Philosopher Kings - Was Plato just arguing he should be the ruler?

[Kulee Baba]

Was hoping someone with a background on philosophy could had me some insight on this, or at least someone who recently read The Republic. Wikipedia sums it up pretty well:
____
The Republic is a Socratic dialogue, in which the character of Socrates is made a mouthpiece for Plato's ideas. In the first two books, Socrates is challenged to give a definition of justice, which he proposes to accomplish by imagining how an ideal city-state would function. He suggests that the ideal state would be ruled over by a specially-trained Guardian class, in whom a spirited nature would be combined with a philosophic disposition.[1]

Socrates goes on to discuss various aspects of life within the state. In the fifth book, Socrates' interlocutors ask him whether the state he is describing could ever exist in reality. He replies that this could only happen on one condition:

Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy ... cities will never have rest from their evils,—no, nor the human race, as I believe,—and then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day.[2]

Socrates clarifies this comment by distinguishing between true and false philosophers. The true philosopher (or "lover of wisdom") is one who loves "the truth in each thing", as opposed to those who only love the things themselves.[3] This is a reference to Plato's belief that all particular things are only shadows of eternal Forms. Only the philosopher, therefore, is qualified to rule, as only the philosopher has knowledge of the absolute truth, and is able to apply this knowledge for the good of the state.
____
The underlying logic amuses me, I feel that Plato is just arguing that in an ideal world someone like him should be the ruler. Because clearly PHILOSOPHERS simply know what's best for a nation. It would be like if a cop said "You know what, in an ideal society cops would just rule."

But at the same time I feel arrogant in mocking Plato and one of the most important pieces of literature. Am I just taking Plato's argument with too much pessimism? I understand that Plato isn't being literal but still it comes off as insanely pretentious. Not to mention how a specially-trained "Guardian class" as history and modern day has shown us just leads to rampant cronyism & nepotism.

 

[Phalanges Mycologist]

Wide Boy can Fuck right off - Sincerely Aristotle

 

[DumbDude43]

essentially, yes.
philosophers being full of themselves and high on their own farts is something that is as true today as it has been in antiquity, it's a universal constant.

 

[DyingStarsForever]

One thing to keep in mind is that ”philosopher” as a title was mich broader at the time. philos-, lover, -sophia, wisdom. Plato and his clique engaged with pretty much every field of study imaginable, things like natural science, law, linguistics, etc. that wouldn’t fall under that umbrella today.

Given that even literacy was a luxury for the elite he’s basically just saying that kings should be educated. Not a ground-breaking idea now but back when civilizations were few and far between and most rulers were brutish warlords it made sense to stress that point.

 

[Polish Businessman]

Plato was just simping for Sparta and their mythical king Lycurgus. That entire period in politics can be understood by the following analogy:

Athens ~ America and the West
Sparta ~ Soviet Union
Socrates and Plato ~ Sartre, Chomsky and other useful idiots
Thirty Tyrants ~ "But that wasn't real Spartanism".

Sparta was a scientific and cultural desert, with a militarized serfdom-based economy and below-replacement fertility. Somehow Athenian academics (but not citizens in general) held that in the highest regard. Yes, history does at least rhyme.

 

[Ultrapenguin]

What a nigger.

Philosophers would make terrible kings.
To use a dumb example that would be like today when you've got all those people who think that if only this visionary videogame or movie director was given free reign, not held back by those awful, crooked, unimaginative publishers/producers/whatever, then imagine what they could make!

Then they get the opportunity to do that and it turns out to be a disaster, because without someone keeping them grounded they become completely detached from reality.

The people at the very top need to not be super deep thinkers; their job is organization and execution, not analysis. That's why the president of the US is in the executive branch, and the top position within a company is chief executive officer.
When it comes to thinking or philosophizing, that's why they have advisers. Just because the words come out of the king's mouth doesn't mean that much.

In other words I'd argue it's actually important for the king to be a little bit of an idiot.

 

[Beak Thing]

Marcus Aurelius was a literal philosopher king and one of the greatest Roman emperors. All of the Five Good Emperors could be considered that, even if they didn't personally create any works of philosophy they definitely ruled with that mindest.

Problem is, the system didn't last. Less than a century in fact and it was followed by the near total-collapse of Rome.

I think that's the weakness here...sure, if every leader is a wise philosopher things will probably be great for everyone. But how do you stop someone who isn't from getting into power? People can easily lie and deceive others about their intentions, or corrupt enough others to get what they want.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Maybe he was, but he was definitely on to something regardless.

Marcus Aurelius was a literal philosopher king and one of the greatest Roman emperors. All of the Five Good Emperors could be considered that, even if they didn't personally create any works of philosophy they definitely ruled with that mindest.

Problem is, the system didn't last. Less than a century in fact and it was followed by the near total-collapse of Rome.

I think that's the weakness here...sure, if every leader is a wise philosopher things will probably be great for everyone. But how do you stop someone who isn't from getting into power? People can easily lie and deceive others about their intentions, or corrupt enough others to get what they want.

Introducing a theocratic element would keep those types from power. They wouldn't be able to lie or deceive anyone because everything they say would need to line up with the holy texts, and their intentions would be irrelevant due to their actions being restrained by the religion in question's established parameters.

Otherwise, for example, what "evil" is would be subjective as there'd be no objective basis by which to define it, relying solely on the purported wisdom of the philosopher-king. Starting with the premise that God is perfect and therefore what He deems evil is unquestionably evil, you can move on.

Of course, then the issue is objectors to the religious element. You can't please everybody though; even a truly objectively perfect system would be objectionable to anarchists. I think you just need to do what works and welcome people to find a country more suitable to their liking, and just thrive while every other hellhole seethes.

 

[Rusty Metal Skull Gun]

@Homer J. Fong, I thought the exact same thing. He even says that the Philosopher King should take power only reluctantly, so would have the get out of saying "oh no, I don't really want this...".

In his defence, he didn't have the examples of the Soviets, the French Revolution, etc. to show how fucked up things can get when idealists are in charge.

Also, I lol'd when he said that in the interest of justice, women should exercise naked with the men. Yeah, I bet, you dirty old man.