"Philosophy, the Forms, and the Art of Ruling" by David Sedley
Socrates, in Plato's Republic, makes three large claims of political philosophy during the three waves in book five of the Republic. The third claim is the largest claim as it holds the ruler of Plato's Callipolis as Socrates claims that philosophers should be kings (256). This third wave of political philosophy becomes the primary focus of Sedley's work, "Why then, despite the expected incredulity, should philosophers rule?" (257). To first understand the philosopher king, Sedley approaches this topic by first conveying the difference between the non-philosopher and the philosopher and why the philosopher should rule. Secondly Sedley believes an understanding of the forms will bring more knowledge to why Plato's Socrates made this bold claim that philosophers should rule. The last point Sedley looks to make in his work is the reason to why philosophers will undertake the obligation to rule in this ideal city.
Non-philosophers are characterized by Sedley as, "lovers of sights and sounds," these individuals possessing culture but lack one key component of a philosopher, that lacking component being an understanding of the unitary essence of beauty (257). This lack of understanding of unitary essence of beauty makes Sedley believe that non-philosophers will initially reject philosopher kings. The factor that Sedley believes will change this is the knowledge of forms.
Knowledge versus opinion is the first comparison that the reader sees in Sedley's work between forms. Sedley believes that this growing understanding of forms will be the factor that helps improve the relationship between the non-philosopher and the philosophers. Sedley makes this comparison not with the trying to concluded the difference and potential resistance of non-philosophers to philosopher kings rule, but rather begin to build the framework for understanding. Sedley defines knowledge versus opinion as, "therefore the object of knowledge is something incapable of change. Opinion, by contrast, being variably true and false, is inherently subject to revision, a feature that implies that its objects are, correspondingly, items that are liable to change," (258). This comparison between the two forms create the distinction between the non-philosopher and the philosophers. Philosophers posses a detachment from the object and their intellectual gravitational pull toward the "realm occupied by the changeless forms," that allow the philosophers to exercise the only faculty that can truly be called knowledge (259). Sedley relates this to the fact that no one can truly know what policies or laws will become in the future with a hundred percent certainty but that the philosophers with their philosophical knowledge can illuminate the policy to arrive at temporarily correct opinions on the policy (261).
Sedley transitions to books six and seven of the Republic to demonstrate how the philosopher king can be seen thought out and resemble a Socrates-like figure (261). In book six of Plato's Republic Sedley believes the stars in the Ship of State are symbolic of the forms to which the star gazer is symbolic of the philosopher king (261). Yet in book seven of the Republic is where Sedley truly dives into this thought and develops what he sees as the philosopher king being played out. In book seven Socrates claims that the chained prisoners are 'like us' showing that he believed the philosophers to be chained in the bottom of the cave and their return to the cave to be evidence of the philosopher king's education and eventually showing how it relates to why the philosopher king should rule (262). The philosopher would seem unworldly in an ordinary city according to Sedley because the philosopher's mind is always focused on higher things (263). The cave represents the normal and the world outside of the cave represents the world of forms according to Sedley as the philosopher begins to question what causes the shadows and remains in the cave until however painful transitions himself out of the cave into the world for there lies the true answer to what is justice (262-263). Sedley points out that this class that will actually understand the forms and why they are good will belong to an elite class that not even he himself belongs to (269). This higher knowledge according to Sedley is mathematical knowledge with its focus on mathematical principles of proportionality on which all lower values depend on (270). Although these philosophers posses the knowledge to rule the question that Sedley concerns the second half of his argument with is why they should rule (271).
The first mention of how philosophers will want to rule is mentioned in book one as it serves as foreword of what will be shown in more detail later in the republic. Socrates believed there were three ways to get someone to rule: for money, for honor, or by compelling them by threat or penalty (272). The philosopher king would not rule for money or honor but only by compelling them by threat or penalty because money or honor is not good motivations for the best people according to Socrates (272-273). Sedley dives deeper into Socrates claim that, "when good people take on office, their motivation is the selfish one of avoiding subordination to their inferiors," (273). Sedley claims that this is building a heavy socratic theme that this self interest to avoid penalty or threat of being ruled by inferiors will be the compelling force to get philosophers to rule (274). It is important to point out that their compulsion to rule is not by force but by stacking the circumstances in which the philosopher king will weigh his or her options and step into it freely (275). Sedley relates forms to the philosopher king as the philosopher king's understanding of the forms will in fact determine their skill of ruling the city and ruling justly (275). Sedley reminds the audience that as Glaucon mentioned the philosopher will not want to be king but would be willing and that is the key difference for it follows Plato's political insight that a good leader should be reluctant to rule (278).
Sedley presents two contradictions or counterarguments to this view of the philosopher king being compelled to rule. Sedley presents a potential counter argument held by others that a philosopher's supreme desire can't be for their own good but rather the maximization of the good whenever the opportunity presents itself (277). This counterargument is seen as not having enough evidence in the Republic for the belief in moral motivation of philosophers according to Sedley (277). The contradiction to the philosophers being compelled into ruling is two part. The first part being is that not all philosophers will feel obligated to repay their education by ruling the city (279). Secondly this system of compulsion does not account for a potential free rider that declines to rule because their are other philosophers ruling so they are no longer subject to inferiors but equals (281). Sedley finishes his work by attempting to answer these contradictions. Socrates in book one points out that there would be a competition to get out of ruling in a just city (281). This competition Sedley believes would in fact lead to a rotating system of philosopher kings in order to prevent any free riders and restraining the philosophers from their lives of true happiness (281).
