Monday, May 16, 2016

Final Paper

Kyle McAlpin
Dr. Thomas
PHI 360
16 May 2016
            Plato’s use of Afterlife to appeal to the masses
            In The Republic of Plato, Plato writes a dialogue between Socrates and the interlocutors that discusses the ultimate questions: what is justice, and if justice itself is better than injustice? The Republic analogously answers what justice is in the soul through Socrates’ examination of justice in the city, and his defense of justice against injustice. Book X ends with a discussion between Socrates and Glaucon about the immortality of the soul and how the gods favor the just. Plato, using Socrates’ interlocutors akin for his own audience, writes that the gods favor the just because he realizes that the only way the average person will seek perfect justice in the soul is if there is an otherworldly reward for doing so. Most humans will never become a philosopher as it goes against human nature and in mentioning the Myth of Er, Plato, just as those in the cave, is casting a shadow by adding the reward of the gods to justice.
            Justice is the highest virtue a soul can achieve and it is only possible if the soul is able to harmonize its calculating, spirited, and desiring parts. Socrates’ objective is to teach how justice in the soul can be achieved analogously through the search of justice in the city. Justice is something that, “we like both for its own sake and for what comes out of it” (Book II 357 c). Plato uses Socrates’ views in The Republic of Plato to attempt to create a more just and happy city: “in founding the city we are not looking to the exceptional happiness of any one group among us but… that of the city as a whole” (Book IV 420b). For a city to be just, the citizens must seek out justice in themselves; however, most humans refuse to follow philosophy. As a means to get the average person to consider justice, a reward must be presented.
            After answering what justice is and whether or not justice is in itself better than injustice, Plato chooses to end the Republic with the discussion of the immortality of the soul: “Therefore, since it’s not destroyed by a single evil-either its own or an alien-it’s plainly necessary that it be always and, if it is always, that it be immortal” (Book X 611a).  By stating that the soul is immortal, Plato is setting up his premise that there exists an afterlife and a reincarnation of sorts. Once he establishes the concept of an afterlife Plato can then build off of his idea that the gods are watching man, “And if they don’t escape notice, the one would be dear to the gods and the other hateful, as we also agreed at the beginning” (Book X 612e). If the gods exist and care whether or not a man is just, and there is an afterlife, both provide a reason for the average man who is not a philosopher king to turn towards justice. Some of the unjust in a society would start to analyze themselves and their soul, and seek harmony of their soul if it meant that they would please the gods and be rewarded in the afterlife.
            Plato goes into further detail about the afterlife and how the just soul is rewarded in the Myth of Er, which tells the account of a Pamphylian warrior’s journey through the afterlife after being killed in battle. A key point in this myth is that it sets up the concept of there being two different paths a soul could be sent depending on how just it was: “He said that when his soul departed, it made a journey in the company of many, and they came to a certain demonic place, where there were two openings in the earth next to one another, and, again, two in the heaven, above and opposite the others” (Book X 614b-c). This separation of a good and bad afterlife provides another reason besides those Plato had previously mentioned in The Republic as to why justice is favorable. A stronger motivation for a human to follow justice than the promise of a heaven is the fear being in hell for a thousand years: “For all the unjust deeds they had done anyone and all the men to whom they had done injustice, they had paid the penalty for every one in turn, ten times for each” (Book X 615a). There will always be those in a society that completely neglect justice, but Plato puts this form of a bad afterlife to try and stray anyone away from falling into injustice without hesitation or fear of punishment.
            The last part of the Myth of Er tells of what happens to the soul once it has served its thousand years in heaven with the just or in hell with the unjust souls. Once the sentence was fulfilled all the souls were brought together and given lots at random to choose their next life:

