to admit what’s false but hate it, while cherishing truth” (Plato 164). It seems that an essential core element of a philosopher-king is his devotion to a pursuit of the truth. While this may not always be efficient or effective, it remains an essential core of the work of a philosopher king.
Having established a need for philosopher-kings, and having outlined their essential qualities, we move on to analyze the analogical cave approach to philosophy that Socrates uses in reference to philosopher-kings. With his analogical cave approach, Socrates is convinced that begin to love the world around them and all of its intricate parts. Perhaps this is a result of what they learn about the known universe.
Perhaps it is because of their encounters with people of diverse social and political backgrounds. Perhaps the love is purely a correlator. However, Socrates argues that these philosopher-kings, “…like the lovers of honor and the erotic men we described before, they love all of it…” (Plato 164). This love of everything produces in them a different style of ruling than is prevalent in our culture today. Rather than be motivated by preservation of self or familial interests. These rulers begin to increase in a desire to care for all equally, with justice. Socrates seems to agree with this idea, stating that, “It is…entirely necessary that a man who is by nature erotically disposed toward someone care for everything related and akin to his boy” (Plato 165). Love of learning is clearly connected to a love of all people.
Stepping further past these two deeply connected loves that produce just ruling, Plato goes on to point out that philosopher-kings with this background also have a distinct lack of taste for lies, treachery, and deception. These, to me, seems to stems even further out of the love of learning and people. Driven by wisdom and learning to care for the needs of others, truth becomes a necessary and governing element of government. Socrates says this himself, stating that philosopher-king rules have “no taste for falsehood; that is, they are completely unwilling to admit what’s false but hate it, while cherishing truth” (Plato 164). It seems that an essential core element of a philosopher-king is his devotion to a pursuit of the truth. While this may not always be efficient or effective, it remains an essential core of the work of a philosopher king.
Having established a need for philosopher-kings, and having outlined their essential qualities, we move on to analyze the analogical cave approach to philosophy that Socrates uses in reference to philosopher-kings. With his analogical cave approach, Socrates is convinced that all of life becomes a simply a shadow of the real world with a pursuit of truth (Plato 193-194). In his mind, without a pursuit of truth, life is not even real. However, if individuals, particularly philosopher-kings pursue truth, they are able to develop an image of the real concepts (Plato 190). These conceptual truths never are fully known by humans, but they become more and more evident and understandable as philosopher-kings walk down the road towards knowledge, wisdom and love of people.
In contrast, we see politicians, who are unconcerned with this pursuit of knowledge. They have little understanding of truthful pursuit. Instead, in the mind of Socrates, they live in shadows of reality and are ruled by opinion and personal preference (Plato 186, 193-194). Without this understanding, according to Socrates, “all opinions…are ugly” (Plato 186).
Despite his emphasis on the need for the unending pursuit of truth, Socrates remains convinced that the truth cannot ever be known in its fullest sense. Humans are incapable of handling the fullest exposition of the truth, nor would they be able to comprehend or correctly apply its elements. Socrates uses an analogical sun to emphasize this, stating that, “As for knowledge and truth, just as in the other region it is right to hold light and sight sunlike, but to believe them to be the sun is not right…..” (Plato 189). We are able to understand images of the sun. We can understand images of real truths, and we can vaguely comprehend the truths, but what we perceive is still simply an image of the truth (Plato 189).
Not only so, but Plato uses the image of the cave to begin to illustrate the disadvantages one would face if one encountered the idea of the good. He points out that an enlightened individual would be the subject of endless mockery and scorn, like trying to explain light to individuals who have never been outside of their home cave (Plato 196). Like a man who encounters the light in a dark cave, he would be ridiculed as he attempted to explain light to a people who had never experienced the light.
