Republic, Plato

There was a quote by plato that caught my attention

"There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers are kings in this world... Political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands" - Plato, republic

Im far from an expert on philosophy but I find it very interesting to try to understand what these according to many great thinkers of our time was really trying to say.

Do you think that his philosophy would be true even today?

Would be fun to hear if annyone has any ideas on the ancient greeks ;)

Politics being a form of philospphy of course this would still be true today. However I somehow think that being a polititian did not make someone a philosopher in Plato's mind. ;) But yes, today political power and pphilosophy do come in the same hands. Otherwise there would be no debate of moral issues in political gatherings. Unfortunately I don't tend to agree with all the philosophies of our modern poloticians. So in that sence Plato was wrong I suppose. haha. But really, I don't know, what do you think Joakim?

Isn’t Politics the least convincing of the Performing Arts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

Isn’t Politics the least convincing of the Performing Arts?

---

Hahahaha. As a drama major i can vouch for that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joakim

"There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers are kings in this world... Political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands" - Plato, republic

;)

---

Some understanding of Plato's philosophy outlined in the Republic would provide better understanding when considering this quote and attempting to apply it in a contemporary context. The Philosopher Kings, for Plato, were chosen among a military class known as Auxiliaries, who in turn ruled over a productive/serf class. Philosopher Kings devoted their lives to ruling the Polis by contintually grasping "forms", or eternal truths, that they could then implement and enforce upon the city state. In essence, Plato's Philosopher Kings are akin to a ruling oligarchy, which runs politically and philosophiccaly in opposition to today's Western liberal democracies.

Well, I would have to say that politics does preach morals that is questionable today in a way that philosophy does not.

Philosophy would be about knowing and being able to see what there is while politics has become more of a way of making the mass go in a way that would be most beneficial for themselves economicaly.

Since we do live in an economical society money has today become politics, and politics follows the cashflow of modern corporations. Thus corporations today abuse their influence on politics to adapt the law itself to whatever is most beneficial at the moment with little or no regard for consequenses in the long run.

I wont get into modern politics more than this, I know I am not suposed to talk about that in this forum but I felt I had to say this in order to define the change that has been taking place over the years. This may offcourse be argued but lets not make a debate about it.

Plato on the other hand made the comparison of a prisoner being locked in a cave facing the wall his entire life with the sun in his back only able to see the shadow of what passed the entrance of the cave.
I dont know if you have read it and its too long to quote here, but the comparison was about the sensation that he felt when he suddenly realized that everything he had taken for granted was merely the shadow of something else.

In the same way politicans today have a hard time seeing what the content of their actions actually reflects on the people itself compared to a person that understands.

And if so, who is more fit to govern the laws and rules in this society.

If I am not making sense please let me know, I wont be offended I promise ;)

Everyman, could you then not asume that if politics has been ruled by military powers for so long it's main purpose has been to reward aggression in both military and economical sense.
Meaning today in many countries a person is meassured and rewarded by terms of succes and an aggressive nature is often beneficial.
By aggression I do not mean physical force alone, but for example being able to make akward decissions as a leader by laying off individuals to promote economical growth for example.

Unaware if the correct sollution to a specific situation is or is not the action taken, but may apear stronger as a person and directly beneficial but unaware of the long term dissadvantage of that specific way of solving a problem.

Im being contemporary again, or close.

Quote:

---

The Philosopher Kings, for Plato, were chosen among a military class known as Auxiliaries, who in turn ruled over a productive/serf class.

---

The rulers of the regime are originally drawn from among the warrior class – this entire group is initially called “guardians”. However, the guardians then divide into two groups, rulers or philosophers who are the “true guardians”, and soldiers who are called “auxiliaries” after this point because they aid or help the rulers. I think that the point here is to draw attention to the relation between political rule and military rather than arguing that they are the same thing.

Quote:

---

In essence, Plato's Philosopher Kings are akin to a ruling oligarchy, which runs politically and philosophiccaly in opposition to today's Western liberal democracies.

