Plato certainly did have a particular (some would say peculiar) view of the state, and a view that had everything to do with his view of reality and knowledge. In the Republic Plato considered several political theories of his own time and rejected them. Whether or not we too reject them, it will do us no harm to review them. Moving from bad to worse, Plato first rejected timocracy, by which he meant the rule by those who are primarily motivated by ambition and honor. In such rulers, an inferior part of the soul, the spirited and emotional part, has gained dominance. He also rejected oligarchy or plutocracy, the rule by the rich. A preoccupation with wealth is even more base than a preoccupation with honor, and, moreover, the rule by the wealthy would inevitably bring about alienation and class warfare between ”the haves” and ”the have-nots.” Next he rejected democracy as yet a further degeneration of government, though he meant by this word something different from what we today understand by it. For Plato, in a smallish city-state like that of Athens, democracy meant the actual and equal participation of every citizen in the affairs of state, rather than participation by representation, But this is to reduce government to the lowest common denominator – as Plato saw it, when we have majority rule we have mob rule. Finally, and worst of all, Plato rejects despotism, or tyranny, or dictatorship, the absolute rule of a single individual. Of course there may be such a thing as a ”benevolent dictator,” but, Plato believed, never for long. According to Lord Acton’s famous saying, ”All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Eventually, such a ruler will be ruled by the very worst in himself, resulting in gross injustice and loss of the personal liberty that government ought to ensure. Well then, what? Plato’s answer: aristocracy. Again, however, Plato did not mean by this term what is today usually meant. When we hear the word ”aristocracy” we think of the nobility class, as in the expression ”the landed aristocracy.” But the word itself simply means ”rule of the best,” and that is exactly what Plato favored – the rule of the best. And who are the best? Those who are enlightened with regard to reality, truth, and goodness. And who are these? Why, philosophers, of course – those who have emerged from the darkness of the Cave and have beheld the Good. Plato himself calls this the central thesis of the Republic: ”Philosophers must be kings.” A philosopher-king. It is difficult to say just how seriously one is to take Plato’s proposal, though it is known that he himself tried to implement such a philosopher- kingship in Syracuse. But taking it as seriously as we can, not everyone will be thrilled with the announcement that philosophers must rule over the rest. In the first place, not everyone shares a Platonic conception of reality, truth, etc., and thus not everyone could agree with Plato as to just who the true philosophers are. Furthermore, any form of intellectual aristocracy would fail to gain the consent of a large segment of a society which is always suspicious of the ”egghead” elite. You may have heard the pronouncement: ”I would rather be governed by the first twenty names in the Boston telephone directory than all the professors at Harvard.”
Posted on: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 09:00:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015