Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophize, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide…cities will have no rest from evils…there can be no happiness, either public or private, in any other city.- Plato speaking as Socrates in The Republic
Continuing our theme of Platonic concepts, we will now introduce the concept of the Philosopher King. As can be gleaned from the term itself, as well as from the quote above, Plato’s proposal was essentially that philosophers should rule in an ideal society. However, this rule was to be characterized by self restraint and dedication to the greater good of the society.
Of course, at this point a paradox arises: usually we associate kingship with dynastic succession and lineage, therefore how can we expect someone to be an adequate philosopher and king by birth alone? Plato resolves this issue by proposing that a special class dedicated to the protection and benefit of the city would reproduce for this purpose, and from these children (who would be trained in virtue and righteousness) the most fit would be selected. Therefore, we could say that the ruler is selected both by birth, and more importantly, based on merit.
As to why the ruler should be a philosopher, one who possesses philo-sophia or love of wisdom, the reader should refer to our last post wherein we discussed the Forms and how the Form of the Good informed all the virtues. Due to this understanding of reality, Plato maintained that only one who was dedicated to the pursuit of Truth and thus cognizant of the Forms-especially the Form of the Good, would know and thus be able to lead the people toward goodness. Furthermore, since the philosopher is dedicated to this pursuit of Truth he has no desire to rule and thus is morally pure. He sees his position as a duty and a trust, not an opportunity for personal advancement. In other words, his very aversion to gaining authority and power makes him immune to corruption and thus the most fit to rule.
Lastly, Plato did not see the polis, the city over which the king ruled, as an isolated entity. Rather, he saw it as a kind of macrocosm which could lead the human soul to perfection if it was itself just. Obviously this is a very different understanding of the state or republic and its purpose than what we observe today wherein the state oscillates between acting as a night watchman and a landlord.
In conclusion, I would argue as Plato did, that until philosophers rule we are in trouble. If Truth is an objective reality than anything other than its pursuit is vanity, and a superfluous political system will only end in varying degrees of incompleteness and disappointment if not outright injustice and oppression.