---

When Oligarchies are discussed later on in the book, it seems that Plato is referring, not just to rule by an elite, but more specifically an elite who are rich and take wealth as their main aim and claim to rule. So, I’m not sure whether the phil-kings appear as an oligarchy in this sense because of the whole argument about abolishing private property for the ruling classes in this, supposedly, ideal regime.

Quote:

---

Isn’t Politics the least convincing of the Performing Arts?

---

Isn’t this one of Plato’s main points in this book? Politics and sophistry can persuade, but only philosophy can convince? A philosopher-king is a model of power united with true knowledge rather than shifting opinion?

One of the fascinating things about “The Republic” is how it shows that being convinced of something is not separate from art/poetry/literary forms. The allegories, myths, and even the dialogic form of the book itself, are integral to the message that is being given to the reader. Socrates criticizes the poets, while Plato himself uses poetic devices throughout the text. So, the debate about the relationship between language/literature and power creeps back in here again (sorry!).

By the way, I’m a bit surprised that no one had yet mentioned Socratic irony – isn’t this an important point for grasping the meaning of the philosopher-king?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sami

By the way, I’m a bit surprised that no one had yet mentioned Socratic irony – isn’t this an important point for grasping the meaning of the philosopher-king?

---

Can you please explain your understanding of Socratic irony? I'm not really clever enough to understand it unless it's in easy words. :nod:

It’s not something I’ve really thought about much so I should probably let someone else have a crack at the definition. :)

weren't there a couple of kings in Rome who really were like philosopher-kings? ex. Alexander the great (he was taught by Plato at least and adopted a lot of his ideas) and another king who really was a sort of philosopher-king - i keep on thinking Augustus but he was later. anyone know anything about Roman history? i have a test on friday and have taken all the notes but i'm having trouble putting all the pieces together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mir

weren't there a couple of kings in Rome who really were like philosopher-kings? ex. Alexander the great (he was taught by Plato at least and adopted a lot of his ideas) and another king who really was a sort of philosopher-king - i keep on thinking Augustus but he was later. anyone know anything about Roman history? i have a test on friday and have taken all the notes but i'm having trouble putting all the pieces together.

---

You're probably thinking of Marcus Aurelius, who was an Emporer of Rome in the second century AD. He wrote a famous book of "Meditations".

Alexander the Great was not a king of Rome. He was a Macedonian who conquered much of the Middle East and spread Greek culture to what would later become the eastern part of the Roman Empire. He was tutored by Aristotle, who was once a student of Plato.

yeah . . . ouch. hello, Mr. History test, Alexander's a king of Rome. it might have been Marcus Aurelius - though i think i might have been thinking about someone earlier . . .

Interestingly, James Madison borrowed from Plato on the notion of leadership---that is, the only way for the polis to flourish is when "disinterested" leaders, individuals who must be compelled to serve out of duty, not personal ambition, unlike our leaders today. Plato's leaders were, thus and rightly, "Statesman."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

Can you please explain your understanding of Socratic irony? I'm not really clever enough to understand it unless it's in easy words. :nod:

---

I think what the post is saying about Platonic irony is that Plato was a Philosopher capital "P" AND he's calling for a philosopher-king in his political scheme. Another use of Platonic irony is where Plato starts from the premise that he "knows nothing" yet beats everybody into submission via discourse, as if there is a Rational telos functioning outside him, speaking through him. Maybe not so ironical when you think about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

Interestingly, James Madison borrowed from Plato on the notion of leadership---that is, the only way for the polis to flourish is when "disinterested" leaders, individuals who must be compelled to serve out of duty, not personal ambition, unlike our leaders today. Plato's leaders were, thus and rightly, "Statesman."

---

that lead to the idea of the Roman dictators appointed during times of war, riight? i don't beleive that they wanted power, but did wonderfully - better than an permenant leader who wanted the spot probably would have - when it was pressed upon them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

Interestingly, James Madison borrowed from Plato on the notion of leadership---that is, the only way for the polis to flourish is when "disinterested" leaders, individuals who must be compelled to serve out of duty, not personal ambition, unlike our leaders today. Plato's leaders were, thus and rightly, "Statesman."

