In the Republic, Plato is very deliberate with giving his reasons for why the philosopher should rule and what makes her best suited to do so. Plato represents this by comparing the selfless philosopher to the selfish political power seekers as well as displaying long-run benefits of the ruling philosopher. The goal of this essay is to touch on Plato’s arguments of why the philosopher is most fit to rule, accompanied by the dilemmas of choosing and committing to being a ruler that the philosophers face.
Plato uses a few different claims to render his beliefs regarding the ruling of the city. For starters, there is the motivational claim that he makes. There is an old saying that essentially says those who want to (or seek to) rule, should …show more content…
This claim is because, notoriously, when the question of who should be the ruler arises (in any small or large scaled situation essentially) there is always controversy between social and economic elites and the general masses of civilians. A ruler with philosophical intentions and morals (at least suggested a few times by Plato) can prevent such controversy between the various leveled civilians. Plato believes this to be true because he claims it is an easy task to convince all the citizens that a ruling philosopher is in their own best interest, rather than the politically power-seeking elite (499d-501e). These claims are made even while knowing that every political system is going to be imperfect, and as discussed in class, is something everyone must deal with. Plato, however, is not a fan of democracy and believes the ideology of every desire being as good as any other is a bad way to go through life. Since Plato believes that everything we do is for the “sake of something”, it is evident that he thinks the philosopher has the most selfless “sake” in ruling over the selfish …show more content…
To those who should rule, the dilemmas of taking on the responsibility is seemingly more visible. The dilemma of asking the philosophers to descend into the cave is relevant to this thought because for the philosophers this is not the ideal way to go about their lives. In other words, it is not best for them. Socrates says in book 1 that ruling does not benefit the rulers. This is because rather than living the life of an average citizen, the ruler must control the things that make that city thrive (while living in a cave). “You mean we are to treat them unjustly, making them live a worse life when they could live a better life?” (519d). This is Glaucon saying that its unjust to make the philosophers descend just for the city’s selfish needs. Essentially, philosophers returning to the cave/ruling results in them choosing an option that is not best for themselves but rather for the city (which results in a less than stellar life for the them) and the philosophers staying in the city results in a city that is worse off, being ruled by people who are only going to fulfill their own selfish political needs. There are two accounts however explaining why philosophers should return to the cave. From the utilitarian view, they argue that while a philosopher might be unhappy for a short while when first descending, they will then be able to practice philosophy which will result in more happiness overall. The view also argues
Plato uses a few different claims to render his beliefs regarding the ruling of the city. For starters, there is the motivational claim that he makes. There is an old saying that essentially says those who want to (or seek to) rule, should …show more content…
This claim is because, notoriously, when the question of who should be the ruler arises (in any small or large scaled situation essentially) there is always controversy between social and economic elites and the general masses of civilians. A ruler with philosophical intentions and morals (at least suggested a few times by Plato) can prevent such controversy between the various leveled civilians. Plato believes this to be true because he claims it is an easy task to convince all the citizens that a ruling philosopher is in their own best interest, rather than the politically power-seeking elite (499d-501e). These claims are made even while knowing that every political system is going to be imperfect, and as discussed in class, is something everyone must deal with. Plato, however, is not a fan of democracy and believes the ideology of every desire being as good as any other is a bad way to go through life. Since Plato believes that everything we do is for the “sake of something”, it is evident that he thinks the philosopher has the most selfless “sake” in ruling over the selfish …show more content…
To those who should rule, the dilemmas of taking on the responsibility is seemingly more visible. The dilemma of asking the philosophers to descend into the cave is relevant to this thought because for the philosophers this is not the ideal way to go about their lives. In other words, it is not best for them. Socrates says in book 1 that ruling does not benefit the rulers. This is because rather than living the life of an average citizen, the ruler must control the things that make that city thrive (while living in a cave). “You mean we are to treat them unjustly, making them live a worse life when they could live a better life?” (519d). This is Glaucon saying that its unjust to make the philosophers descend just for the city’s selfish needs. Essentially, philosophers returning to the cave/ruling results in them choosing an option that is not best for themselves but rather for the city (which results in a less than stellar life for the them) and the philosophers staying in the city results in a city that is worse off, being ruled by people who are only going to fulfill their own selfish political needs. There are two accounts however explaining why philosophers should return to the cave. From the utilitarian view, they argue that while a philosopher might be unhappy for a short while when first descending, they will then be able to practice philosophy which will result in more happiness overall. The view also argues