Introduction: Why should philosophers become kings? In Plato’s Republic, it is strongly asserted that “unless philosophers become kings in the cities,” or those who are known as kings and rulers philosophize truly and adequately, there can be “no cessation of evils.” This is true for countries and for the human race. This is perhaps the most famous passage in all of Plato’s work. Other thinkers sufficiently understand why Plato believes that this claim is true. They also adequately understand Plato’s political philosophy. His position on this and related issues depend on other aspects of his views.
This article, however, focuses only on Plato’s claim that philosophers should rule. As pointed out by Chris Bobonich, Plato has at least three related but distinct reasons for his philosophic understanding. First, there is a motivational claim. If those who are to govern are “lovers of ruling”, they will not seek the good of the whole city or country (my inclusion). They will only pursue political office simply for “their own material benefits.” As a result, they will cause civic strife.
Only philosophers have the outlook to strongly “look down on” that life of the lovers of ruling. Thus, only philosophers, Plato thinks, will seek the good of the whole city or country when they rule. Second, the question of who should rule leads to “bitter, intractable, and destabilizing conflicts” between social and economic elites and the masses. Plato proposes that rule by philosophers, can avoid such conflicts. All citizens can be brought to accept that the rule of philosophers is in their own interest.
Third, philosophers alone have knowledge of what really is “just, good and fine” and this makes them better at ruling. They would look in each direction, towards the natures of justice, moderation, and the like. They would mix the various ways of life in the city or country until they produce a human image or “the divine form and image.”
They would erase one thing and draw in another until they had made characters for ideal human beings the gods would love. The city or the country will be governed by people who are “awake rather than dreaming.” He asks who should become guardians of the city or the country, if not those who have the understanding of how the city or the country is best governed?
Development of Plato’s Views: Plato proposed that knowledge is required for the “correctness of political decisions.” But, the first question is which decisions? Is it required for the task of designing a new constitution of a new city or country? Is the constitution designed to pass laws, make decrees, issue judicial verdicts, or make the sorts of decisions entrusted to magistrates by the constitution? The need for philosophic knowledge is greatest for the most fundamental decisions. Is a philosopher needed for making decisions on, for example, the educational system or on matters concerning war?
The second question is for exactly what kind of goodness or correctness philosophic knowledge is needed? Do citizens fail to be happy without such knowledge? Even if a set of laws succeeded in “making the citizens happy,” do such laws fail to be correct unless based on philosophical knowledge? The requirement for philosophic knowledge might be justified by its overall effects on true belief. True belief might do as good as philosophic knowledge. But, “true belief” is more precarious and may be undermined over time. Knowledge might do better than true belief in “inhibiting bad non-rational motivations,” but this might only be an indirect effect of knowledge.
Plato requires that a “virtuous person” possess philosophic knowledge and that virtuous actions be based on such knowledge. Plato holds that if a person is virtuous he acts virtuously. He can defend his judgment by “appealing” to the greater value or goodness. A city or country governed by philosophers or a constitution and laws that are the expression of philosophic knowledge is a much better city or country. The philosophers are more correct or more just or perfectionist. Plato thinks that for the city or country to possess the virtue of wisdom, its rulers must possess knowledge. Thus, the rulers must be philosophers.
Plato seems to suggest that “mistakes will be made by non-philosophers,” and that on any occasion of decision, the non-philosopher is very likely to go erroneous. Philosophic knowledge is needed for ruling in order to avoid actual error. The type of knowledge that Plato stresses is “knowledge of what the just, the fine, and the good are.” Among these, knowledge of the good has special place. Once they have seen the good itself, the citizens will put the city or country as their model.
Such “knowledge of the good” will require having knowledge of many forms, especially those concerned with “values and virtue.” Here, Plato makes it clear that what is particularly significant about such knowledge is that it “provides the correct pattern” for ordering one’s own character, those of others, and those of the city or the country. It is such ordering of individual characters that is the means by which the city or country itself is to be ordered.
The philosopher alone has a grasp of the “single target” which all actions, including political actions, are to aim at. This target is to make the city or the country “as happy as possible.” Since virtue is the most important factor in happiness, it will involve making the citizens virtuous. Since virtue requires wisdom it needs knowledge.
This is knowledge of the “good, just and fine.” The philosopher will aim at producing philosophic characters with this knowledge. The philosopher will do what he can to improve and develop characters of the rest of the city or country. Plato stresses to justify the rule of philosophers because of the “goodness of such knowledge.” He also focuses on the sort of education necessary to inculcate such knowledge.
This is not to say that it is the only kind of knowledge that helps the philosopher to govern. The philosopher’s knowledge of the good, just and find provides the basis for the laws and institutions he will introduce and for the knowledge of Justice. The knowledge of justice requires the definition of its essence. This will in some cases improve judgments about how far actual laws or institutions are just.
