Is the study of philosophy useful in our modern society? In a time of centre-politics and flimsy coalitions, it could be argued that it has never been more relevant than it is now. Plato thought that, in much the same way the empirical world was open to change, so was majority opinion, and posited an alternative system; that of the ‘philosophy kings’, raising the question, should philosophers be allowed the chance to rule, instead of the politicians?
In the west, many just take it for granted that democracy is the system that best guards the well-being of the people. Plato, however, saw quite the opposite; that democracy leaves them open to manipulation and flattery. As an elected representative the politician must listen to the people’s opinions but job is to make you feel emotionally linked to the ideas that he is arguing for. Plato stated that the politician does not care for truth but simply swaying the opinion of the general public towards his agenda.
In his book The Republic, where he outlines his blueprint for an ideal society, Plato states that he philosopher would not be democratically selected for if he was, then he too may be swayed by the whims of the people. The people would have no vote but would have to place their trust in the system that Plato’s Philosopher Kings would do what is best for the populace. So why should we trust the philosopher over the politician?
The philosopher is the opposite of the politician. Just as he would aim to understand the realm of ideas that make up reality, the philosopher would also seek to understand the underlying laws of politics, those that go beyond mere opinion. The philosopher would not aim to win, for he would never have to put himself forward for popular election. The philosopher would care only for truth, and would look for the underlying laws that would improve the populace’s lives in the long run.
Where the politician is a being of emotion, the philosopher is a being of reason. Plato stated that reason is independent of emotion, and used the analogy of the soul as a chariot. The talented driver would be able to keep the wild horse of emotion in check and, for Plato, the driver who would control his soul the best would be the philosopher; he who is closest to the forms of reason.
It is the rational philosopher, not the flattering politician, who would best be able to keep their emotions in check. They would not commit to rash decisions, but make choices that were in line with reason, even if they differ from public opinion.
Plato believed that the Philosophy King would need to be selected by other philosophers. Free of the restrictions of election by popular vote, a continuous chain would emerge. Philosopher Kings could then rule entirely of principles of reason, aspiring towards perfection.
Plato thought that this system would bring about a greater sense of justice than any democratic system ever could. But can reason ever be pure and free from emotion? Can, and should, philosophers rule?
Lloyd Duddridge
The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 50 'Open Topic'
