In The Republic , Plato argues that kings should become philosophers or that philosophers should become kings, or philosopher kings, as they possess a special level of knowledge, which is required to rule the Republic successfully. To deal with the problem of justice, Plato considers the ideal polis, a collective unit of self-government, and the relationship between the structure of the Republic and the attainment of justice.
Plato argues that philosopher kings should be the rulers, as all philosophers aim to discover the ideal polis. Although theoretically it would be ideal if the Republic and the modern state were ruled by knowledge, and not power, power is crucial in the make-up of political activity.
At the same time, it is inevitable to pick out some features of the modern state congruent to those of the ideal polis. Nowadays, most modern states are democratic, in the sense that people have a say in the running of the state. To Plato, it all boils down to what democracy means, literally.
It should, Plato urges, be left to the experts. With this allegory, Plato is not only stressing the idea that specialization is key to the running of the Republic, but also that philosophers were unappreciated in BC Athens, and thus useless because the world would not use them and their knowledge. It also stresses the dangers of liberty and equality, as well as the unnaturalness of democracy. At the same time, philosophers must possess qualities that enable them to rule; for instance, they must be able to recognize the difference between friend and foe, good and bad.
Justice is a virtue, as is knowledge, which requires understanding. Understanding refers to goodness, and thus, knowledge and goodness are one. The treatment of his philosophical master, Socrates, under both oligarchy and democracy, was not encouraging; it was the latter form of rule that led to the frame-up trial which sentenced Socrates to execution by hemlock, which goes some distance to explaining the strong anti-democratic flavour of Plato's thought.
His own attempt to mold Dionysius the Younger of Syracuse into a sort of philosopher-king, was an abject failure. The youthful tyrant was addicted to luxury and the indulgence whim, and found his Greek visitor's epistemological advice tiresome.
Invoking this story, the critic Mark Lilla has thus spoken of "the lure of Syracuse": an irresistible temptation among certain intellectuals to set the political world to rights — usually with disastrous results.
These life-of-the-mind dabblers, philotyrants, betray their own philosophical commitments even as they wreak well-meant havoc on the ordinary citizen. The enlightened despot inevitably becomes a dangerous criminal lunatic. Or do he? It is easy to overestimate the impact of ideas on politics, and for every Stalin or Pol Pot in history, forcing his people in the Procrustean bed of ideology, history offers literally thousands of good or merely average leaders who muddled along to more or less positive effect.
As someone who professes the subject, I can tell you that most politicians, and most voters, have little real interest in political philosophy. Nobody has so far asked me, but I figure I have the answer to the problem of the philosopher-king. Don't worry, it's not to grant me absolute power, much as I might covet that on certain days. It is, instead, to borrow a page from a different, and more ironic, tradition of ancient wisdom than the Greek philosophers.
Jacques Derrida, puzzling over the problem of the modern university, suggested that the best course to follow was to have a philosopher in charge of each and every one of them. Some of my colleagues seem bent on making this happen: philosophers are over-represented in university administration.
But Derrida went on to note that no actual colleague, however brilliant, is sufficiently enlightened to qualify as a true philosopher. Therefore the chair of the university president should remain empty. The empty chair is a striking part of the ethic of hospitality enacted by the Seder dinner: a chair for the guest who may arrive at any moment, for whom a place must be kept. Although democracy is the most popular system in the modern day society, certain people like the NZ TV personality Paul Henry , feel that the majority is not educated or intelligent enough to rule themselves well.
Plato also saw a number of problems with the Greek democracy of the time. Plato felt that ordinary people are not experts and prone to making uninformed decisions. He also felt politics could attract power-seeking individuals, motivated by their personal gain rather than the public good, leading to corruption and tyranny. Plato concluded that politics requires expert and just rulers who are carefully selected and trained. In practical terms, his idea is very controversial and not feasible, but serves as a good illustration of the implications of rule by a chosen elite rather than by the people.
Plato believed there were three parts to a human soul and proposed that people would be divided into three classes, depending on which part of their soul is dominant. Plato believed that it is the philosophers who are capable of seeing the true forms see the theory of forms of goodness, virtue and justice.
They would also be able to understand that to live virtuously is the best kind of life and that virtue overrides self-interest. They would, therefore, be the best kind of rulers. Plato came up with a somewhat controversial system for his ideal republic. Children would be taken from their parents and raised by specialists to increase their loyalty to the state and feeling of community and to educate and monitor them.
They would later be divided into the three classes. The ones that show most promise at early stages would be given special education and a select few would become rulers. Having received their advanced education they would be funded by the state, live lives of contemplation and run the state out of feeling of duty, not a desire to rule. They would be granted no luxuries, bar a modest salary to prevent them from becoming greedy.
They would own no property and have no family. Other children would be raised to become workers and auxiliaries. To prevent class hatred, they would be told a myth that the gods made them with gold or silver or bronze in their constitution, and instructed the rulers to identify what class they belonged to.
0コメント