Mr. Bobonich thinks that people who receive education will be able, without reference to philosophic knowledge, to make correct judgments. He stresses that philosophic knowledge is “not needed for correctness.” Similarly, Plato assumes that basically “everyone” can see that things such as embezzlement, theft, and betrayal of comrades are unjust. Indeed, basic aspects of a constitution do not seem to require philosophic knowledge.
Plato argues for the three great innovations of the ideal city or country. These are the “education of women, the community of women and children, and the rule of philosophers” to people who have no knowledge of the good. These people do not seem to have true beliefs about the content of the definition of Justice. It is always possible to be persuaded out of “one’s true beliefs.”
Mr. Bobonich believes that it is not clear if Plato thinks that “well-brought up non-philosophers” will go disastrously wrong on controversial and difficult issues. If mistakes are inevitable, they will have disastrous consequences. “Failure to identify the causes” of these mistakes leads to the dissolution of the city or the country. Eventually, even those with knowledge will make a mistake, but it seems that error would be almost inevitable for those “lacking knowledge.”
The Neo-Platonists:
Some Neo-Platonists think that the rule of philosophers is necessary for the city or country. They think the philosophic knowledge of value is useful for the appreciation of relevant issues. The Neo-Platonists also think that the rule of philosophers is required for inculcating “political virtues” in the characters of the citizens of the city or the country. But the inculcation of such virtues is “not the ultimate end” of the city or the country and of its education.
Acquiring political virtues is required for dealing with the ordinary demands of life. These demands are: “interacting with others and controlling of desires and emotions,” necessary for undertaking rigorous intellectual inquiry. But, according to the Neo-Platonist philosophers, the “political virtues” must be left behind when one attains the greater “divine virtues.” This involves a correct grasp of the element of happiness, which is a goal for humans to achieve. This is a correct grasp of the nature and value of philosophic understanding, and such a grasp requires philosophic knowledge itself.
Evaluation of particular actions, laws or institutions for correctness can only be reliably done on the basis of philosophic knowledge. Such a view claims that actual mistakes with serious consequences will be made. These mistakes can be avoided if only evaluation is carried out on the basis of philosophic knowledge.
As it is necessary to avoid cheating in business, so it is extremely difficult to detect when such deception takes place in commercial dealings. The astuteness of merchants, “fostered by their lust for gain,” has discovered so many tricks and dodges that it is hardly possible to see the plain facts. This impedes to pronounce judgment on the cheaters. Finally, deception being a question of morals, it would be necessary to pass judgment accordingly. To understand justice calls for a “great intellect and a perfect heart.” One might think that it is simply difficult to codify general principles about justice.
A correct determination of particular instances, such as morals, requires a kind of knowledge that cannot be coded into laws. This is an especially important line of thought. Many of the moral principles are available to all for public articulation of such principles. This reflects the democratic character of the moral point of view. It reveals the “illegitimacy of any privatization of moral standards.” It cannot be claimed by any elite to have a privileged access to moral ideas or to the moral truth.
Conclusion: Plato’s philosopher king seems to be an ideal ruler. In the real world, philosophers are limited to their own type. I think, they find it extremely difficult to communicate with the commoners.
The masses of the people also find it hard to understand philosophical knowledge. Such knowledge is very sophisticated and difficult to be appreciated by ordinary people. It is probably or infrequently appreciated by the pseudo-academics, with the exception of a few. Some Ethiopians, including my acquaintances, pretend to be appreciative of philosophical issues and dialogues. We have not been exposed even to our philosophers and their opinions.
In Ethiopia, there lived centuries ago the great philosopher, Zarayacob, whose work has been the basis for Ethiopian philosophy. I do not think most Ethiopians know about him or even about his existence. I think the intellectuals of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church know a great deal about him. But, they have not been successful in introducing his philosophy to their own followers.
To our surprise, Europeans know more about him than the Ethiopians like me do. Why? I have no answer to that except proposing that European have been curious about our society, culture and history.
To the great happiness of Ethiopians, Dr. Abiy Ahmed, the PM of Ethiopia, Nobel Laureate for Peace, has just produced his philosophical work known as “Medemer.” I think he may turn out to be what Plato called the Philosopher King of Ethiopia.
In the past we have been ruled and ruined by vicious leaders. They had not been “good, just and fine,” to their people whom they impoverished to death. I think we are now beginning with the first step to a real and true renaissance, ensuring equity, equality and fraternity among Ethiopians and the rest of human beings. I believe that we are now in a position to say enough with phony renaissance!!
Thank you.
The Ethiopian Herald Sunday Edition 27 October 2019
BY GETACHEW MINAS
