Applying Plato's Argument To Rule The Republic

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

terms of a modern state.
In The Republic, there is a precise questioning of life, as it is an attempt to answer a problem in human life, which is justice. To deal with the problem of justice, Plato considers what he thinks is the ideal state. This is a system of self-government, which involves a relationship between the structure of the Republic and the fulfillment of justice. Plato argues that philosopher kings should be the rulers, as all philosophers aim to accomplish the ideal state. The "ideal city" is a just city where political rule is based on knowledge. According to Plato, this is what philosopher kings possess, not power. In theory, it would be wonderful if the Republic and the modern state were controlled by not power, but knowledge. However, power is important for the composition of political activity. This is one of the main issues for Plato’s argument, which the essay will discuss. Determining who should rule is the challenge of this essay. Regarding Plato's idea, I think philosopher kings should not be the rulers. This is because Plato is promoting an political system led by a dictator, and therefore not democratic. However, it is necessary to look at some aspects of the modern state consistent to the "ideal state".
Realizing the true idea of democracy is key to understanding Plato’s argument for rule by philosophers.

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

navigation."
With this allegory, Plato not only emphasizes the idea that work is key to the functioning of the Republic, but that philosophers were not fully appreciated during his time. Therefore, they were useless because the world would not realize their knowledge. Also stressed are the dangers of liberty and fairness, and the overall flaws of democracy.
The idea of specialized work is also linked to justice, which Plato considers to be organized, as justice (in the political sense) is a result of a organized city. This differs from individual justice, as it is a result of a organized self, and where each individual in the state has a tendency for a specific ability. Philosophers have to have certain aspects that allow them to rule. For instance, a "philosopher king" must have the ability to see the difference between good and bad. Above all else, a philosopher must cherish the idea of wisdom, as a wise ruler leads to justice, and philosophy becomes absolute. Justice and knowledge are a virtue, and they both require understanding. If there is understanding, then there is goodness. Therefore, knowledge and goodness go together as one. According to Plato, a philosopher king would have both virtue and knowledge, so their rule would be justified.