Plato's missing 'philosopher king', why?
It wouldn't be strange to say that Plato was or still is the most important philosopher of the lot.
However, what is strange is that throughout the history of his influence on political theory, ethics, cosmogony, and epistemological theories - that, what he took as most important for any society, would be the advent of the philosopher king. Yet, nobody has ever dared to think so boldly in adopting a philosopher king throughout mankind's history.
Why is that?
However, what is strange is that throughout the history of his influence on political theory, ethics, cosmogony, and epistemological theories - that, what he took as most important for any society, would be the advent of the philosopher king. Yet, nobody has ever dared to think so boldly in adopting a philosopher king throughout mankind's history.
Why is that?
Comments (12)
A love of wisdom and a fascination for power: It'd be an odd brain that could wed the two.
Eschewing Plato's fantastic king - it's hard to imagine a modern philosopher on the campaign trail, stumping on Microsoft NBC or Fox News.
It's likely Plato's view of the philosopher king was somewhat - idealized. :smile:
I'd wager to say that it is because philosophy simply doesn't work in that manner. The closest we've ever been to such a phenomenon would be the socialist states of the last century and their vangaurds. Philosophy tends to attract the kind of people that wouldn't be interested in forcing people to do anything, as it is a logically self-destructing principle by its very nature; Caesar and Stallin - many others - knew that intimately. Philosophers are much like Jesus in that regard. They'd rather be the king of your heart and mind, rather than your enslaved body. Until it is largely accepted that a free society is the only option, and the power of states is diminished beyond that which has been never before conceived of, the idea of the independent philosopher kings guiding and influencing society is a fairytale.
-G
Does Plato want to
1. Give power to philosophers (empower)
or
2. Control power with philosophy (disempower)
3. Both
?
Quoting jamalrob
I oppose both of your views. (Hehe.) A philosopher king has the following potential qualities:
- wisdom
- high iq
- fascination for power
This mix of qualities has been found in many a tyrant. The tyrant lacks one thing, which is NOT a requirement for the philosopher or for the king: to be benevolent and kind and have good will toward all. No, kindness is NOT SPELLED OUT as a requirement by Plato/Socrates. Therefore the philosopher / king has existed many times over history, inasmuch as they were wise, clever, intelligent, knowledgeable and able to influence others; and they were also fascinated by power, and strived to achieve it.
What you guys are ASSUMING is that a philosopher king is a good thing. This is a suggestion by Socrates / Plato, and as in many other things, that couple of fools have again failed in establishing a thought properly.
I think, and I said it before, Socrates is the most over-rated philosopher of all times. That is the only conclusion one can draw after getting to know the innumerable piles of garbage of illogical thought he had inspired Plato two write.
Except he fails to spell out WHAT precisely he is ignorant about. The topic of his ignorance is paramount to make his statement meaningful; yet he avoids that topic because he does not know what he is ignorant of. (This is a logical necessity.) Therefore he just added one more piece of putrid meaningless piece of crap to the pile of garbage he and Plato produced in their illogical, faulty, downright stupid ways.
Philosophers (and others) have, however, dreamed throughout history of a possible "benevolent despot" who would control the "common herd," guide us and teach us and, having done what was required to organize society and enlighten us to the point we could govern ourselves wisely, would give up his powers. Even J.S. Mill, if I recall correctly, thought a benevolent despotism desirable in some cases. Some thought Napoleon would be such a despot. And, of course, we know that Everyone's Favorite Nazi thought Hitler would do the job as well. There seems to be something about some intellectuals which moves them to worship powerful men.
In Socratic fashion I will let this stand, at least for now, as a riddle to be worked out by those interested in reading and understanding Plato.