PLATOS VIEW ON PHILOSOPHER KING

Submitted to :-

Submitted by :-

Dr. B.K.Mahakul

Atul Verma
Semester - II
Section-C Roll No.-35

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

Uparwara Post, Abhanpur, New Raipur -493661(C.G.)

Declaration

hereby

declare

that

the project

work

entitled

PLATOS VIEW ON

PHILOSOPHER KING submitted to Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur,

is a record of an original work done by me under the able guidance of Dr. B.K.
Mahkul sir , Faculty of Political Science, Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur.
The information submitted herein is true and original to the best of my knowledge.

Date: 16.10.2016
Place: Raipur

Acknowledgement

Thanks to the Almighty who gave me the strength to accomplish the project with sheer hard
work and honesty. This research venture has been made possible due to the generous cooperation of various persons. To list them all is not practicable, even to repay them in words
is beyond the domain of my lexicon. This project wouldnt have been possible without the
help of my teacher Dr. B.K.Mahkul sir, the Faculty of Political Science at HNLU, who had
always been there at my side whenever I needed some help regarding any information. He
has been my mentor in the truest sense of the term. The administration has also been kind
enough to let me use their facilities for research work. I thank them for this.

Contents
1. Introduction...5
2. Objectives of the Study.....6
3. Scope of the Study.....6
3

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Methodology of the Study.....6

Rule Of Philosopher King .......................................................7
Features of Platos Rule of Philosophy...................................7
Criticism of Platos argument ................................................11
Conclusion.............13
References.............14

INTRODUCTION
In Platos work, The Republic, there is a systematic questioning of being, as The Republic
itself is an attempt to answer a problem in human behaviour: justice. To deal with the
problem of justice, Plato considers the ideal polis, a collective unit of self-government, and
the relationship between the structure of the Republic and the attainment of justice. Plato
argues that philosopher kings should be the rulers, as all philosophers aim to discover the
ideal polis. The kallipolis, or the beautiful city, is a just city where political rule depends on
knowledge, which philosopher kings possess, and not power. Although theoretically it would
4

be ideal if the Republic and the modern state were ruled by knowledge, and not power, power
is crucial in the make-up of political activity. This is one of the flaws of Platos argument,
which the essay will discuss. The question of who should rule emerges, to which the essay
will conclude by saying that, in terms of Platos argument, the philosopher kings should not
be the rulers, as Plato is advertising an undemocratic political system led by a benevolent
dictator. At the same time, it is inevitable to pick out some features of the modern state
congruent to those of the ideal polis.

Objectives of Study:
The broad objective of the study is to study the role of Platos view of philosopher king. The
specific objectives or the interrelated objectives of the study are as follows:
1. Features of Platos Rule of Philosophy.
2. Criticism of Platos Rule of Philosophy.

Scope of the Study

The scope of this project is limited to the study about the of Platos Rule of Philosophy also
its nature, features, methods as well as the characteristics.

Methodology of the Study:

This project work has been carried out following the descriptive analytical approach. It is
largely based on the analysis of role of pressure groups in Indian Politics. Books & other
references as guided by faculty of Political Science were primarily helpful for the completion
of this project.

Rule Of Philosopher King -

Platos concept of rule of Philosopher king is corollary of Platos concept of Justice. He

divided the human mind in to three elements reason, spirit and appetite. He accorded a
position of Pride to the element of reason in mind as well as in the organisation of the state.
Second, he belived that virtue is knowledge which implied that the two must go hand in
hand.
plato belived that one of the major cause of the prevailing turmoil was that the ignorant were
ruling over the wise. He held that the affairs of the state could be set right only if wise people
after getting due training ruled the Nation. Plato was quiet critical of the Athenian practise of
6

drawing lots for deciding ruler. Plato held that only competent and efficient prople should
have the right to govern.

