Why is that? — Shawn

A love of wisdom and a fascination for power: It'd be an odd brain that could wed the two.

Socrates in the Republic argues that true philosophers do not want to rule, which is partly why they should. In these rulers there would be no "fascination for power". Or so the argument goes.

Jamalrob is right. And I think part of the argument is that the person best suited to rule is the one who least wants the job, because to provide the best rule is the hardest job there is. The philosopher would only be moved to take the job of ruler, if life under the present rule got so bad, that it was worse than having to rule would be. If there haven't ever been any philosopher rulers, we can conclude that the rulers have never gotten so bad for the philosophers, to drive one to be a ruler.

Or so the argument goes. — jamalrob

Eschewing Plato's fantastic king - it's hard to imagine a modern philosopher on the campaign trail, stumping on Microsoft NBC or Fox News.

It's likely Plato's view of the philosopher king was somewhat - idealized. :smile:

I'd wager to say that it is because philosophy simply doesn't work in that manner. The closest we've ever been to such a phenomenon would be the socialist states of the last century and their vangaurds. Philosophy tends to attract the kind of people that wouldn't be interested in forcing people to do anything, as it is a logically self-destructing principle by its very nature; Caesar and Stallin - many others - knew that intimately. Philosophers are much like Jesus in that regard. They'd rather be the king of your heart and mind, rather than your enslaved body. Until it is largely accepted that a free society is the only option, and the power of states is diminished beyond that which has been never before conceived of, the idea of the independent philosopher kings guiding and influencing society is a fairytale.

-G

Allen: I guess I should never have suggested having a philosopher-king.

Simmias: Especially when you kept pointing to yourself and clearing your throat.
— Woody Allen, 'My Apology'

I'm :confused:

Does Plato want to

1. Give power to philosophers (empower)

or

2. Control power with philosophy (disempower)

3. Both

?

The problem is not simply that the philosopher king does not exist, but that the philosopher as characterized in the Republic does not exist. Unlike Socrates, who tells the story, they possess divine wisdom. In the Apology Socrates claims that no one is wiser than him, and he is wiser than others because he knows he is ignorant. The philosophers in the Republic is a creation of Plato's philosophical poetry. They, unlike the philosopher in the Symposium, do not desire wisdom, they possess it.

A love of wisdom and a fascination for power: It'd be an odd brain that could wed the two. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Socrates in the Republic argues that true philosophers do not want to rule, which is partly why they should. — jamalrob

I oppose both of your views. (Hehe.) A philosopher king has the following potential qualities:
- wisdom
- high iq
- fascination for power

This mix of qualities has been found in many a tyrant. The tyrant lacks one thing, which is NOT a requirement for the philosopher or for the king: to be benevolent and kind and have good will toward all. No, kindness is NOT SPELLED OUT as a requirement by Plato/Socrates. Therefore the philosopher / king has existed many times over history, inasmuch as they were wise, clever, intelligent, knowledgeable and able to influence others; and they were also fascinated by power, and strived to achieve it.

What you guys are ASSUMING is that a philosopher king is a good thing. This is a suggestion by Socrates / Plato, and as in many other things, that couple of fools have again failed in establishing a thought properly.

I think, and I said it before, Socrates is the most over-rated philosopher of all times. That is the only conclusion one can draw after getting to know the innumerable piles of garbage of illogical thought he had inspired Plato two write.

In the Apology Socrates claims that no one is wiser than him, and he is wiser than others because he knows he is ignorant. — Fooloso4

Except he fails to spell out WHAT precisely he is ignorant about. The topic of his ignorance is paramount to make his statement meaningful; yet he avoids that topic because he does not know what he is ignorant of. (This is a logical necessity.) Therefore he just added one more piece of putrid meaningless piece of crap to the pile of garbage he and Plato produced in their illogical, faulty, downright stupid ways.

Philosophers (and others) have, however, dreamed throughout history of a possible "benevolent despot" who would control the "common herd," guide us and teach us and, having done what was required to organize society and enlighten us to the point we could govern ourselves wisely, would give up his powers. Even J.S. Mill, if I recall correctly, thought a benevolent despotism desirable in some cases. Some thought Napoleon would be such a despot. And, of course, we know that Everyone's Favorite Nazi thought Hitler would do the job as well. There seems to be something about some intellectuals which moves them to worship powerful men.

In Socratic fashion I will let this stand, at least for now, as a riddle to be worked out by those interested in reading and understanding Plato.