Why Does Plato Argue That Rulers Must Be Philosophers?

in spite of appearance this essay I Intend to examine Plates reasoning and justification for his popular opinion in philosopher rulers and interrogative mood whether they ar, in fact, the dress hat tribe to govern fraternity. The underway democratic method of organization of the polis was non suitable for Plato as he considered ruling far too vital a role in society to be left to the untrained. Instead, it should be left to those who have the cognition and more cruci wholey, the soundness required to hollow such a task.It Is, how ever, at this point, we should consider that a significant factor In Plats opposition to republic was that the Athenian democracy had condemned Socrates o death. It is important to remember that the wide democracy which we currently experience is very recent and not at all the c formerlypt of democracy that Plato speaks. In fact, the idea of all adults over the hop on of 18 organism able to select would indeed be skew-whiff to some whiz such as Plato.The democracy, of which he speaks, would be of greater equating to a modern day referendum, In which all those eligible to vote gather to debate and eventually vote. Plato olibanum set out to stratagem a new structural form for the survey, in simple, an Ideal society. This naturalized three general social lasses and indirectly three separate polios in spite of appearance the whole Solipsism. At the lowest end of this, was the uncoverrs, although Plato pays little attention to this class, it compromises batch who were engaged in economic activities, such as, farmers and manufacturers.Although of no political importance, they served the of import function of providing the economic and material requirements of the community. Primarily, Plato places them as obedient workers under the bind of the axillaries. This constitutes the first polls, one In which money lovers, and only money lovers ar made as happy as possible (Reeve C. D. C IPPP 1984), and thus becomes a lu xurious polis (Plato The Republic IPPP e). The secant level on Plates paragon society was that of the auxiliaries.It was the auxiliaries who, in current periods, would complete the actions of the military civil religious service and public offices I. E. Police. Consequently, it was their occupation to enact the decisions made by the ruling class. It would be from the elite group of the auxiliaries that a philosopher guardian would emerge, as they had worked their way through the teaching method and training. Therefore, this emerges as the second polis in which unnecessary appetites (Reeve C. D. C IPPP 1984) be removed this is the part of the Solipsism in which honor-lovers be made as happy as possible. (Reeve C. D. C IPPP 1984) However, it moldiness be pointed out that the auxiliaries also shared this second polis with the guardians who were not chosen as pensioner Kilns. Hymnal, It was ten shielders won were let at ten top AT ten society, as the rulers. This was the elite group above the rest of society, only those who completed all the statutes determined out during their training would be able to become a accept philosopher guardian at the age of 50. These would be the people who had a square understanding of the forms and in the long run, of what is good ND unsloped.With this Plato has set out his dodos for the ideal society and his belief that those approximately suited to govern this society were his Philosopher Kings who were chosen from this Guardian class. It is at this point, that I believe we must further engage with what in fact it means to be a philosopher, and how you reach such a position. Plato sets an initial screening work at, the one who is willing to taste every frame if learning with gusto, and who turns to learning with enthusiasm, and cannot get enough of it, he is the one we shall right appoint a philosopher. (Plato The Republic 474 c) Those who have reached that goal are philosopher kings at last. The polis over whi ch they rule, and which contains the elaborate educational activityal apparatus necessary to reliably produce them, is the third polis. (Reeve C. D. C. P 195, 1984). During Plats explanation of his philosopher-king, he uses three analogies, the sun, the line and in the long run the cave, in order to depict the reason for the philosophers irreplaceable role in politics.The central element in each of these is the concept of the forms. In my opinion, Plato approximately aptly explains the transition to a philosopher with his simile of the cave. Plato classes this as the enlightenment or ignorance of our human condition (Plato The Republic IPPP a). The allegory of the cave is to illustrate that the philosopher is the one who matchs things as they really are. The philosopher is able to see the truth, whereas, the masses see, merely, shadows.The arduous process of education which draws the philosopher from the state of ignorance and belief to the enlightened state of friendship and wisdom is comparable with the difficult Journey from a dark cave up a long path to the open light of the sun. Whilst explaining the Journey of the philosophers education he also examines to show why it is that the masses reject the philosopher once their knowledge has been gained. Primarily, Plato says that the philosopher is misunderstood by the ignorant masses and that the knowledge which they attempt to impart threatens the beliefs of their UN-enlightened minds.It is clear upon examination of Plats society, that it is indubitably a totalitarian political cognition however, this point must be critically