Republic, Plato

[Joakim]

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

[IrishCanadian]

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?

[The Unnamable]

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

[IrishCanadian]

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

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

[everyman]

"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.

[Joakim]

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

[Joakim]

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.

[Sami]

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.

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.

[Sami]

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?

[Xamonas Chegwe]

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.

[Sami]

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

[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.

[bluevictim]

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.

[mir]

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 . . .

[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."