---

that lead to the idea of the Roman dictators appointed during times of war, riight? i don't beleive that they wanted power, but did wonderfully - better than an permanent leader who wanted the spot probably would have - when it was pressed upon them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mir

that lead to the idea of the Roman dictators appointed during times of war, riight? i don't beleive that they wanted power, but did wonderfully - better than an permanent leader who wanted the spot probably would have - when it was pressed upon them.

---

That's right, the constitution was suspended and the newly installed dictator was assigned a specific task. Interestingly the dictator had to be a former member of the consul, so I'm not so sure how "disinterested" he might have actually turned out to be considering he had been a career politician! :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

I think what the post is saying about Platonic irony is that Plato was a Philosopher capital "P" AND he's calling for a philosopher-king in his political scheme. Another use of Platonic irony is where Plato starts from the premise that he "knows nothing" yet beats everybody into submission via discourse, as if there is a Rational telos functioning outside him, speaking through him. Maybe not so ironical when you think about it.

---

You're confusing Plato and Socrates.

Firstly, I'm sorry but i don't fully understand your post - Plato was a Philosopher capital "P"? quoi?

At any reate, I do not beleive there was such thing as Platonic irony. What you seemed to be describing was Socratic Irony, which no one has seemed to define yet.

Socratic Irony or Socratic method - same thing - was how Socrates taught his philosophies to the people. He would stand in the square and generate discussions with people. Yet, when someone would ask him a question, he would never give an answer but merely respond with a question - thereby prompting the person to further examine the question they asked. The questions Socrates asked would help guide the other person down the path which Socrates wanted him to follow, and eventually, it would have looked as if the person had taught themselves something when in fact Socrates had taught him/her (it was ancient Athens, so probably not her)..

I'm using Plato as Philosopher capital "P" in two ways. First, Philosopher pertains to the small group of men (& women...yes, women could become philosopher-kings too!) who endured years of training in both schooling and life and were selected because they carried the genetic predisposition for being a statesman. Plato doesn't actually use that language but he comes close enough. Plato saw himself as Philosopher in this scheme based first and foremost on the body of work he produced which emphasizes the role of philosopher in the world - the person who does not wish to lead but commanded to do so. Before Athens put Socrates to death, Plato had ambitions to serve in the Athenian government and withdraws all such intention. Second, Plato is the architect of the tripartite design he constructs of the ideal city-state in The Republic. I wouldn't be so hasty to discount Plato's involvement in...ahem...his own writing.

The criticism Plato (through Socrates) wages against democratic rule, which is also an example of Plato's intellectual schema, with the philosopher at the apex. The Republic is full of such symbolism. Consider the opening line of the book:

Socrates: I went Socrates went down to Pireaeus yesterday with Glaucon...

He's going "down," down where the vermin reside, the ill-informed, the demos. Socrates starts from "up" which is the pure, perfect world of the Forms. To go down is allegorical for "falling" into a corrupt world.

A little further down the first page Socrates and Cephalus are accosted by Polemarcus:

Polemarcus said, "Socrates, I guesss you two are hurrying to get away to town."
That's not a bad guess," I said.
Well," Polemarcus said, "do you see how many of us there are?"
"Of course."
"Well, then, either prove stronger than these men or stay here. "Isn't there still one other possibility...," (Socrates) I said, "our persuading you that you must let us go?"
"Could your really persuade," he said, "if we don't listen?"
"There's no way," said Glaucon

Note Polemarchus says "how many of us..." and posing the question, "If we don't listen?" Plato believed the essence of democracy was political apathy, another potshot at the impoverishment of intellect.

