‘Unless… philosophers become kings in the cities or those whom we now call kings and rulers philosophize truly and adequately and there is a conjunction of political power and philosophy . . . there can be no cessation of evils . . . for cities nor, I think, for the human race.’ A bold statement to make: Plato’s The Republic suggests philosophers as kings or rulers – this essay will examine the extent to which this is a persuasive argument. It will come to the conclusion that although some of these features do appear in the modern state, the argument is ultimately neither persuasive nor realistic in practice. It will critically examine Plato’s argument for philosopher kings and its base belief, and systematically consider its application to society and response from the ‘unfit’ majority.
Essay
Plato’s The Republic was a treatise on the order and character of a just state, justice and the just man. In his utopian city Kallipolis, rulers were also philosophers – or, more popularly, philosopher kings. This is, according to Plato, a ruler who loves both knowledge and intelligence, is both reliable and willing to lead a simple life. Plato argues that these ‘philosopher kings’ should rule, since all philosophers strive to find the ideal polis – something with ‘communal spirit, participatory democracy, and cultural productions’ (Champion, 2008). Keeping with the ‘ideal’ element of The Republic, Plato’s rulers enjoy their rule through knowledge, not power – this is not, unfortunately, how it works in the modern state. Power is a fundamental element at the centre of politics (Zaleznik, 1970), which Plato ignores – this will be discussed in the essay. It is clear that some features of Plato’s ideal polis are apparent in the modern state, however the essay will conclude by showing that Plato’s argument for philosopher kings is neither persuasive nor realistic.
Although The Republic’s central emphasis is centred on justice and the quest for it in an ideal polis, the Socratic dialogue’s actual message boils down to democracy and what it means to Plato. It is clear that there must be some element of rule; ‘nothing genuinely worthy of being a state of nature will, at least in the long term, be a condition in which human beings can flourish’ (Wolff, 2006). There must be some level of government, but Plato’s The Republic considers democracy to be the rule of the unfit. Since The Republic was first published, philosophers and students of politics have lamented what democracy is: the idea of majority rule or perhaps the ‘Madisonian view’ – that democracy involves the protection of minorities. For Plato, Wolff argues that ‘making political decisions requires judgment and skill. It should, Plato urges, be left to the experts’ (Wolff, 2006). The experts in this case are philosophers – people that are informed and therefore fit to rule. The Republic systematically deals with being just, and a sense of justice only available to be enacted through rule by philosopher kings, rather than a true democracy.
To emphasise his points, Plato often uses allegory and metaphor. To express his support for philosopher kings as opposed to democracy, he uses the allegory of the ship. It shows a ship led by men ignorant of navigation, who “don’t understand that a true captain must pay attention to the seasons of the year, the sky, the stars, the winds, and all that pertains to his craft, if he’s really to be the ruler of a ship. And they don’t believe that there is any craft that would enable him to determine how he should steer the ship, whether the others want him to or not, or any possibility of mastering this alleged craft or of practicing it at the same time as the craft of navigation. Don’t you think that the true captain will be called a real stargazer, a babbler, and a good-for-nothing by those who sail in ships governed in that way?” (Plato; 2003). Plato stresses that in order to govern his Kallipolis and future governments, specialization in a field is crucial. This is inextricably linked to his central concern with justice, where each member of the polis has a ‘specific craft for which he has a natural aptitude” (Reeve, 2009, 69). Plato applies this idea to not only the common man, but rulers – justice and knowledge need to be understood, and since philosophers understand this, rule under philosopher kings is justified.
The central flaw in this argument is the unknowing description of Voltaire’s ‘benevolent dictatorship’ where the ruled would be governed without being consulted (Wolff, 2006). The modern democratic state is vehemently against the type of totalitarianism and dictatorship described here, making Plato’s argument inapplicable to the modern state. It is wrong to place political power in the hands of an elite, as argued by Karl Popper. Aristotle offers an alternative in kings who are advised by philosophers (Aristotle). This is a more practical view of leadership, however it is important to remember that the Kallipolis is only theoretical and therefore ideal – Plato’s belief in this type of dictatorship is only one alternative. However, his argument for a ‘benevolent dictatorship’ does reflect more totalitarian undertones as opposed to the ‘just’ polis presented by Aristotle.
Plato’s argument has firstly not withstood time through to the modern state – modern, particularly Western states have adopted a pluralist attitude towards politics. In hand with this is the belief that the perfect government is one in which democracy means the “government ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people” (Wolff, 2006). In reality, the state is no longer controlled by the elite as idealised by Plato, as much as it is an arena in which different people and groups can argue and discuss policies. These are ‘mainly economic’ (Dryzek and Dunleavy, 2009) and one would hope that these participants have the necessary knowledge to enact change. In the same way one can argue that the common person doesn’t have the necessary knowledge, one can also argue that philosophers with knowledge of logic and ethics doesn’t necessarily have this knowledge also. In the 21st century it is necessary in a democracy to have fair and equal representation of the ruled by their rulers – something Plato does not account for in The Republic.
Plato also does not account for the role of power in maintaining rule, impacting heavily the persuasive aspect of his argument. Even in Ancient Greece, politics was hugely impacted by a level of power: for example, the Council of 500 still enjoyed control over debate and talk in the assembly. Plato’s argument speaks of political rule through knowledge, but no power. One can be knowledgeable yet still fail to hold the degree of power necessary to maintain rule over the ruled. The requirement for knowledge in philosophy may be justified by its overall effect or, particularly, its epistemic features – synchronically or diachronically (Bobonich, 2004). In this case, knowledge may not be effective overall and instead is not as useful as genuine political power. Plato’s argument in this respect is not persuasive – it is weak in terms of how knowledge is supreme over power in political rule.
This argument also supports a ruling class, which one may argue would make it unfavourable to the majority and ultimately not persuasive. He argues that a specific education, available to a select few, will enable them to become philosophers. This would mean rulers unrepresentative of the ruled. For example, bicameral systems often comprise those who enjoyed a private education, who legislate over parliaments and statute lawmakers. So, as Plato does offer an unjust system of rule, the type of system he
recommends is present in modern day governments and legislatures. This element of his ideal polis, though unfavourable to a majority, is still present in the modern state. His argument appears to have been persuasive to this extent, perhaps reflecting the beliefs of the elite. In contrast, one could argue that the real experts who should be in the place of these elites are those aware of the people’s interests – Mill argues that ‘the fallacy here is to think of the people as a homogenous mass with a single interest… We are not like this” (Wolff, 2006). This argument, though unfavourable, seems to be persuasive given its presence in the modern state.
Plato believes that ‘there will be no end to the troubles of states… or humanity itself, until philosophers become kings in the world… and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands.’ Plato’s argument for philosophers to simultaneously rule and be just in Kallipolis is ideal, but unrealistic and therefore unpersuasive. The argument, elements of which are still present in the modern state, is inherently unpersuasive to the majority and is evidence by the absence of philosophers as rulers. Man is a political animal, according to Plato, which is exactly why it is difficult to quell political stirrings among the majority. The argument is not persuasive, and is unrealistic in the modern state.