Socrates tells Glaucon in the Republic that the “city in which those who are going to rule are least eager to rule is necessarily governed in the way that is best and freest from faction …” (Republic 520c, p. 199) Why is it best for the people who least want to rule to do so? For whom is it best and why? What does this suggest about the possibility of achieving perfect justice in the city?
The question of the reluctance of the governors in Plato’s Republic can also be framed as a question on the return of the philosophers to the cave, in the Allegory of the Cave, and it has long been a subject of Plato’s scholarship. Why should the philosophers, having been enlightened about what is outside the cave, decide to return to it and undertake the …show more content…
It is indeed best for us that our rulers do not compete for power, and do not seek self-satisfaction through political rule. However, one might suggest that it is not best for the philosophers themselves, as it is best for them to dedicate their time to philosophical contemplation, especially that they hold no immediate duty to the society that raised and educated them, because the definition of justice as paying one’s debts. Socrates says “Then this is not the definition of justice: to tell the truth and return what one has received.” (Republic 331d). Here, he dismisses the definition of justice that Cephalus presented in the beginning of Book I, after giving and example of a sane person who hands a weapon to his friend, but then goes insane and demands the weapon back. The right act is not to hand a weapon to an insane person. However, if justice involves paying one’s debts then it is justice to give the weapon …show more content…
It is of utmost importance for the class of guardians to know what justice, be just people and to perform justice on a statewide level. The strongest answer to this critique might be found in Plato’s extensive account of the education of the future guardians. If we are to raise this class of people from scratch, then it is possible for us to redefine what politics is. The education system must be constructed to establish philosophizing and ruling as one and the same thing. But is this possible, considering Plato’s insistence on the reluctance of philosophers to hold political power? This importance that is placed on their reluctance, emphasizes the sharp distinction between the philosophy and politics. Consequently, creating tension in Plato’s account.
Each of the elements of Plato’s account of the philosopher kings discussed in this paper stands strongly on its own. But it is the combination of philosophers with ruling, with their reluctance to do so that creates this tension. Having philosopher kings is logically coherent with the rest of Plato’s Republic, and so is having reluctant rulers. But having philosophers who are reluctant to rule and yet do practice the political life, is not. The implication of the philosophers reluctance to rule exacerbate the problem of the distinction between political life and
The question of the reluctance of the governors in Plato’s Republic can also be framed as a question on the return of the philosophers to the cave, in the Allegory of the Cave, and it has long been a subject of Plato’s scholarship. Why should the philosophers, having been enlightened about what is outside the cave, decide to return to it and undertake the …show more content…
It is indeed best for us that our rulers do not compete for power, and do not seek self-satisfaction through political rule. However, one might suggest that it is not best for the philosophers themselves, as it is best for them to dedicate their time to philosophical contemplation, especially that they hold no immediate duty to the society that raised and educated them, because the definition of justice as paying one’s debts. Socrates says “Then this is not the definition of justice: to tell the truth and return what one has received.” (Republic 331d). Here, he dismisses the definition of justice that Cephalus presented in the beginning of Book I, after giving and example of a sane person who hands a weapon to his friend, but then goes insane and demands the weapon back. The right act is not to hand a weapon to an insane person. However, if justice involves paying one’s debts then it is justice to give the weapon …show more content…
It is of utmost importance for the class of guardians to know what justice, be just people and to perform justice on a statewide level. The strongest answer to this critique might be found in Plato’s extensive account of the education of the future guardians. If we are to raise this class of people from scratch, then it is possible for us to redefine what politics is. The education system must be constructed to establish philosophizing and ruling as one and the same thing. But is this possible, considering Plato’s insistence on the reluctance of philosophers to hold political power? This importance that is placed on their reluctance, emphasizes the sharp distinction between the philosophy and politics. Consequently, creating tension in Plato’s account.
Each of the elements of Plato’s account of the philosopher kings discussed in this paper stands strongly on its own. But it is the combination of philosophers with ruling, with their reluctance to do so that creates this tension. Having philosopher kings is logically coherent with the rest of Plato’s Republic, and so is having reluctant rulers. But having philosophers who are reluctant to rule and yet do practice the political life, is not. The implication of the philosophers reluctance to rule exacerbate the problem of the distinction between political life and