This is the beginning of another death bringing cycle for the mortal race. A demon will not select you, but you will choose a demon. Let him who gets the first lot make the first choice of a life to which he will be bound by necessity. Virtue is without master; as he honors or dishonors her, each will have more or less of her. The blame belongs to him who chooses; god is blameless. (Book X 617d-e)
When choosing its next life every soul will choose a new life based on what it had experienced and learned in its previous life or incarnation. Often times, the souls that were rewarded with heaven chose hastily, without fully considering the lot choice. They chose the slots that seemed virtuous on the surface, but that really lead to tyranny. The laborers, on the other hand, since they had experienced suffering on earth, were more likely to carefully choose a truly virtuous lot. The incarnation cycle of the soul leads to a “exchange of evils and goods for most souls” (Book X 619d).
Souls would then theoretically choose the life that they think will provide them with the most happiness, except for the philosophers, who would choose a new life that allows for the continuation of the pursuit of wisdom or a just life. Human nature is to give into desire and it is abnormal for a human to completely bypass desire for wisdom. Even if a soul was warned that it was making the wrong choice, it would still make the choice based on the desires it had in its previous life. Some souls, such as Odysseus’, do make good slot choices, but these are different from the slot choice a philosopher king would make. Odysseus’ soul chose “from memory of its former labors it had recovered from love of honor; it went around for a long time looking for the life of a private man who minds his own business” (Book X 620c). The souls who choose well are the ones that analyze their past lives and injustices, and choose a slot that will provide them a more virtuous life of justice. The philosopher king however, would choose the slot that would lead to the greatest justice, the continuation of wisdom. They would have to keep to the “upper road” and forever philosophize in order to stay just. Plato says that God is blameless because even if a soul regretted its decision, there is no one to blame but itself.  A complete harmonization of the soul to where one would become a philosopher king is highly unlikely, humans are flawed and will always give into temptation.
Ronald R Johnson in his article “Does Plato’s ‘Myth of Er’ Contribute to the Argument of the “Republic’? argues that the Myth of Er’s purpose is to support Plato’s claim that justice is preferable to injustice and that the just will be rewarded in the afterlife. Johnson defines the claim that there is an additional reward for justice and punishment for injustice as the Addenduum: “The opening scene of the Myth of Er confirms the reader’s initial impression that the purpose of this story is to support the Addendum” (Johnson 7). The discussion of the good and bad afterlives presents an other worldly reward and punishment for following justice. Johnson argues that this additional reward for justice comes second the the reward of rationality, harmonization of the soul. He believes that the Myth of Er sets up the afterlife to follow rationality just as the harmonized soul does: “It is not in heaven, not in hell, but here, amid the inner workings of the cosmos…it is here, rather than in the extreme pleasures or pains of heaven or hell that one finds displayed the order and rationality behind all things” (Johnson 8). Johnson argues that the Myth of Er provides evidence that the entire universe follows rationality and that this alone should be motivation to follow justice; that reason will lead to justice in the soul and justice in the city. Although it is true that reason alone should be the motivating factor to search for justice, not everyone can completely harmonize their soul and follow reason. This is why Plato discuses an otherworldly reward for justice; the promise of an enjoyable afterlife motivates those unable to truly follow reason to at least attempt at it.
The Myth of Er teaches, through the soul’s lot choice, that most humans follow whatever they believe will provide them with the greatest amount of happiness. They will believe that the gods favor the just, if it means that they will experience happiness in the afterlife. Human beings exhibit the characteristics of those imprisoned in the “Allegory of the Cave” and it is next to impossible that one will truly ever escape and become a philosopher. Humans typically choose the path in life that is easiest or produces the most pleasure: “And if they were somehow able to get their hands on and kill the man who attempts to release and lead up, wouldn’t they kill him?” (Book VII 517a). Plato acknowledges that human nature is to resist the philosophical awakening even if that meant living in a world of shadows, content playing the game of acquiring false knowledge. If ever freed, the prisoner from the cave will be exposed to truth and wisdom, but he never explains how the first man is released or breaks free from the chains. Prisoners in the cave would choose to stay there forever if it was not for an accidental freeing. The last part of chapter X was included in The Republic because Plato wants society to try and search for justice but he also realizes how unlikely that is, and how they need another reason, besides wisdom, to even consider justice.
             By telling the Myth of Er and creating an afterlife in which the gods judge men based on how just they were, Plato is casting a shadow on his audience just as the ones behind the fire do in the cave. In the cave there are people who are creating the shadows for those imprisoned: “Then also see along this wall human beings carrying all sorts of artifacts, which project above the wall” (Book VII 514b). Plato, by giving this ulterior motive for justice, is appealing to the masses because he wants society to at least try to be just but understands that only a few will every truly harmonize their soul and become a philosopher. Trying to harmonize the three aspects of the soul will make an individual better even if they never attain the level of harmonization of a philosopher king, and if everyone is attempting justice then the city will be stronger. However, by appealing to the masses Plato is, in a sense, imprisoning them into a new cave where he is the one creating false images. If someone blindly tries to follow justice because of the reward it will give them, then they are being imprisoned into a cave of justice. The only way to escape this new cave is if a true just philosopher frees them. However, just as in the first cave, the average man will refuse to be enlightened and will hold onto the idea that if they try to be just they will get the favor of the gods.
