The Impossibility of a Philosopher King

In “The Republic”, Plato introduces the idea of a leader that would rule the land more justly than anyone ever could; he refers to him as the Philosopher King. In this essay, I will argue the practical impossibility of a Philosopher ever being able to become a King. To do this, however, I will first mention Plato’s description of a perfectly just society. Consequently, I will mention how Plato’s perfect ruler promptly adheres to the requirements and characterizations of what is just and what is right. I will later go on to argue how this proposal is not only improbable but also absolutely impractical to implement society. Finally, I will attempt to exemplify the impossibility of a Philosopher ever getting to be a King through the life and practices of Socrates.

In Book II of the Republic, Plato mentions how the current politicians and leaders of a society are often praised for their riches and govern in relation to the preservation of them rather than for the good of society. He mentions how they are often praised “when they are rich or in any other way influential, while they despise and overlook those who may be weak and poor.” Hence, later on, Socrates and his colleagues begin a discussion on how the perfect society should be set up, and it is all centered upon the idea of justice. Consequently, in their endeavor to create such a community, they begin to think of an ideal ruler that would govern the state. They state that he should only govern based on what is right and what is just, rather than on his human instincts. Socrates suggests that the perfect guardians for a society are those “who in their whole life show the greatest eagerness to do what is for the good of their country, and the greatest repugnance to do what is against her interests.” This statement helps link the book’s next proposal for a person to fulfill the roles laid out for the guardians.

The main thesis throughout this text is to identify what is just and put it the center of how society should function to achieve perfection. In Book V of The Republic, Plato introduces a perfect being to fulfill the duties of a perfect ruler, that of the philosopher king. In other words, he presents the idea that a philosopher is the most apt person to rule over the state as perfectly and unadulterated as possible. He mentions, “Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy… cities will never have rest from their evils.” The reason for which he argues that a Philosopher King is the optimal governor is that he fulfills the requirements of he who shall govern for none other reason than what is right; he will not be adulterated by human passions. Socrates even proposes a prohibition to laughter for a “fit of laughter, which has been indulged to excess almost always produces a violent reaction.” Other than this, he also specifies a strict opposition for his consumption of alcohol, as “a guardian should be the last to get drunk and not know where in the world he is.” Hence, a Philosopher King is that ruler which will not give in to earthly and human temptations but rather would only care about doing what is just. This however is not as good as it sounds and causes many impediments for a Philosopher ever being able to become King.

The proposition of a Philosopher King is considered by many, including myself, as a practical impossibility in the society of mankind. First of all, we can mention that a philosopher in himself would never want to be king; he would not have the interest of going into the political life. This can be compared to the metaphor of the cave that is presented to us through book VII of The Republic. In this explanation, a group of men are chained to the bottom of a cave and live in a world where all they see are the shadows of objects, but rather one of the men gets loose of his restraints and eventually gets to admire the truth that these shadows are not real objects but rather the mere reflections caused by light. We can link this to the previous argument since, just as well as those who have seen the light are unwilling to go back into the darkness of the cave, those philosophers who have ultimately found the truth in the world are unwilling submit to the restricted capacities of an individual in the political life. In “A Beautiful City” it is argued that “ It would be an injustice to force the philosopher to return to the thoroughly philosophical cave.” Many scholars attribute this effect as the main impediment forever obtaining an perfect society. David Roochnik, who analyzed Plato’s work, mentioned, “The just city is not possible because of the philosophers’ unwillingness to rule.”

            Secondly we can argue that, in a common society, a philosopher would never be accepted or praised as king by the citizens of a state. The reason for which this occurs is that a philosopher in his reign would assume a tyrannical form of governance. Since he knows all the truth and acts affirmatively on what is just, he cares nothing about the opinions of the people and will do what he believes to be right. As is argued in An Introduction to Plato’s Republic, a philosopher king has no need for laws. It is mentioned, “everything we think of as a matter of law can be left to the judgment of the properly educated rulers.” People in general, of course, would not be pleased in having no say in deciding the laws that would govern over them. Furthermore, the people would not approve of the philosophers’ plan for a perfect society. Socrates argues that “justice is doing one’s own job”, in other words doing what you are supposed to do. Therefore, in the perfect community, a philosopher king must assure that every person has a role in society for none other reason than the ideal plan of the leader. This is, in itself, is regarded by Mark Blitz as the “noble lie”. It is regarded as such because of the fact that some people, in the real practice of politics, always end up receiving more while others receive less than they deserve or want. Blitz says “it is this distinction between truth and lie that makes the justice of philosophical rule so paradoxical.” However, this isn’t the last of the reasons that makes up for the explanation of the impossibility of a perfect ruler.

            A philosopher would not be accepted in society not only by the common citizen and the masses but also by the politicians who currently hold positions of government. Politicians’ main source of motivation is their ambition in the political world. These politicians value their current customs and practices and are not willing to introduce a new kind of ruler that will intentionally go against their wants only because he claims to know what is ultimately just. They view any attempt to change their way of life as one that should be shunned upon and put to a stop. This can be seen through Plato’s allegory of the cave as when the person who saw truth outside came back to tell the others of his wonderful discovery, the people inside ended up desiring to kill him. Plato mentions that “if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.” The mentioned circumstance assimilates to what happens to philosophers in everyday society. This is exemplified through the life of Socrates. His philosophical beliefs came into direct conflict with what the state had held as true and sacred. He heavily and thoroughly questioned the reason behind the beliefs of even the highest of the state’s scholars. For such a purpose, although he was predicating the truth and fomenting the pursuit knowledge, the state went after him up to the point of accusing him of “corrupting the youth.” As an outcome of the trial, the Athenian state ordered for the death of Socrates. This illustrates how the way of life of a philosopher is in no way accepted in society, and thus such a person could never become king.

            Through his text, the fact that Plato pointed out the Philosopher King as the ideal ruler of a state is none other than a complete criticism of how human society will never have such a thing as a perfect society. The impossibility of a philosopher being king is seen not only through logical explanations of their unwillingness to govern or the fact that people would not permit a philosopher ever to become king but also by the outcome of Socrates’ life of spreading his teachings. At most, what society should attempt to is having Kings that are guided and aided by philosophical minds who could balance the inadequately unjust rule of a tyrant with the just but rather unpopular opinions of a philosopher.

Word count: 1,522

Bibliography:

1.)   Plato. The Republic. 2nd ed. Trans. Desmond Lee. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1987.

2.)   An Introduction to Plato's Republic. Instituto do Desenvolvimento do Potencial Humano, 2002. Web.

3.)   Roochnik, David. Beautiful City: The Dialectical Character of Plato’s “Republic.” Cornell University Press. Ithaca & London. 2003. Print.

4.)   Blitz, Mark. Plato’s Political Philosophy. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore. 2010. Print.