Divine Light: Plato's Endorsement of Rule by Philosopher-King's - Samuel Spound

“Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one…cities will never have rest from their evils.” - Plato

Socrates, as Plato’s protagonist of The Republic, undertakes the herculean task of outlining an ideal state. His lengthy exercise with the characters Thrasymachus, a sophist, and Glaucon, a wealthy merchant, lead him to speak, among many other topics, of a hypothetical philosopher-king who would best rule Kallipolis. Plato, as argued through Socrates, believed that a state in the hands of common men, or of the Machiavellian sophists who represented them, would inevitably be steered to ruin. This article demonstrates Plato’s argument that the rule of philosopher-kings is the best form of government because it avoids the pitfalls of rule by the demos, it is led by him who is least ambitious, and, underpinning the former two, it is led by him who is most rational and virtuous. As argued by Plato, the wise philosopher who selflessly answers the call of duty, rather than lusting after power, will bring harmony to a state because he can see matters most dispassionately, truthfully, and lucidly.

The context of Plato’s life elucidates why he reached the above thesis. He was born around 428 B.C. after the commencement of the Peloponnesian War.

In his youth, he observed the triumph of Sparta over Athens and was even related to some of “the Thirty” Spartan tyrants who collectively presided over Athens after their victory. He was influenced by many earlier philosophers including Pythagoras and Heraclitus, but none had a greater effect on him than his mentor, Socrates. According to Plato, “Socrates was unique as a teacher in refusing to accept payment, in refusing to put his talents to … [argue] in the assembly or courts, and… in his method of careful questioning of anyone reputed to possess either knowledge or virtue.”

In 399 B.C., Socrates was condemned to death by Athenian magistrates for impiety and corrupting the youth; Plato bore witness to this travesty. These formative experiences made him critical of Athenian democracy, best described by Pericles as “justice…in the hands of the many”. The Republic is an overt display of scepticism against this popular rule and an endorsement of government by the objective, temperate, courageous, and wise few.

The concept of a philosopher-king fits in with Plato’s idea of the “just State”: in this Kallipolis, every person undertakes an allocated role based on what they are qualified to do; society is strictly regimented along a caste-like hierarchy. Those possessing the abovementioned qualities are preordained to govern. Yet such qualities are incredibly rare; they can only be found in the most philosophical and rational minority, not in the common man. Neither can they be found in Sophists: for-profit rhetoricians who were the main antagonists of Socrates in his life and The Republic. While Sophists are individuals, rule by them would still not satisfy Plato’s vision as “Sophists…in fact, teach nothing but the opinion of the many.”

Therefore, for Plato, the ethos of the masses and the Sophists are to be viewed interchangeably. As phrased by Glaucon, “certain professors of education must be wrong when they put a knowledge into the soul which was not there before, like sight into blind eyes.” For the author and his protagonist, knowledge cannot be bought, sold or inserted by someone else; it must be attained by a rare and virtuous rationality that looks beneath the façade of mere being to comprehend the true form of things. This knowledge is not found in the masses of men, or in Sophists who argue on their behalf; “to them... the truth would be literally nothing but shadows of the images.” Therefore, rule by philosopher-kings is ideal, because rule by common men connotes rule by those lacking true knowledge.

These same common men whom Plato discredits are those who yearn to rule most.

He recognized that those most hungry for dominion are least fit for it and perceived the power-hungry agenda of the Sophists who avariciously charged their pupils and stomped out Socrates’ free-thinking. Plato argues that rule by the reluctant and disinterested is best because they will not abuse the power bestowed upon them. Philosopher-kings, in particular, best represent this quality as their minds are “fixed upon true being,” and “surely [have] no time to look down upon the affairs of earth, or be filled with malice and envy, contending against men”. Despite their preoccupation with divine ideals, their nobility will impel them to abandon their solitude and guide the masses of mankind along as their political leader. In the allegory of the cave, as will be further discussed, the freed prisoner voluntarily descends back into the cave to liberate his former comrades and enlighten them to the true nature of things. Though he learned to thrive in the bright domain of the sun, this man (purportedly Socrates) sacrificed his own self-interest in the service of disseminating truth to others. It is implied that if philosopher-kings were self-serving, they would never engage in affairs of state –with prisoners of the cave – which they view to be trivial compared to the divine pursuit of truth, beauty, justice, and courage. Therefore, rule by a philosopher-king is best because he knows that power is not the ultimate end; he has an eye beyond such mundane and earthly things, towards divine light.

Lastly, Plato argues that rule by philosopherkings is best because they are the most wise, competent, and objective. This idea is most important and underpins the former two since wisdom and clarity cannot be found in the mediocre hordes of common men or in those who make power the object of their aim. Socrates declares that “no state can be happy which is not designed by artists who imitate the heavenly pattern” and philosophers are the few mortals amongst men who can perceive and imitate said pattern; that is why they should be made kings. As previously touched upon, the allegory of the cave sees a group of “human beings living in an underground den… [since] childhood, and have their legs and necks chained before them… behind them a fire is blazing at a distance,” so they can see the silhouettes of objects passing behind them, illuminated by the fire on the cave wall. Prisoners perceive these shadows to be the very objects themselves and Socrates likens the “prison-house to the world of sight, the light of the fire is the light of the sun.” When one of these prisoners attains the means to leave the cave, he is blinded by the sun and the clarity of real forms, but eventually, he acclimates to life on the surface and is instead enabled to see by the clarity of the sun. His ability to acclimate to surface life represents his profound wisdom, the surface world itself represents the dimension of imperceptible beauty, truth, and knowledge, behind the mirage of human awareness, (laid out in the theory of forms), and the bright sun is “the good”. This man, the philosopher-king, is able to perceive the true form of things, whereas the lot of humanity, still stuck in the cave, believes their perception of shadows to be the most accurate experience of reality. With his knowledge, the philosopher-king, if trusted, could help the prisoners out of the cave and, at least partially, reveal to them the true nature of reality; therefore, the powers of state ought to be entrusted to him as the most competent and insightful individual.

Since philosopher-kings can perceive the true nature of forms, government by them is the ideal kind, according to Plato. The basis of this wisdom differentiates them from all others and enables them to reside above the domain of earthly power. Sophists are unable to achieve this task and must rightly be regarded as faux-philosophers “who aspire after a profession which is above them and [of] which they are unworthy.” The ineptitudes of these common men are enough to impel the philosopher to leave his contemplative existence in the domain of the sun and descend upon the affairs of state, whereby he might lead masses as the wisest among them. Therefore, Plato believes more truth is to be found in the individual judgement of philosopher-kings than in public opinion and endorses an illiberal government led by them.

References

Boas, G. (1948). ‘Fact and Legend in the Biography of Plato’, The Philosophical Review, 57(5), 439–57. doi: 10.2307/2181715

Lane, Melissa. (2003). ‘Socrates and Plato: An Introduction’, in Christopher Rowe and Malcolm Schofield (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought (pp. 155-63). Cambridge University Press.

Plato (2011), Book I- VII. In Benjamin Jowett (Tr.) The Republic (pp. 3-108). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Thucydides. (1996) , ‘Pericles’ Funeral Oration’, Richard Hooker (Tr.) University of Minnesota Human Rights Library, Available at: http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/thucydid es.html.

Wikipedia contributors. (2023, December 24). Leonidas Drosis. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved December,2023 from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L eonidas_Drosis&oldid=1191525277.