The Philosopher Ruler

The Philosopher Ruler

Definition of the Philosopher – His natural qualities

· The philosopher is in love with truth, not with the changing world of sensation, which is the object of opinion. He is interested in the unchanging reality which is the object of knowledge.

· Those who are only interested in the changing world of the senses are called ‘sightlovers’ and Plato likens them to blind men who have no true knowledge of reality, and no clear standard of perfection in their mind to which they can turn to and study before laying down rules of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. These sightlovers are not fit to be guardians nor rulers of Plato’s ideal society

· The philosopher will never willingly tolerate an ‘untruth’. He will hate falsehood.

· His pleasures will be in things purely of the mind, and physical pleasures will pass him by.

· He will be self controlled, and not grasping about money.

· He will not be petty, as this trait is incompatible with the constant attempt to grasp things, divine or human, in their entirety.

· He won’t think death anything to be afraid of.

· A well-balanced man, who is neither mean nor ungenerous, nor beastly nor cowardly.

· He must have a good memory and be very willing and capable of learning.

How should Philosophers be educated?

· As children they are only to be taught the amount of philosophic training their age can stand.

· As they grow, they should devote a great deal of time and attentions to their body

· As their minds mature, they’re mental training is to be intensified

· Once they’re strength fails, they will devote their main energies to philosophy.

Corruption of the Philosopher

· The fact that philosophers are of a better quality than normal makes them more susceptible to a poor environment. Eg. A rose is likely to perish in bad soil, whereas a weed shall continue to thrive.

· Their qualities natural leave them liable to become corrupted, especially if these qualities are coupled with good looks, good family connections and wealth. This may distract from philosophy.

· He will be a natural born leader who people will flatter to get what they want. He therefore may become very ambitious and proud.

· As a result of this pride, he won’t easily listen to those that would correct him with the truth.

· Friends may try to draw him away from philosophy for fear of loosing his support and society. Common people will disapprove of philosophy because they do not understand the forms. He will therefore be punished/threatened for not going along with the powers that be.

· They will turn him into the kind of person they want. Their ‘boos’ and applause will swamp the philosopher with praise or blame until he finds himself agreeing with popular ideas of what is admirable or disgraceful.

· Philosophers have a bad reputation because, after all, ‘it is men so gifted who inflict the deepest injuries on communities and individuals, and indeed, if their inclinations run that way, do them the greater good. Small natures never do that much good or harm to either’. (495 b)

The bald headed tinker.


Evaluation of the philosopher ruler

· Criticism Plato claims that knowledge leads to the right action. A counter example is of a very intelligent person who, despite their knowledge, does the wrong thing.

· Criticism Plato’s description seems to define perfection in the philosopher ruler. It is improbable that a person can fit this criterion.

· Criticism Philosopher leader too remote culturally/socially? Refer to the freed prisoner being killed in the analogy of the cave.

· Criticism Can Plato’s idea of a philosopher ruler create a paternalistic society? Too restricting?

· Criticism Can Plato’s idea of a philosopher ruler create an authoritarian society? We have seen in the past the corrupting nature of authoritarian roles. Isn’t there something intrinsically good about having your say – in defence of the democratic society.

· Criticism The masses are not encouraged to develop as individuals. They are ruled by their betters and are not taught philosophy. This can be described as unfair and demeaning.

· Criticism Too much focus on intellectual superiority?