Plato Leadership Analysis

1061 Words 5 Pages
(An Analysis of an Ideal Leader Using Plato’s, The Republic, and Machiavelli’s, The Prince) History is taught in school throughout the world in an attempt to prevent the repetition of major mistakes. From the past, we can follow the patterns of governments and societies that dwelled harmoniously, and the ones who fell to poverty and overall destruction. “America’s economic history seems to repeat itself endlessly, following irregular and dramatic cycles” (Dornbusch). No matter how many times generations are taught what types of mistakes to avoid, it seem as if they are inevitable; However, this does not stop professors and parents from teaching young adults of monumental mistakes that have occurred in the past and why they have
…show more content…
Leaders play an essential role in the demise or prosperity of a nation. It is through them that critical decisions are made that affect the citizens of that society. There are myriads of leaders that have ruled throughout history. These leaders had certain traits that led to the outcomes of their eras. The ideal leader is aligned with the principles of Plato and the ideas of platonism and stoicism.
In Plato’s, The Republic, the wisdom of an ideal leader is described and analyzed. Leaders are first and foremost wise in the way that they know what they do not know. “I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing” (Plato). Socrates was declared the wisest man alive at that time by the Gods. Socrates thus explained to those around him that he was perceived this way because he knew that he knew nothing. Humility is strength as a
…show more content…
“The object of education is to teach us to love what is beautiful” (Plato). Philosophers know that what their citizens truly want is peace and harmony. They want to live happily with the ones that they love. If everybody is forced by violence to do certain things, agency is lost, and thus the pursuit of happiness. “A government concerned for the happiness of its citizens need not make them ‘happy against their will’; that would be impossible” (Jones). From this, we learn that a Thrasymachan approach to government would result in great dissatisfaction of society. Citizens would not have the ability to choose, and would have a forced lifestyle that would include no happiness or joy from making personal choices. This type of republic would work, no doubt, but it would be dull, with no peaks or valleys. There would be one way of living for everyone, no exceptions. The leaders would be great deceivers and nothing would seem amiss; However, in a platonic society, people would live their lives in a more productive way, touching others, and creating metaphysical things to take with them from this earth.
In conclusion, there are pros and cons to both Thrasymachus’s ideal leader and a platonic leader, but Plato describes the more ideal one. With philosophers as leaders, people are able to understand what

Related Documents