The Philosopher King.

Some of you that have a read certain writings of Plato must have remenber the idea of the Philosopher king. Here is a brief:

To Plato it seemed natural that competence should be the qualification for authority. The ruler of the state should be the one who has the peculiar abilities to fulfill that function. Disorder in the state is caused by circumstances that produce disorder in the individual.

In both the individual and the state the uncontrolled drives of the appetites (desires) and the spirited action lead to internal anarchy. So who should rule the state? Should it be someone whose training in war or commerce? "The ruler" said Plato, "should be the one who has been fully educated, and has come to understand the difference between visible world and the intelligent world" (meaning the real problems and problems that can be predicted)

There is more to the Philosopher King, but to keep this short. Who do you think should rule the state? Those individuals that are highly educated? Or those that are highly skill in different trades?

To make it easier who should rule the state? The Academic indivuals (intellectuals) or those that know about commerce? (business people) or those skill at war? (military) Which of these examples is the Philosopher King?

Comments?

well in YOUR opinion Plato is the Philosphy King...but IMO Horace is the Philosophy king...
my reason for that is because he said the idea of Moderation. Everything should be done in moderation. Even a mothers love should be done in moderation.

also IMO i think government should be done with a Monarchy run my several intellectual individuals. One Ruler, but their are several senators that help the Ruler. SO it's basically like the ancient ruling in ROme...

sorry if i kinda went out of topic...ill post more comments later.

And intellectual "debate?" smartass

In my opinion, it has to be somebody that looks out for the little people. (Not midgets... you will see what I mean.) The people in this world that work the little jobs. The McDonalds employees, coffee shop folks, the variety store people, and the people that do all the little things.

The people that just scrape away all week. They deserve be the highlight of a newpaper. These people are what keeps society functioning.

Military... why? If there are states and provinces and such can get along, why not the world? Why not unite the world and travel to space? Can we not do it? Not individually, but I bet if we unite and have every scientist, engineers, mechanics, etc. work TOGETHER to make something happen, then why not? What is the worst that happens, we pass on what we know to our children to see what else is out there?

If it is imaginable, why not achievable?

Communism was a good idea gone bad 🙁

I never liked Plato much, myself. He has some good ideas, but he loses me with his metaphysics.

But to answer your question: I think academics should govern; they are more likely to be more widely qualified than business people (who are qualified in commerce and nothing else) or the military (who are qualified in war and nothing else). However, the rulers should have some sort of advisory body that includes representatives from all three classes.

has anyone read Horace's- The Goldean Mean

or anything else that talks about Moderation..

Damn thats pure genius.

Hockey Horror> No, I'm not saying that Plato is "The philosopher King", what I meant to say is that Plato "provides" the idea of a "Philosopher King". I'm not saying Plato is the philosophy king. Only Plato's writings provide the idea of Philosopher King.

Your point on "moderation" how does it apply to the state? Who should be the moderator? The citizens or the Philosopher King?.

Cyclops> Good point! But who manages and suports the working class? (i.e. the Proletariat) Can the intellectuals with their vast knowledge be able to keep the economy safe? Wouldn't the business man be more appropiate to command the work place, and at the same time maintain production? Which is the main function of survival for the workers?

Gregory> Yes, let's avoid Plato's Metaphysics (is too hard to discuss) When you mention representitives, are those individuals representing the will of the people in the state? How does The Philosopher King can govern if Senators or reprensentitives influence his/her decisions? If the Philosopher King is well educated does he/she still need people to aid in the decisions?

basically not to get to complex cuz im also doing homework on the side...
moderation is good for ALMOST everything.
if their is a government their should be moderation for everything..

like dont make your military power toooooo powerful than which leads to a bad economy...
wars are a no-no...

ill explain more later

Wasn't plato the guy who wrote about atlantis, and people dont know whether it actually existed or whether it was just an invention of his imagination

Whoever rules the state, it should be a self that is connected to friends, family and community, whose welfare may be more important to oneself than one’s own. One’ s moral obligations to them should be grounded in a broader conception of individuals within community and related social norms and cultural beliefs. Ideals should not be imposed, behavior not coerced and the search for truth not be stifled. Ethical norms and behavioral ideals should be freely embraced, motivation should grow out of authentic inner commitment, questioning and creativity should be encouraged. Followers should not be mere means to self-satisfying ends for the leader but should be treated as ends in themselves.
Values of honesty, loyalty and fairness, of justice, equality and human rights.

Quite idealistic, isn' t it 😮

Through Plato's similies, I gathered that he was rather biased, in implicating that the Philosopher is the most knowledgable? I guess we all have our own interpretations.
Like his "Sun" metaphore, reaching the top is like reaching pure knowledge. But who's to say what pure knowledge is?

