Friday, September 18, 2009
Philosopher Kings Anyone?
Plato proposes (through the mouthpiece of Socrates) that the best form of government is one in which a philosopher is king (or at the very least a king is trained as a philosopher). Is he correct? What problem exist for this view? Even with all its flaws, is it better than all alternatives? In particular, is it an improvement over democracy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If a philosopher king is ruled under the jurisdiction of morals then i cannot see such a ruler effectively controlling the government. Rulers are often forced with tough decisions in which shades of gray apply, whether or not a philosopher king is able to see these hues is questionable.
ReplyDeleteSo the country is now in rule of a democratic president. Does that mean that we chose him simply because there was no one else better? Well that is a completely different issue never mind. BUT my point is, if a philosopher king is an improvement of democracy why haven't we tried it yet? probably because the whole government would hit the fan. Internal corruption because they don't' care to listen to anyone else, because a philosopher king obviously answers to no one because they know all. If they love to learn how come they don't love to listen?
In response to Meredith:
ReplyDelete1) We haven't tried this because you can't exactly throw away the entire constitution on a whim to try something new, at least in America.
2) It is ignorant to say a philosopher king wouldn't listen to other people's views. Further it is plain illogical since you say that such a person loves to learn and a majority of learning done by anyone is through discussion amongst other intellectuals.
In response to the original question, I believe to some extent all rulers possess properties of a "philosopher king." It is difficult to say with certainty whether such an individual would be a fit ruler. While all the traits Plato assigns to a philosopher king are suitable for a ruler, such a person must also have a fine grasp on Martha Nussbaum's theory of the tragic question. As she explains, when faced with a situation in which both options are immoral, there must be recognition that an action either way is immoral, yet an action MUST still be taken. Weighing mechanisms for determining the appropriate action can be debated, however I feel a true philosopher king would possess the knowledge to recognize the necessity of action, thus disproving all arguments that philosopher kings would not be able to act in difficult situations. I hope that wasn't too strung out.
In going back to the original question, as a concept, philosopher kings seem ideal. They would act with wisdom and lead their people in the best possible way. However, some problems exist with the execution of he idea. For example, who chooses the philosopher king? Can anyone just claim to be the leader of a country because they say they are a philosopher. Wouldn't this cause chaos? If there was some sort of selection within philosophers for overall leader, would this not entail pandering and politicking? This in turn leads to a bigger question, how can you recognize a true philosopher in your search for a leader. So, I think there are a number of clear problems. Of course, Plato does his best to make the concept air tight however I think that the reality of philosopher kings is a little less clear than it is on paper.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gwin. The main problem that the idea of a philosopher king faces isn't the ideals they are based on, but rather the challenge of finding a real "philosopher king". Any old person can claim that they are a "Philosopher King", but nobody can actually prove it. The process of finding a suitable leader would conflict with Plato's ideas on governance. Either the people elect who they believe is the best suited for the job, or the philosopher king appoints himself. In the first case, this results in democracy, something Plato obviously wants to avoid. However, the second case doesn't work much better, as the philosopher king appointing himself could arguably result in Tyranny, something even more worthy of avoiding. Ultimately, the idea of a philosopher king should remain what it is now, an idea.
ReplyDeleteI somewhat agree with the previous two comments. In the text, it essentially defines a philosopher king, as said above, as a very idealistic person. With this idealism comes unrealistic "requirements" for a philosopher king, in that they describe someone who has obtained perfection. However, as earlier shown in the text, it is impossible to have a human being who is perfect, so no person could truly be a "philosopher king." Some could come close, but the areas in which said person faults would cause the big idea of an ideal ruler and consequently ideal society to fail.
ReplyDeleteWhen Plato makes the suggestion that Philosopher Kings are the ideal rulers of society, it makes sense. However, upon further thinking I have a few objections. I can't imagine a society content with the governing of a philosopher simply because of his inability to relate to the common man. And exposing the truth to non-true philosophers may not be the best way to assert control. We are all philosophers in a sense but at varying levels of fluency. Expressing all truths to other members of a community, depending on what those truths may be, can create a society that practices morality or immorality. Giving knowledge to the common man seems like a game of chance. Either that man can use it to benefit the community or it can corrupt him.
ReplyDelete