Neither Socrates nor Polemarcus mention anything about intellect, but you can see that is clearly what "Plato" is suggesting---it's the philosophers against the rest of the world, and it is my belief that Plato is asserting himself as the Godhead.
-----------

Foundational to the claim of Plato as Philosopher, capital "P", is a school of thought that argues that Socrates is Plato's mouthpiece (Plato writes the Apology after Socrates was executed and if my memory serves me correct, there is some evidence that suggests Plato was not in attendance the day Socrates' defense. At any rate, it's not a transcript---it's Plato's version of the actual events, even if he attended the trial. I am aware that Xenophon elsewhere collaborates some of what's stated in Plato regarding the trial). Again, Plato is an active participant in the dialogues.

As to the "Socratic Method, it is dialectical and involves two or more "interlocutors" with one directing the dialogue questioning the others all in an effort to "consider" the foundations of the argument at hand - its root assumptions, axioms, and precepts against which the stated knowledge is eventually deemed to be untrue. Your definition of Socratic irony is dubious. First, you claim that Socrates guides the person down the path "Socrates wanted him to follow." That's not necessarily true. Socrates asserts his own ignorance as the basis for assuming an "objective" role as examiner. The assumption here is not that Socrates necessarily knows "the answer" to his own questions, but that the totality of answers are inconsistent with the knowledge claim. Note that not every dialogue finishes with Socrates "winning the argument." In fact, many dialogues leave the overarching truth or falsity unanswered or unresolved, dialectic at its finest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

That's right, the constitution was suspended and the newly installed dictator was assigned a specific task. Interestingly the dictator had to be a former member of the consul, so I'm not so sure how "disinterested" he might have actually turned out to be considering he had been a career politician! :lol:

---

Wait, what? what about that guy . . . dang, i forget his name, but his is a really famous story; he was a farmer, and both consuls somehow got trapped in positions where they couldn't direct, and a war was going on, so they went to this guy and asked for help. he defeated the attackers in just a few weeks, and then travelled around the country holding victory clebrations, and then went right back to farming. but i guess he could have been a former member of the consul . . . i just can't see a patrician farming.
:goof:

Quote:

---

Plato believed the essence of democracy was political apathy, another potshot at the impoverishment of intellect.

---

I wonder if Plato’s point is a bit broader than this. The problem with democracy is not only apathy, but that it values freedom without drawing any distinctions or standards. His view of democracy is of a situation where anything goes, and all views are seen as equally valid. (Actually, this point seems to come up time and again in the discussions of literature in this forum!). For Plato, the lack of standards in democracy opens the door to tyranny because its laziness/apathy and willingness to include all perspectives can’t guard against absolute power. He seems to be showing that the tyranny of the majority is dangerous becuase it involves a lack of judgement.

Quote:

---

He's going "down," down where the vermin reside, the ill-informed, the demos. Socrates starts from "up" which is the pure, perfect world of the Forms. To go down is allegorical for "falling" into a corrupt world.

---

Doesn’t the allegory of the cave, later on in the book, show the released prisoner going back down the cave? I think this might suggest that Plato sees a connection between philosophy and what you’re calling the world of “vermin”. If philosophical knowledge could be completed in isolation from the world of power/politics then why doesn’t Plato have the prisoner remain outside the cave? Socrates' aim is to educate and he does this by engaging with others, not separating himself from them. Maybe there's a sense in which the philosopher needs the masses in order to test or complete his/her own knowledge? Although Plato is critical of the lack of education, I'm not sure he sees the "demos" in quite such a derogatory way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sami

I wonder if Plato’s point is a bit broader than this. The problem with democracy is not only apathy, but that it values freedom without drawing any distinctions or standards. His view of democracy is of a situation where anything goes, and all views are seen as equally valid. (Actually, this point seems to come up time and again in the discussions of literature in this forum!). For Plato, the lack of standards in democracy opens the door to tyranny because its laziness/apathy and willingness to include all perspectives can’t guard against absolute power. He seems to be showing that the tyranny of the majority is dangerous becuase it involves a lack of judgement.