Perhaps this analogy, more than anything else, shows us how entirely impractical it is to consider America achieving Socrates’ just city. In a country driven by the will of the people, there is no space for a ruler to know more than its people and attempt to educate those who are not aware of those truths. While we may ideally hold to such a notion, a democracy requires a majority of people to either understand the decisions of their rulers or trust their rulers to make decisions that they do not understand. In general, we give such a trust to our rulers, because they act in a way that makes us feel good, but if a ruler were to operate in such a way as to achieve a just city, we would not be so forgiving.
This, then, leads us to just one of many reasons that is reasonably perceived as both undesirable and impossible. As yet another reason, Socrates rhetorically asks “Have you…any other life that despises political offices other than that of true philosophy?” (Plato 199). While we may request the leadership of a philosopher-king, even if we were to achieve a majority of the population that shared this view, it would be nearly impossible to find a philosopher who would stoop so low as to be a king. What we admire in philosophers is their distinctive difference from politicians they seek truth, and not self-interest. They govern their lives with justice. They pursue truth. If such an individual were to look at a government, they would see a system riddled by corruption, injustice, and no interest in learning or truth. Asking a philosopher to step into that role is absurdity. We could almost guarantee their refusal to assume such a position.
Not only would they most like refuse such a rule, but they would not make for good leaders on crisis-time issues like national security. As was discussed frequently in class, we admire decisive leaders. Whether or not we like their decisions, we expect our leaders to be decisive in times of crisis. In contrast with this, leaders that are driven by truth are often incapable of being so decisive. They are driven by learning, and they see all angles of every given argument. As crises occur or laws require passing, a philosopher would need to take his time to make sure he chose legislation and decisions that were in the interest of the unending pursuit of knowledge and truth, as well as being in the interest of all the people of a city.
Beyond this, philosopher-king rules, according to Adeimantus, would not survive well in such a position. He states that, “Those who linger in it for a longer time—most become quite queer, not to say completely vicious; while the ones who seem perfectly decent, do nevertheless suffer at least one consequence of the practice you are praising—they become useless to the cities.” (Plato 167).
As Socrates continues to promote the concept of philosopher-kings, Adeimantus expresses his reservations with such leaders. While he does not give specific explanations for his “vicious” and “queer” labels, but we can certainly assume some element of his reasoning. It is easily perceivable that a philosopher-king, surrounded by self-interest, could become jaded and skeptical of those around him. As he retreats further into himself, he could become vicious with those around him. And, as discussed in the case of the proverbial cave, he would have no way of expressing his different worldview without being continually ridiculed. This could be perceived and “queer” or “weird,” as a philosopher attempts to explain himself. Clearly, then, while the principles, ethics, and wisdom of a philosopher king may be desirable, they practically cannot work in the context of a modern, or even ancient, government.
However, to begin the entire argument for a philosopher-king, we begin on the idea that philosopher-kings would be capable, or moderately capable, or achieving a just city. Socrates does not seem quite sure that a just city can even be fully achievable, based on his understanding of justice. As frequently discussed in class, justice quickly becomes an arbitrary value that is defined by a ruling power. It seems to me that philosopher-king, then, would not be able to achieve an objectively just city, but would simply be just by a Sophist definition that justice is simply “the advantage of the stronger” (Plato 15). With a philosopher-king in a position of power, whatever said ruler deemed just would thus become so.
To conclude, based on this argumentation, then, it seems highly unlikely that a philosopher-king could arrive in power or that such a ruler could achieve an objective standard of justice. Such a ruler would need to love learning, people, and honest pursuit of truth. Such a ruler would continually wrestle with a metaphorical cave of people that had never seen the light of truth.
This disconnect would produce a bitter and odd ruler who could not relate to the people that he governed. They would be incapable of ruling a people because of their indecisiveness and their pursuit of truth. Beyond those fundamental issues, it is debatable whether they could even achieve justice, because of its shifting and uncertain definition. It seems to me that governments are destined to be governed by the politicians, and not the philosophers. We find ourselves subject to those who are interested in pursuing their own self-interest, and we must simply attempt to hold their interests moderately in check with the moderate efficiency of a democratic republic.