Questions:
- Do you believe that a life of ruling would jade the philosopher kings or that a revolving system is enough of a solution to maintain just ruling and good rulers?
- Do you believe that Plato's great political insight "the only good ruler si a reluctant one," holds true in the Republic? In Modern Society?
- Do you believe that the non-philosophers will submit to the elite class as easily as describing the elite class as intellectually superior or does this remain only possible in writing and never in reality?
- Why do you believe that mathematical knowledge is the significant difference between the elite philosopher class and others according to Plato?
- Does Sedley convincingly account for the counter argument and contradictions presented in his writings?
Question 1: I don't know if a life of ruling would jade the philosopher kings, however I do think it would effect their ability to philosophize, because in being king they would have to focus their wisdom to the field of politics, they simply wouldn't have the time to broaden their search for and love in knowledge. I think that the revolving system of philosopher kings compensates for this, because when a new king takes over, they would have more recently studied/been in contact with philosophy. This would allow only the freshest minds to rule, while the previous rulers could return to their philosophical work and love for all wisdom.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above statement. While at first the philosopher king might be the best option for ruler, the longer he is in office the less and less he will still be a philosopher king; he will start to become just a normal king whose focus is politics and money. The constant rotation would ensure that a fresh, new philosopher king will be in power before the old philosopher king loses the qualities of a philosopher king.
DeleteQuestion 3: Initially, the non-philosophers might oppose being ruled by the elite class. Socrates even seems to suggest this in his ship of state analogy. The stargazer appears to be unconcerned about everyone else on the ship, when in actuality he is the only one that is concerned about everyone. However, if he comes to terms with the ship owner, then everyone on the ship realizes the stargazer was always concerned for them. Of course, in writing this seems easy to accomplish and in reality nearly impossible. However, I think it is actually possible in reality because once someone has been guided to understand something, then they are more open to accept change. There is probably going to be plenty of struggling for the non-philosophers to submit to the philosophers, but once they realize they are not submitting but willingly following, then things will begin to be different.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1: I do feel that the life of ruling would push philosophers away from becoming kings. Their love of knowledge would be restricted to politics and there would be no way of expanding their reach. However, if the revolving system does come into play, it may help with the restriction of knowledge as long as there is a set timeframe. Although, there could be problems if there were not enough philosophers with a small timeframe. Then the same ones would continue to rule without enough time to expand on their own knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you, Anthony! We see it over and over throughout this book that Socrates (Philosopher King) being much more interested in gaining more knowledge than being a ruler. Yes, he would be reluctant to rule not because he would have made a terrible ruler, but simply because he knows and accept that the people are not mentally ready for the change. Philosopher king is much more interested in reaching more goals than to discuss politics with the people that only care about their power and honor. Philosopher kings are the type to always be in constant thought on how to acquire more knowledge and expanding their horizons. Them as rulers, they would have been terrific, but they would have to drag people out of the cave and people would not like being uncomfortably painful to see eye to eye with the good!
DeleteQ4: I want to say that it has to do with the fact that mathematical concepts are very concrete and unmalleable. They are rarely changed once they have been set down, although there are some exceptions. Socrates says that math is capable of compelling the mind to accept abstract concepts like numbers and reason with them (525d). The concepts of numbers are purely intangible and thus math is the closest we come to understanding the forms in concrete form. Mathematics prepares us/the philosopher kings for understanding the Good which has no concrete form and to entertain the idea of using abstract concepts that are not “visible”. Most people tend to not believe anything they cannot see and thus, the Good seems to be out of reach for many of them. The elite class is capable of understanding the intelligible and so they are the ones chosen to rule the city by means of the Good.
ReplyDeleteQ2: I definitely do think that the Republic supports the Platonic claim that rulers should be reluctant to rule. I think that this is logical in the city that a philosopher king would not desire to rule for money or honor and would rule out of necessity or obligation to their training. I think this is similar to the soul, that the calculating part would need to be in control out of necessity to the good of the soul. In the modern world this is a more difficult question, but was probably as troublesome during Plato's time. We use wealth and honor as motivation for people to strive to take leadership and ruling positions, the very things philosopher kings should reject. I'm sure this was the same back during Plato's time, but it urges us to ask where the philosopher kings are.
ReplyDelete1. I think a life of ruling would definitely effect the philosopher. When placed in a position of power/rule, a philosopher is faced with various tensions, situations, desires, and temptations. They have to steer their own lives virtuously while also ruling virtuously. They are not subject to these “authority” conditions when they are not ruling. I think a philosopher would be changed due to his new authority and he would shift his thoughts to that of a ruler instead of only knowledge. Also, a philosopher would not be able to solely focus on knowledge and learning if he is a lifetime ruler. Therefore, a rotating system allows for philosophers to always retun back to their true love of knowledge, which could also lead to a deeper appreciation and even make them better philosophers in the end. They have gained insight into authority, navigated new situations/desires, and returned to their true purpose. I think this chain of events would change anyone.
ReplyDelete