The Possibility of Plato S Ideal State

Christopher Smith Nicole Fluhr Great Books 192.007

The Possibility of Plato’s Ideal State

The ideal and just state Plato presents in The Republic exists perfectly in theory but is unfeasible in reality. The state is impractical because Plato is using it as a representation of the ideal soul. He does not care if the government or laws he establishes go against the corrupt and ambitious nature of man. When Glaucon and other guests present the problem of whether an ideal state can exist, Socrates acknowledges this fact and cites the differences between a real world governmental system, like that of Athens, and an ideal governmental system. By analyzing the differences in government, he concludes that those in leadership positions determine whether their state will be just or not. Socrates states, “Unless philosophers become kings in our cities, or unless those who now are kings and rulers become true philosophers…and unless those lesser natures who run after one without the other are excluded from governing, I believe there can be no end to troubles…in our cities or for all of mankind” (Plato, 165). Philosophers make ideal states possible through acting as guardians because only they can rule justly and comprehend knowledge of goodness; unfortunately, they could never rule in present day Athens because of the lack of ambition and greed for power in their natures. Plato’s idea of an ideal ruler must first be established before understand why he believes a philosopher will bring justice to a city while acting as guardian. First, a ruler must be wisest of all men and thus be in love with wisdom. If a man is in love with wisdom, then he will love all of wisdom and not just particular parts. To contrast a man in love with wisdom with the every day citizen, Plato uses the analogy of the young man who sees beautiful things but refuses to believe beauty is a thing of itself. Through proving that there are many degrees of beauty and that the young man is incapable of seeing the nature of beauty, Plato demonstrates that this man is merely expressing opinion. The philosopher, on the other hand, sees beauty as its eternal and unchanging form. Thus, he exhibits true knowledge of beauty and not opinion of what is and is not beautiful. The philosopher therefore, “knows what is and how it is” (Plato, 170). Likewise, justice is also eternal and unchanging, so only the lover of knowledge and not 2 opinion has the ability to know what is just and establish a state based on justice. So any persons not of the philosophical nature who express opinion rather than Plato’s definition of knowledge, such as the current rulers of Athens, are disqualified to rule the ideal state based on their inability to see the forms and essence of justice. The necessary natures of an ideal ruler go beyond the love of knowledge. Socrates says, “The true lover of knowledge must from childhood on seek truth in all its aspects” (Plato, 175). To love knowledge, but also love falsehood, which breeds inaccuracy and distortion, is an impossibility. A guardian must then be one who loves knowledge and seeks out the truth. In doing so, the ruler diverts his attention away from falseness. The philosopher, being a true lover of knowledge, must love all things associated with knowledge. And nothing can be more strongly associated with knowledge than truth. Therefore, a philosopher would certainly seek the truth more aggressively than any other type of man and be a perfect choice for leader of the ideal state. Socrates delves further into the making of an ideal ruler and identifies another criteria for becoming a guardian: “Stinginess and cowardice evidently have no place in true philosophical natures” (Plato, 176). Only the man who abstains from the tyrannical greed for money and property and does not fear his own death or downfall can be considered for leadership. The lack of these characteristics signals corruption and the inability to decipher the just man or city from the unjust. A philosopher, such as Socrates, abhors bodily pleasures that taint the soul and instead leads a lifestyle which views the body as a mortal vehicle for the immortal soul. With this mentality, a philosopher would not deprive his state of its riches for his own gain or back from battle to save his own life. Continuing, Socrates makes a consideration of the intelligence of a philosopher- ruler, asking, “Whether he is quick or slow to learn” (Plato, 176). Clearly he who lacks the ability to learn and remember forever cannot rule efficiently. His job would require enormous amounts of learning, and so he would despise his role as leader and become a complete failure in the pursuit of justice. A philosopher’s absolute love of knowledge pushes him to constantly learn all that knowledge entails. So if a ruler is to be chosen based on his ability to learn, then a philosopher must be selected because he alone will be 3 in love with a position that requires the ability