Applying Plato's Argument To Rule The Republic

770 Words2 Pages

The objective of this essay is to examine to what degree Plato’s argument that philosophers should be the rulers of the Republic is well-founded and logical. Plato asserts that philosophers should become kings, or vice versa, as they retain a higher level of knowledge that most people do not. According to him, this is what is required to rule the Republic successfully. In this essay, I will explain why Plato’s idea for the "philosopher king" rule is not persuasive or realistic. But also that certain aspects of his ideal kind of ruler do appear in the modern state. For my dispute, I will dissect Plato’s argument for the philosopher king and its limitations. Furthermore, I will consider what aspects of a philosopher king's rule are logical in …show more content…

In the 21st century, most states are democratic. By this, it simply means that people have input in the functioning of the state. But there has always been a clash regarding what democracy truly is. Basically, whether or not democracy is the concept of majority rule. To Plato, it all comes down to what democracy means in a literal sense. Democracy is the rule by the "demos", which can be interpreted as "the people". I think most people would agree that making political decisions requires proper ethics, judgement, and skill. To assert this, Plato uses the the allegory of the ship. In The Republic, Socrates sets out an example of a ship led by men ignorant of navigation, who
“don’t understand that a true captain must pay attention to the seasons of the year, the sky, the stars, the winds, and all that pertains to his craft, if he’s really to be the ruler of a ship. And they don’t believe that there is any craft that would enable him to determine how he should steer the ship, whether the others want him to or not, or any possibility of mastering this alleged craft or of practicing it at the same time as the craft of

Open Document