Doesn’t the allegory of the cave, later on in the book, show the released prisoner going back down the cave? I think this might suggest that Plato sees a connection between philosophy and what you’re calling the world of “vermin”. If philosophical knowledge could be completed in isolation from the world of power/politics then why doesn’t Plato have the prisoner remain outside the cave? Socrates' aim is to educate and he does this by engaging with others, not separating himself from them. Maybe there's a sense in which the philosopher needs the masses in order to test or complete his/her own knowledge? Although Plato is critical of the lack of education, I'm not sure he sees the "demos" in quite such a derogatory way.

---

That's exactly why philosopher-kings are necessary in the city-state. They perform task begrudgingly, yet dutifully. Philosophers would rather be contemplating the forms and Plato recognizes that everyone can't be philosophers, and while it's true he's not openly derogatory, the structure of his government places the majority of the population into menial jobs and keeps they out of government. If he's not derogatory, then why doesn't he entrust them with political power?? At the same time, he recognizes the imperfection of the state and bases its structure on a perfect soul, but is very clear that imperfection is a natural condition and therefore the state must be parsed to maximize its best...and worst parts. The aim is not collective enlightenment - the auxillary and workers are "cut out" for what they do, there is no graduating to the next social class, which again, is based strictly on intelligence or lack thereof.

One of the reasons for banning the poet is that Plato didn't believe people had the insight to prevent their influence. Poets stood to misguide the masses and therefore they had to be banned, period. Athens lost against the Spartans, something had to be done to bridle the masses. This couldn't be more anti-democratic and vulgar. Just because Plato is educating people doesn't mean he accepts them. Look at the myths he says he'll use to convince the masses---Men of gold, men of iron, men of silver. Oh, guess who the "gold" ones are? Philosophers.

I appreciate your point jon1jt, but I don’t think you and I are reading this book in the same way. I don’t think that the city constructed on the basis of the idea that everyone is either gold, silver, bronze, is intended as a literal instruction for how to go about living a just life. It certainly can be read literally as you seem to be doing. However, this produces some political conclusions that I find very disturbing to say the least. I think that the portrait of the city, including the censorship of poetry that you mention in your post, carries an ironic meaning. It’s intended to be a provocative insight into the dangers of absolute power. The whole thing is an exercise in Socratic irony.

My understanding of the basis of Platonic political system is such:

His theory of worker, soldier, guardian (philosopher Kings) came from his "tripartie" theory. This states that the soul is devided up into three parts, reason, appetite and spirit.

He beleived that in order for the soul to reach its full potential, reason must be governing and balancing the other two. So he transfered these to the different roles in society. His society isn't the most sound there is, but idealy, if people followed the rules - the workers worked, the soldiers protected, the Philosopher Kings ruled, then the world would be perfectly balanced and there would not be any problems or wars or the like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sami

I appreciate your point jon1jt, but I don’t think you and I are reading this book in the same way. I don’t think that the city constructed on the basis of the idea that everyone is either gold, silver, bronze, is intended as a literal instruction for how to go about living a just life. It certainly can be read literally as you seem to be doing. However, this produces some political conclusions that I find very disturbing to say the least. I think that the portrait of the city, including the censorship of poetry that you mention in your post, carries an ironic meaning. It’s intended to be a provocative insight into the dangers of absolute power. The whole thing is an exercise in Socratic irony.

---

I can't claim to have read The Republic with great care, but I completely missed this irony you're talking about. Are you sure you're not just trying to make some of the less enligtened Platonic ideas palatable to yourself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sami

I appreciate your point jon1jt, but I don’t think you and I are reading this book in the same way. I don’t think that the city constructed on the basis of the idea that everyone is either gold, silver, bronze, is intended as a literal instruction for how to go about living a just life. It certainly can be read literally as you seem to be doing. However, this produces some political conclusions that I find very disturbing to say the least. I think that the portrait of the city, including the censorship of poetry that you mention in your post, carries an ironic meaning. It’s intended to be a provocative insight into the dangers of absolute power. The whole thing is an exercise in Socratic irony.