Features of Platos Rule of Philosophy

1- Plato does not favour democratic system of government in which every citizen has
right to participate in the affairs of the state. He denounced it as the government of
ignorant. On the other hand he wanted to give unlimited power to hi Philosopher king
in his Ideal state. He was in favour of Goveernment by Elite. He argued that as all
person residing in a state do not posses equal capacity to cultivate virtue, hence all
were not entitled to participate in the affairs of government.
2- The Philosopher king being a lover of wisdom and passionate seeker after truth, is in
better position to determine what is in the interest of community rhan an ordinary
person. Hence the rule of philosophy is in the interest of society.
3- The interest of Philosopher king and those of state are identical and there is no clash
between the two. In fact the philosopher has no interest apart from the welfare of
members of community. The happiness of the part depends upon the happiness of the
whole.
4- Platos Philosopher ruler are the product of comprehensive and rigorous training and
education spread over a period of 35 years.infact the process of education continues
even after the rulers retires after serving the state.
5- Philosopher ruler are assigned absolute power by Plato and the ruler are not
accountable to public opinion or bound by customs or written laws.according to Plato
since the philosopher ruler are embodiment of virtue and knowledge, there is no logic
for public control for their actions. Further they know it perfectly well what is good or
bad for society.
6- Philosopher ruler must respect the fundamental articles of the constitution and must
not change the basic principle on which the state rests. some of the basic principles on
ehich the Philosopher ruler are expected to observe are i) They must watch against the excessive inflow of property and wealth in the state.
ii)keep the size of the state consistent with the unity and self-sufficiency.
iii)They must ensure due performance of allotted duties by each citizen.
iv) They must ensure that no change is made in the system of education.

Platos Argument

The definition of democracy is key in understanding Platos argument for rule by

philosophers. Nowadays, most modern states are democratic, in the sense that people have a
say in the running of the state. Since Platos time there has been a debate regarding what
democracy is: whether it is the idea of majority rule, or what has come to be known as the
Madisonian view that democracy involves the protection of minorities. To Plato, it all boils
down to what democracy means, literally. Democracy is the rule by the demos, where
demos can be understood as the people, and as the mobthe unfit (Wolff; 2006, 67).
As Wolff argues, Making political decisions requires judgement and skill. It should, Plato
urges, be left to the experts. (Wolff; 2006, 67). To further emphasize this, Plato uses the

craft analogy, drawing on the allegory of the ship. In Platos The Republic, Socrates sets out
an example of a ship led by men ignorant of navigation, who

dont understand that a true captain must pay attention to the seasons of the year, the sky, the
stars, the winds, and all that pertains to his craft, if hes really to be the ruler of a ship. And
they dont believe that there is any craft that would enable him to determine how he should
steer the ship, whether the others want him to or not, or any possibility of mastering this
alleged craft or of practicing it at the same time as the craft of navigation. Dont you think
that the true captain will be called a real stargazer, a babbler, and a good-for-nothing by those
who sail in ships governed in that way? (Plato; 2007, 204)

With this allegory, Plato is not only stressing the idea that specialization is key to the running
of the Republic, but also that philosophers were unappreciated in 420 BC Athens, and thus
useless because the world would not use them and their knowledge. It also stresses the
dangers of liberty and equality, as well as the unnaturalness of democracy.

Platos idea of specialization is also linked to justice, which he considers to be structural, as

political justice is a result of a structured city, where individual justice is a result of a
structured soul, and where each member of the polis has a specific craft for which he has a
natural aptitude (Reeve; 2009, 69). Ruling is a skill (Wolff; 2006, 68), which requires
special training available to few. At the same time, philosophers must possess qualities that
enable them to rule; for instance, they must be able to recognize the difference between friend
and foe, good and bad. Above all, philosophers must love wisdom[1] (Nichols; 1984, 254),
as the rule of the wise leads to the reigning of justice, as philosophy becomes sovereign.
Justice is a virtue, as is knowledge, which requires understanding. Understanding refers to
goodness, and thus, knowledge and goodness are one. The philosopher kings have virtue as
they have knowledge, and thus, according to Plato, their rule is justified.

