Why does Plato believe that only Philosophers are fit to rule?

[Dover]

Like to study different forms of government? Ever read Plato's "Commonwealth"?
Here are two author's thoughts and commentary on Plato's ideal and it's potential for informing our current situation:


This essay printed from PlanetPapers.com. To view this essay online, visit http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/3337.php

Why does Plato believe that only Philosophers are fit to rule?


Rather than the practical pursuit we are accustomed to, for Plato, Politics is an intellectual faculty. Governance by non-philosophers is to be governed by opinions, beliefs and self-interest; in contrast the philosopher ruler will govern with virtue and justice with no hidden agenda. The philosopher is in love, in love with learning, knowledge and truth. It is important to make a distinction here between the acquisition of knowledge and the acquisition of truth, because knowledge is not necessarily the truth.

With the help of an allegory, Plato explains the sensible world of illusion and belief, the place where most people reside. The philosopher has stepped outside this world, into a world of knowledge and truth. Plato makes use of a cave to explain this; I will use another means. A child believes in the myth of Santa Claus, a child has good reason to suppose this myth is true, it is inculcated when he receives Christmas presents, the media, family and friends consolidate the belief, the child even writes to Santa Claus and receives a reply. On Christmas Day this belief becomes a ‘reality’. Through education and maturity, the child will have doubts as to the truth of this illusion. At some stage during the transition from childhood to adulthood he will acknowledge the illusion, and further, during parenthood the myth really comes home to roost as knowledge and absolute truth. (He now has a choice; he can put an end to the myth or continue the cycle) What is distinctive regarding each stage, is how far they have come out of the cave. Through illusion and belief to knowledge, or from artisan to auxiliary to philosopher.

The fundamental prerequisite to becoming a philosopher ruler is to have knowledge of the forms, therefore knowing the truth. The forms do not exist in the sensible world, they can only be found in the super-sensible world. Platos‘ theory of the forms is partly logical and partly metaphysical. The logical part is, take for example a dog, there will be many types of dog, and general particulars regarding a dog. The form of a dog is universal and eternal it has no position in space or time, it is not born when a dog is born, nor does it die when a dog dies. The metaphysical part of the theory is the form of a dog is a perfect, unique dog, created by God. The dog is real, particular dogs are apparent. Armed with this truth, the philosopher rulers will always make the right decisions, and rule with total wisdom, justice and virtue. The rulers will not own property, nor have money, they will be free of vices, excesses and desires. They will have a Spartan existence (Plato was an admirer of Spartan culture). A ruler in Platos' society as described in his dialogue The Republic would be incorruptible, an absolute model of sensible world perfection and justice. If one was to look no further into Platos‘ utopian society you could be forgiven for thinking that the philosopher rulers would be the ultimate answer for political duties and government administration. A more detailed examination of policy and structure is necessary, prior to arriving at a conclusion.

The structure in Platos‘ society is tripartite and hierarchical, made up of the philosopher kings as rulers. The auxiliaries who will be in a sort of military role (prospective rulers) and the artisans (workers) who will produce all the consumable and non consumable goods deemed necessary for consumption and the continued economic viability of the society....cont'd

___________________________________________________________________________________________________


The New Revolution:

REALIZING THE NEW COMMONWEALTH

http://www.hermes-press.com/new_revolution.htm

[nashville_brook]

1. eh, the philosopher king thing looks good on paper (i guess)

just a quickie...

but in reality it would look a lot like a dictatorship.

the basic idea of the philosopher being fit for "ruling" is that they are supposedly "outside of the cave." a more contemporary analogy would be seeing the Matrix; taking the red pill. but -- that's not our problem right now. there's multiple Matrices, and most politicians (sophists) pick and choose which ones to adhere to depending on who is cutting the check that week.

plato held that if one knew the TRUTH, then they would act ethically. that unethical acts are all a function of ignorance.

i don't think that's enough for people any more. plenty of fuckurs in power act unethically with full knowledge -- so, i wouldn't remake democracy in the form of a knowledge-based hierarchy because i believe it wouldn't solve the problem.

add a capitalist critique to plato's philosopher king thingy and there might be something interesting to go on.

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. Xenophanes, a generation or two earlier...

...remarked that if oxen and horses had hands, and could fashion statues of their gods, they would give them horns and hooves.

Why would philosophers fashion their ideal states in a different fashion?

[Igel]

5. Precisely.

Why did Plato say the best ruler was a philosopher?

Because Plato was a philosopher, and in his humility could conceive of nobody better.

[nealmhughes]

3. Plato was horrid, idolized the Spartans for their "virtue" and the common folk

of Athens for their lack of "the right stuff."

His world of shadows on the cave is good stuff, but that's about it, the "forms" and after that, one can have him...

[LouisianaLiberal]

4. Here's an interesting fact:

Two of the twentieth century's Platonic scholars came to two very different conclusions:

One, Albert Schweitzer, who devoted his life to eliminating the suffering of others.

Two, Leo Strauss, who - well, he's the father of the neo-cons. Nuff said.

[lostinacause]

6. Academics generally make poor leaders. Philosophers make worse leaders then

people involved in the social sciences.