---

Scores of journal articles delineate a totalitarian thread that runs through the Republic and other dialogues. Aristotle shares in this criticism in his Politics and it's no surprise that Aristotle's system is the more palatable one to modern political sensibilities. I'm not sure what you mean by "literal interpretation" because Plato's city-state IS on its face an anti-democratic enterprise. I also don't quite understand your point about the book being a "provocative insight into the dangers of absolute power." Why do you suppose Plato never followed his ambitions to serve in Athenian politics, a once bastion of absolute democracy? Consider the historical context in which the Republic was written, the Spartans defeated Athens in that little Peloponnesian War. He even lambasts Homer! I point you to his Epistles where its evident totalitarianism is fundamental to his belief in the statesman as the stabling force in the polis. Plato's political construct tries to freeze the unfolding of history by taking Hegel's Geist (Spirit) out of the political, social, and economic ethos. I'm not sure to what extent Plato actually believed he could subvert it, but his Republic is a testament to the belief that Spirit is managable under the proper conditions. The Myth of Metals is parsed into three "classes" and each class serves a vital "function", which DARNEY lays out nicely. This functionalist aspect has sort of a Marxist ring to it, don't you think?

blp: No, I’m not sure in the sense of being certain that I have the right answer about this book. But I do see plenty of evidence that undermines the idea that the city is intended as a guide for a regime that Plato thinks we ought to put into practice.

For example, the levels of the city and the soul don’t fit together – there is not a direct correspondence between them. The city has three parts that are represented by three metals. Each person is said to have one metal in his/her soul that determines his/her place in the regime. At various points in the book the reader is told that this city is just because each part does its own task. However, the argument about the just soul involves the claim that we all have three parts that ought to work together in a balanced hierarchy. This balance would not be possible in a regime that treats all people, including the gold rulers, as if they had only one aspect. So, the just soul is not a practical possibility in the supposedly just city.

Jon1jt: Unlike you, I’m afraid I haven’t read “scores of journal articles” about Plato, but I am aware of the type of interpretations you’re referring to. There are also other interpretations of the book that point out some of the problems with viewing the city as a practical suggestion. E.g. some of them discuss the lack of correspondence between the city and the just soul.

By the way, you make some interesting points in your last post. I really hadn’t thought of the noble falsehood as having a functionalist, “Marxist ring to it”. The idea of people being born with different natural abilities, and the idea that this should be reflected in hierarchical social structures, would be very opposed to Marx’s egalitarian view of human nature wouldn't it?

Quote:

---

His society isn't the most sound there is, but idealy, if people followed the rules - the workers worked, the soldiers protected, the Philosopher Kings ruled, then the world would be perfectly balanced and there would not be any problems or wars or the like.

---

One other thing: If war has no place in the ideal, then wouldn't this make the soldier class unemployed? Wouldn't this make the structure UNbalanced?

As to the potential for war, because the society of the Republic is closed, there would be no dependency on the outside world. He's concerned about those city-states governed differently and that have a proclivity for war.

"FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED ..."
I was trying to make the link to that "function" in the Marx sense which is directly tied to economic need, whereas for Plato what matters above all is for people to be groomed for their class accordingly.

Yes, I agree Plato IS concerned about the question of war, and I think he does want his reader to think about what type of war would count as just.
But I don’t follow your idea that the Republic is “closed”. The book includes a clear discussion of wars, and claims that war with foreign enemies is a natural and necessary aspect of the regime. Here Plato is not expressing his point directly. He has Socrates present an extreme/provocative example to draw attention to the issue of war/relations between different regimes.

Quote:

---

"FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED ..."
I was trying to make the link to that "function" in the Marx sense which is directly tied to economic need, whereas for Plato what matters above all is for people to be groomed for their class accordingly.

---

Very sorry but I don’t understand this point. How are they linked other than the idea that both discuss a division of labour somewhere in their work?

Please disregard this post - mistake.

About the Marx reference, I meant that Marx is concerned with the self only insofar as individual function is tied to "need" but more importantly to social order. In other words, Marx is not concerned with what people do for a living, so long as the output contributes to the larger social purpose. In Plato, we have this notion of "function" determined by intellect but directed toward social order as well. In both systems, function is more or less predetermined.