examined as it is clear that there are distinct and separate ways to critique this point. Naturally, there are those who would say that the restriction of freedom from a dictatorial power is inherently wrong. Conversely, though it must be considered that restriction of freedom for the good of people is no bad thing. In theory a system which imposes The soundly on all people, wo uld be one which benefits all and enhances the chance of maximum human development and freedom from evil. Until philosophers rule as kings, or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophies, that is, until political power, laterality and ism entirely coincide, while the many natures who at present chase either one exclusively are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities will eve no rest from evils, Nor, I infer, will the human race. (Simon Blackburn IPPP c- D 2006) plainly the counter argument to that and the very basis of Plats critics, is that whether human nature being as it is, would ever allow it in reality?Especially when compared Walt previous(prenominal) totalitarian regimes, experience Allocates Tanat teen have rarely brought good to the majority, and predominantly have indeed brought the opposite. In reality, it could be argued that there has been a historic dominance of state dictatorships in comparison with the relatively re cent liberal democracies. Citizens who are raised at heart the liberal western tradition are taught to be convinced of the faultlessness of democracy and thus find it challenging to comprehend that any other system could be better, or even to see the weaknesses in democracy.Due to the inability to acknowledge the failings of democracy, Plato creates two illustrations to depict them these are the similes of the masher and the ship. Plato utterly rejects two common modes of thought in democratic societies, Just be pretend everyone believes it to be true and good does not make it so, and that Just cause someone is a convincing speaker and persuades the masses to his view it does not mean he is speaking the truth or that his ideas are good. The intromission of these illustrations is that the Philosophers simply know The Good.Plats debate is clearly rejecting some of the foundational ideas within Democracy. Within the simile of the beast, the large and powerful animal in this allego ry is the general population who make up the democracy. In this tale, Plato is depicting a clear division between, what the majority like and think is good, what pleases them, and unbeknown to them, what genuinely is The Good. The Good (I. E. The dodos or form of the good) is good whether people think it is good or not. The Good is the predetermined standard against which the pleasures and desires of the masses must be Judged to determine whether they are good or bad.Plato is saying that the Sophists of his time were merely concerned with remaining in power and thus would electric arc to the appeasement of the masses that were ill educated. Fiscal and devoid of the knowledge of what is real important in life and were subsequently unfit to rule the polis. They were no more than manipulators and responders to popular opinion without any standard tit which to work. The Sophists were relativists. For them good meant no more than what the people want, what will keep them happy, and wh at society thinks are good.This blast to politics is recognizable within the contemporary use of opinion polls and pressure groups. All those individuals who make their living by teaching, and whom the public call Sophists and new for their skill, in fact teach nothing but the ceremonious views held and expressed by the mass of the people, when they meet and this they call a science (Plato The Republic IPPP a-b) This forever, does not entirely show why Plato is convinced that it is philosophers who should rule.Socrates proposes the intuitive feeling that the study of philosophy results in the unearthing of objective truths about what is good, from this grounding this knowledge can be used as an uniquecoal weapons platform for policy-making. Plato believes that in contrast with his idea of the human human body of matter, the world of sense , which he classes as a mere world of shadows, is in fact world of final, immutable, changeless, objects of contemplation, at the summit of w hich stands the ultimate object of a facial kind of knowledge independent of sense experience.This is ultimately a real and ultimately fitting object of love and desire, a constantly radiant aeonian source of light, the form of good itself. (Blackburn S. Pop, 2006). Subsequently, it has the natural progression that the people most suited to rule, are the people who have the wisdom of this higher realm, so Justifiably this would be the philosophers. If pensioners nave ten capacity to grasp ten interminable Ana Immutable, Wendell tense won have no such capacity are not philosophers and are lost in multiplicity and change, which of the two should be in charge of a state? (Plato The Republic p 484 b). At no point, has it ever been empirically verified that those who have studied philosophy will all have on that which is good and right. Even those who do keep back that there are moral facts do not agree on exactly what they are nor do they agree on what is the best way to act in th e light of those facts. Even if we do agree with Plato and accept that a true understanding of goodness and Justice is twain possible and agreement can be reached between philosophers, it still leaves the question whether this is all that a politician needs.