Eg. Locke believed that our reason came from God but of course there would be a certain amount of non-believers who will disagree. Then again, if God gave us reason, we needn't have to believe in God because we have reason - bit of a contradiction there.

As for communism, the one Marx dreamt up sounded ideal - where everyone is equal. Countries such as China are communist countries, but the amount of exploitation there? They've completely ruined the idea of communism!

In my lecture a few days ago, we were discussing human rights. One guy was really convinced that if the leaders from each country were to meet and agree on what human rights were, we can live in peace. What a dreamer. In Britain, who is confident enough to have the current prime minister to decide what is a human right? There will always be rebels. E.g. in political groups, there are rebels.

Having lived all my life in a state where there is a sovereign (dont' know if I've even spelt that right, hardly do) I can't imagine what it'd be like to live without one. Sure, we may disagree with some of the laws, although the legal positivists would tell us a law is a law no matter how unethical it is (like Nazi Law). Then natural law - I'm not sure if I can agree with it entirely, a law is not a law unless it is ethical. I just can't nail it down - just yet. Give some ideas, it'd be helpful 😉

In a state with no sovereign - will there still be terrorist groups? Because that's a political thing isn't it? I think there will still be anti-social behaviour groups though e.g. KKK.

I'm probably not entirely correct, but feedback is appreciated, ta.

Originally posted by Gregory
I never liked Plato much, myself. He has some good ideas, but he loses me with his metaphysics.

But to answer your question: I think academics should govern; they are more likely to be more widely qualified than business people (who are qualified in commerce and nothing else) or the military (who are qualified in war and nothing else). However, the rulers should have some sort of advisory body that includes representatives from all three classes.

There is more to society then just Military, Intellictuals and Business. The head of state has to stand for everything, just make the final rule that which is best for 51% or more of the people.

Originally posted by eleveninches
Wasn't plato the guy who wrote about atlantis, and people dont know whether it actually existed or whether it was just an invention of his imagination

Thats the guy!

/\ Thought so

^ Do you know that from reading about it in a book, or from the disney movie? 😄

Originally posted by WindDancer

When you mention representitives, are those individuals representing the will of the people in the state?

Maybe representatives isn't the right word. They would simply be people with expertise in their fields who advise the rulers, much like th Cabnet in the USA.

How does The Philosopher King can govern if Senators or reprensentitives influence his/her decisions?

Competently, I hope. I'm not an expert, but I strongly suspect that most succesful governments have had advisors.

If the Philosopher King is well educated does he/she still need people to aid in the decisions?

Yes. Don't think that because somebody is well-educated, he is an expert in every area; in fact, that's more or less impossible, even if the ruler is some sort of genius.

Originally posted by Cyclops
^ Do you know that from reading about it in a book, or from the disney movie? 😄

From reading a book. 🙂

I havn't even ever seen the disney movie.

You guys are bringin very interesting comments regarding the Philospher King. 🙂

Let me add this to the discussion: As I understand Plato also believes that justice plays a key part in the state of the Philospher King. Justice in the state is just the same as justice in the individual (or the citizens of the state) It is the product of the peoplestaying in their place, and doing their special task. Justice is the harmony of the virtues of temperance, courage, and wisdom.

For example, even the craftsman must have the virtue of wisdom, not only to keep his appetites (desires) under control, but also to know that she/he rightly belongs where his/her position in the state belongs.

Since the Philosopher King is a highly educated ruler therefore his state must also be highly educated as well. If the citizens provide for the state, and follow the rules of the state then state is in harmony. But if the indivual allows his appetites (desires) to run wild within them. Then the citizen loses his balance, and can cause the state to have faults. Now of course this sounds near imposible, but what if the citizens are educated enough to not allowed their appetites to corrupt them?

Will this cause trouble for the Philosopher King? If every citizen follows the rules of the state, and do not allowed their appetites (desires) to corrupt them. Then is there a need for a ruler?

Originally posted by WindDancer

Will this cause trouble for the Philosopher King? If every citizen follows the rules of the state, and do not allowed their appetites (desires) to corrupt them. Then is there a need for a ruler?

If people were perfect, I wouldn't think they would need a ruler. But if they don't have a ruler to make laws, how can they follow the laws of the state? I'm confused.

Well, see that's what I was thinking. If the state was without flaws, and the citizens maintain a code of conduct. Would there be need for laws? The Philosopher King rules in the early stages of development of the State. As the State progresses into an orderly society would there be any need for laws? Why make laws when no one in the state would break them?

Of course humans are not perfect. But what if they were rule by an individual that was highly educated? I tend to think that if Philosopher King would rule a state it would be for a short time only. Because the way I see it he helps the state to progress into a better society. Kinda like an Utopia society.