Criticism of Platos Argument

Platos argument is very much in line with what he defines as democracy, the rule of the unfit.
His argument may be valid, in the sense that he explains that these philosophers have
capacity to grasp the eternal and immutable (Plato; 2007, 204), while common men are
blind as they have no true knowledge of reality, and no clear standard of perfection in their
mind to which they can turn (Plato; 2007, 204-205). Nevertheless, this argument is not
persuasive or realistic in contemporary politics and the modern state, for a number of reasons.

10

Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, all modern states stress that today democracy is
defined as government of the people, by the people, and for the people (Wolff; 2006, 62).
Therefore, all states have not only become supporters of the representative model of
democracy, whereby voters determine who will represent them at governmental level, but
have also adopted a pluralist attitude towards politics. In fact, the state is, in theory, no longer
an instrument in the hands of an elite, or in the hands of Platos philosophers, but a public and
neutral arena where interest groups come together to argue and discuss policies, which are
mainly economic (Dryzek and Dunleavy; 2009, 41). Ideally, these interest groups should
have the necessary knowledge to bring about political change, but it is very hard to determine
and quantify the necessary knowledge to bring about such change. As Wolff argues, no one
can be absolutely certain about anything at all. All claims of knowledgeare fallible (Wolff;
2006, 70). Also, being a philosopher, and knowing about logic, ethics, metaphysics and
political philosophy, does not necessarily make you an expert on the interests of the people. It
is the people who, in theory, rulers are aiming to represent and support. Plato is obviously not
concerned with a representative form of rule, but nowadays it is necessary, though difficult, to
ensure that all the ruled are represented, at least to a certain extent, by their rulers.

Plato also argues that a specific education, available to few, will allow these few to become
philosophers, but again this would create a ruling class that is not representative of the ruled.
At the same time, it is hard to find a government that is 100% representative of its population.
Take the members of the Chamber of Commons, many of whom have attended elite schools
such as Eton and Oxford: they are not representative of the population, but are those running
the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, Platos argument has transcended time, as the Chamber of
Lords, as well as the Senate, in bicameral systems, is an arena of experts who check and
amend laws made by members of Parliament. Arguably the real experts are those who are
aware of the peoples interests, and voting will indicate these interests, since, as Mill argued,
the fallacy here is to think of the people as a homogenous mass with a single interestwe
are not like this (Wolff; 2006, 64).

Finally, the main flaw in Platos argument, which renders it highly unpersuasive, is the fact
that he is describing and arguing in favour of what Voltaire defined as a benevolent
dictatorship, where an enlightened despot, without the need to consult people, would
11

nevertheless govern in their interests (Wolff; 2006, 62). In terms of the modern state, where
people are continuously asking for a greater say in the running of government, and with a
negative view towards totalitarianism due to the happenings of the 20th century, Platos
argument becomes increasingly inapplicable. As Karl Popper argued, it is wrong to place
political power in the hands of an elite. Nevertheless, it is also unrealistic to claim that an
elite does not exist today, as, for instance, there are always several main political parties who
take turns running governments.

Conclusion

Plato argues that there will be no end to the troubles of states humanity itself, till
philosophers become kings in the world and political power and philosophy thus come into
the same hands (Plato; 2007, 192). Perhaps, Platos argument for a group of knowledgeable
persons who have the ability to bring about happiness and justice in the Republic is ideal, but
extremely unrealistic. As Aristotle argued, man is a political animal and it is inevitable for us
all, not just for an elite of old men, to be interested and have a say in politics, as it is a force
which inevitably affects us all. Platos argument is asking us not only to be disinterested in

12

the political process, but also to leave our rights and opinions in the hands of a benevolent
dictator. For this reason his argument is not only unpersuasive but is also unrealistic.

REFRENCES
1- Dryzek, John, Dunleavy, Patrick, Theories of the Democratic State.
2- Nichols, Mary P., The Republics Two Alternatives: philosopher kings and
Socrates, Political Theory.
3- Wolff, Jonathan, An Introduction to Political Philosophy, Second Edition

13