Plato famously argues that the ideal ruler of a state is a philosopher. He gives at least two arguments for this conclusion, one based on a philosopher's wisdom and knowledge and other about the philosopher's moral character (courage, incorruptibility, etc). Focusing on ONE of these arguments, is Plato correct? Is a philosopher an ideal candidate to rule? Or is there something important for leadership that a philosopher may be missing?
Plato makes a very cogent and logical argument as for why philosophers should be rulers that ultimately possesses one fatal flaw. Plato argues that philosophers are the only people fit to rule a nation due to their incorruptible character and unparalleled wisdom. Ignoring the fact “incorruptible”, philosophers such as his pupil, Aristotle, believed that slavery belonged in civilized society, the very premise of philosophers as possessing undeniable mental superiority is exactly why philosophers are not the most qualified for leadership. Plato’s hubris is put on full display when he makes his infamous and outlandish allegory of The Cave. In Plato’s allegory, he likens the people of society to prisoners who are chained up in a cave and have only ever seen shadows of objects and never the objects themselves. Due to their situation, the prisoners have never seen anything tangible and are entirely ignorant to the possibility of such things. Plato then describes philosophers as those who have escaped the cave and have become knowledgeable about the real world and its true beauty. Plato then uses this logic to argue that himself and other philosophers are the only ones who have experienced life at the depth required to effectively govern and understand the world around them. The only issue with this argument is that it completely misunderstands the meaning of wisdom. Plato inaccurately assumes that his knowledge on human nature and ethics is all that is needed to properly rule, however, that is completely false. Effective leadership comes from a deep philosophical wisdom as well as expertise in the affairs of humans. It does not matter how virtuous nor moral a leader is when they are trying to incentivize their farmers to grow through hard winters. Nor does being well learned about human nature mean that one is effective in land management, resource distribution, or proper tax collection. If a people are going through a rough harvest, a leader who was a farmer who has experience and knowledge about which crops can produce the most sustenance will be a much more effective leader than any more moral man who does not possess his expertise. Knowledge and wisdom are derived directly from life and the lived experiences within it. The idea that the experiences and lifestyle of one person derives more wisdom than another is false and potentially dangerous if put into practice. Different crises will require different people with different expertise, but the egotistical belief in a single ruler, whether a philosopher or not is fundamentally flawed. Rather, the largest wealth of knowledge can be obtained by gaining perspectives of people with different lifestyles. Socrates’s famous quote that Plato himself documented, “All I know is that I know nothing”, clearly speaks on the limitations of a single person to serve as a wealth of knowledge; directly disproving Plato’s allegory. Looks like Plato still has a lot to learn from his teacher in the way of humility if he is ever to rule.
ReplyDeleteIn Plato’s Republic, Plato claims that philosophers would make the best rulers as they are unbiased as they only seek knowledge and wisdom, and that they also have impeccable morality. However, Plato’s writing contradicts these statements, especially the first one, when he writes, “Moreover, i said, you must not wonder that those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descent to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our allegory may be trusted” (Plato 67). The “those” in this context are philosophers, and Plato is saying that philosophers who have gained this higher level of knowledge, are above humans. They are above “human affairs.” This not only feels very biased in the favor of philosophers, talking as if they were close to gods, but a good ruler has to know what is going on with so called “human affairs.” A ruler’s job is to protect and govern their kingdom and lead their people to a better, sustainable life. Notoriously bad rulers are those that only indulged in their riches and were corrupt and did not care at all for the people. Therefore, if philosophers are in this above world lost in knowledge and seeking the truth, they don’t have time to come and govern the citizens. Also, men who sit around and have to come up with rules for why you can’t see a 1-dimensional shape and can only see in 2 dimensions as lines have thickness, SHOULDN’T BE RULERS. IT IS SIMPLY COMMON KNOWLEDGE SO IT DOESN’T NEED TO BE RESTATED. Philosophers such as Plato who are very much biased and not looking at human affairs should not be rulers.
ReplyDelete