What do you think of the idea of the "Philosopher King"?

Question

Is there something romantic about this idea or not?

Seth, can't blame you, my memory is getting worse and worse. Thank you for the word "sophrosune", "temperance", "self-restraint".
Which led me to this interesting link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charmides_%28dialogue%29

Bradley, there was a great deal in your answer that was useful. Thank you.
Thanks, Toll Booth Willy- ("warrior poet" idea)

Answer 1

I'd prefer "Philosopher Queen" or "Philosopher Princess". What? What do you mean you're not referring to me? Awwwww!

Answer 2

I dont know if it is romantic or not, but its origins lead to ancient Greece where the idea was for a leader to be very well rounded mentally to understand as many ends as possible and to above all else, make decisions based on logic and reason and not emotion.

I think a lot of this ideology came from the focus of the ancient Greeks on wisdom, in ancient Greece, philosophers were regarded much like rock stars are today.

If you like the sound of 'philosopher king'...perhaps you would like 'warrior poet' as well

~Toll Booth Willy

Answer 3

I guess you mean like the saying, "Good leadership only occurs when kings become philosophers or philosophers become kings."

While I agree with this statement to a point, its an inherent impossibility. Kings will never become philosophers because there is both too much power and too much to handle for a leader. They don't have the time to think it out; and even if they did the temptation to ignore the best for the populace in favor of the best for what the king wants is too strong.

I doubt a philosopher could become a king; if they are any good at philosophizing they'd realize they probably couldn't handle leadership (no one can handle it well--just some handle it better than others and we have seen so much foolishness that if they can limit their foolishness we accept them as good). So the vast majority would stay away from the leadership role. Any one of them that does take the role would eventually lose themselves in the power.

And I know many believe that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I partially agree with that statement; but I'd much rather have someone with absolute power (who usually gets bored with it later and quits using it so much) than someone with just some power. Someone who has a taste for power but not absolute power just wants more power. They see what it is like to have things you want right away, but still have trouble getting it all and so they quest for more power (usually by abusing the power they already have to scare others into giving them more).

Humans just cannot handle power, because the ones who can handle it the best are also the ones who are smart enough to realize they cannot handle it and so stay away; and the ones who would abuse it are the only ones with the ambition to go for it.

Answer 4

Nothing "kingly" about it. The philosopher King has to dedicate his entire life to the study and application of philosophy for the benefit of the rest of society. Individuality is discouraged. He must abstain from human desire in order to achieve "true knowledge" in Plato's view. It would not be a position most would seek.

Answer 5

I'd say it's the *most* romantic, or idealistic, Idea of the bunch of cynical, pessimistic ideas that Plato had. ^_^

Consider that Plato was the one who formulated the idea that people are *by default* evil and prone to ruining themselves if left to their own devices. He was one of the first people to explore the whole notion of "humans as sinful creatures" that *every* religious faith on the planet harps upon. He was one of the first people to take the notion of "people needing laws of a society" as a leash to contain them, seriously.

And in his "utopian vision", the only thing keeping his elite "kings" from being dictators is the fact that they are dedicated "philosophers" as well. If you want to look at a system *moderately* influenced by this Platonic idea, look to Roman Catholicism. The Pope of that faith is the closest modern example we have of someone who acts *as* a "philosopher king". He may not have political power per se, but his words still influence *millions* on this planet, and for all that his life is dedicated to study and scholarship.

I know, not the perfect example or even the best one we have.....sorry.

But the point is....the "philosopher king" as a construct is supposed to represent the "best of the best" or the elite *of* an elite. As an idea, it basically says only the cream of the crop is *good enough* on principle to keep people "on the leash" and under civilized control, without becoming an amoral dictator about it.

It sounds slightly romantic to me, but only in the sense that "Hey, people suck, but maybe the 'best of the best' of the lot are still 'good enough' to pass for *Human*, who knows?"

To me it represents Plato's concession to the oddly non-philosophical notion that there's *hope* yet for the human race.

Just my paltry, caffiene-craving two cents, thanks for your time. ^_^

Answer 6

Plato thinks that in order to fix society philosophers should be kings or kings should be philosophers as philosophers have experience of all the three pleasures: of learning, or appetite and of ratio?

I, however, feel that it seems rather naive of him to think that a philosopher, who is essentially supposed to be indifferent to the world, can RULE the world.

Answer 7

According to Plato, it would be the perfect setup. I can't remember a lot about it now, but in philosophy, my professor mentioned something about sophrosune and how the philosopher king would be one who lives by that virtue. Sorry, but I can't remember the specifics. I just remember my philosophy professor raving about the idea, but then again, he is a philosopher.

Answer 8

Too highly idealized and utopian to be a reality.

Answer 9

i don't think its much of an improvement on any other type of king. ;)

Answer 10

dummest ever...