to learn and forever know all that is knowable. After establishing the ability to learn as critical to becoming a guardian, Plato concludes his criteria for an ideal leader by naming three characteristics necessary for a ruler that has a harmonious and balanced nature. “Proportion, measure, and grace join our list of requirements [that] draw [rulers] toward reality and truth” (Plato, 177). Truth is not disproportionate, or split and fragmented, it is whole. Hence, measure and proportion, along with a gentle style, are necessary in the quest for truth and the knowledge of justice. These three traits, along with all the others viewed by Plato as necessary for becoming a guardian, are obviously not likely to be present in many individuals. The select few who are knowledgeable, truthful, giving, courageous, intelligent, and have measure and proportion are the best possible candidates to be rulers and are likely to be found only among the most zealous of philosophers. Besides having all the characteristics of Plato’s ideal ruler, a candidate must possess knowledge of goodness in order to be just. Goodness is the highest of all forms and makes other forms knowable. Using Plato’s analogy of vision and goodness, the good enables the soul to view and know the forms like the sun enables the eye to see and know what is physical. So if the good is responsible for the ability to know the forms, then it is responsible for knowledge of justice and what is just. Because only philosophers can comprehend the forms, Plato has proven that a guardian must first be a philosopher who can contemplate justice before he can rule the ideal state with any notion of what is just. Why then are philosophers, who make ideal rulers for ideal states, not governing Athens or other current states? The answer lies in the human nature of present day people and the contrasting character of philosophers. Plato’s parable of the ship captain illustrates this contrast in nature and character best. The parable explains that the sailors aboard a certain ship are all fighting over who shall take the helm. The captain allows himself to be induced into giving up his position, and the multitude of sailors takes command of the ship. The captain represents leadership of the ship that is analogous to the state and its people. The mass mob of democracy present in Athens and other cities reward those who are most ambitious and desirable for power with positions of 4 leadership. The sailors are symbolic for the politicians who run for office and control of the ship or state. But there are a few sailors who do not have the skills to fight and struggle for command or leadership and who are deemed useless. These rare sailors, while lacking in such skills, are instead aware that in order to truly be a captain, knowledge of such things as the seasons, winds, and stars must be mastered. These true captains refuse to combine the art of competing for command with actual sailing. Similarly, philosophers are not inclined to go after public office though they have mastered the skills needed to govern well and effectively like knowledge of the forms and are able to comprehend goodness. As the sailors on the ship look down on these true captains, the people of Athens have little respect for anyone who pursues philosophy as a way of life. While proving many times over that philosophers make ideal rulers, Plato presents a dilemma as to whether a philosopher will ever rule a state in reality. Looking into the future, he says there is hope for a philosopher to be king of some country one day. But because a philosopher will never campaign or fight to become a ruler, how are they to ever rule? Plato states, “The sick man, whether rich or poor, must go to the door of the physician. [Likewise], everyone who needs to be governed should go to the door of the man who knows how to govern” (Plato, 179). But he is ignoring the fact that human nature leads the masses to choose for ruler one who publicly proves himself and demonstrates an ability to improve the lives of his state’s citizenry. People will never reluctantly request that a philosopher, who they view as weak, useless, and lacking any leadership qualities, rule even if they know he alone possesses knowledge of justice. Philosophers do represent the perfect leaders, but they do not conform to the desires of the masses. A leader who does not bend to the pressures of powerful groups or individuals will not stay in office long. In order to survive and lead a democracy, a leader must balance what is right to do and what is necessary to do for him to stay in power. Although this form of leadership is corrupt, it is the only way to preserve order in democracy. Therefore, until some sort of change is human nature occurs where the potentials of the present-day outcasts of society are realized, philosophers will not be used to their fullest capabilities for the good of the state, and society will never realize its potential for justice and happiness.