            The imagery and symbolism in the allegory of the cave can be converted over to explain how it correlates with a new cave of justice. Plato’s use of the gods and an afterlife makes him the caster of shadows: “As we know that the natural symbolism illustrates the Platonic education” (Ferguson 15). The original cave is caused by human contempt with false wisdom and injustice, with the shadows representing a visual understanding. The un-harmonized nature of the average soul is the reason most are content being chained down. However, through examination of the soul as it relates to justice, an individual may be able to achieve true wisdom or the “sights… those outside in the sun [that] are divine” (Ferguson 16).  The light of the sun is the key component of the allegory as it represents the ultimate goal of true wisdom; wisdom that only the philosopher king can attain. Since the justice cave is still a cave, its is highly unlikely that those imprisoned will ever reach this true wisdom. Plato realizes this but still imprisons society with the promise of a good afterlife: “The bonds that hold the prisoners fast and the shadows that enchain their interest, so that fetters become unnoticed, are devised by men” (Ferguson 16).  Even though Plato is imprisoning his audience, the cave of justice is still better than the original cave. Plato understands the difficulty associated with the pursuit of a just life, and how it goes against human nature to break free of the chains, realize true wisdom, and go back for the other prisoners. In this cave of justice everyone is attempting the harmonization of the soul; therefore, this cave is more preferable, for Plato, than the original one.
Another approach to this is that in The Republic, Socrates’ is trying to teach Glaucon that it is very possible for humans to harmonize their souls. That it is possible through questioning, just as Socrates did, to get individuals to fully look inward and become a philosopher king. Although only the guardians can become philosopher kings in Plato’s argument, if Glaucon can move past desires and do it, so can all the interlocutors: “Unless… the philosophers rule as kings or those now called kings and chiefs genuinely and adequately philosophize” (Book V 473d). The only was a just city could exist is if the rulers philosophize and follow wisdom. Humans although flawed, once freed from the cave will grow to love wisdom and go back and free the others.  
            Book X of The Republic of Plato presents an ulterior motive as to why a human should be just. In stating that the soul is immortal and that the gods are judgmental, Plato is appealing to the average human by giving the incentive of a heaven. To get the masses to even consider justice and try to harmonize their soul, he needed an otherworldly reward. He must do so because philosophy completely goes against human nature, which is to give into desire. In writing the Myth of Er, Plato creates a new cave of justice, in which he is the one creating the shadows, and his prisoners are exposed to more philosophical truth than they were before.
The philosopher king lives his life for the search of true wisdom and bases his understanding of the world on intellection. Those chained down in the cave, most of society, form their understanding from the visible. However, if society has an ulterior motive for the pursuit of justice and they attempt to harmonize their soul, relying on reason, they will crossover from the visible, trust and imagination, to the intelligible, thought and intellection. Plato’s justice cave allows for those chained down in his cave to be exposed to more wisdom, through the search for justice, than they would have in the previous one. Nicholas Denyer’s article, Sun and Line: The Role of the Good, looks at Plato’s theory of forms through teleological considerations. He argues that thought might be more important than intellection for the average person seeking the intelligible.
Denyer starts off his argument by examining the good, as it relates to the form of artifacts: “the Good has the privileged position of being what accounts for the existence and intelligibility of Forms” (Denyer 284). He claims that the good is what causes the ideal artifacts existence and intelligibility. To determine what aspects of an artifact are pertinent to the Good, we must use thought: “When, in the light of the Good, we come to understand a form, we must, claims the analogy with the sun, use our minds, not our senses’ (Denyer 285).
Engaging in mathematical thought about images deepens the understanding of the object of thought and brings the physical object into an “intelligible reality” (Denyer 296). Using the less clear physical objects as a representation of reality makes thought superior to trust, while making thought inferior to intellect. As intellect has no use for images but is much harder for the average person to understand. The use of images and hypotheses is able to increase thought but it fails to bring ones understanding to the level of intellect, where the philosopher resides. Hypotheses, proofs, and theorems all rely on mathematical assumptions not grounded in in intellect; mathematical thought has some truth but it is not as clear as the forms that exist in the intellect. Those in the new cave searching for justice of the soul would find it easier to use mathematical forms to understand the world rather than intellection because they are not philosophers.
            The last part of the essay addresses the reason why thought leads to a greater intelligible understanding of the world for the average person. Denyer quotes Plato saying, “intellect reasons dialectically, and proficiency in dialect requires a maturity, and prior education, that even under best of circumstances few will have” (536d-540b). Intellect is the highest form of knowledge but it is near impossible to reach compared to thought. Mathematical forms rely on unhypothetical starting points, which Denyer attributes to the Good: “having a teleological explanation of something means seeing what is good about it; and it will be for this reason that the Good is the unhypothetical starting point for all that is teleologically explicable” (Denyer 307). Denyer reasons that intellect might not actually be better when it comes to teleological understanding because mathematical forms are still found in the light of the Good. Mathematical forms can exist because of a natural order or beauty in the world. Mathematical forms are the way the prisoners in Plato’s cave would gain a greater intelligible understanding of the world, since these forms are easier for the average person seeking reason to understand.

Work Cited
Ferguson, A. S.. 1922. “Plato's Simile of Light. Part II. The Allegory of the Cave (continued)”.            The Classical Quarterly 16 (1). [Classical Association, Cambridge University Press]: 15– 28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/636164.

Ferrari. The Cambridge Companion to Plato's Republic. N.p.: Cambridge UP, 2007. Print.

Plato, and Allan Bloom. The Republic of Plato. New York: Basic, 1991. Print

Johnson, Ronald R.. “Does Plato's 'myth of Er' Contribute to the Argument of the "republic'?”. Philosophy & Rhetoric 32.1 (1999): 1–13. Web...



Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Final Paper



The gloomy end to Socrates’ life is well known, since he was publicly executed. The question unknown to many, however, begs to know why this famous philosopher was put to death in the first place. Socrates was tried for corrupting the youth and impiety, both of which were the direct results of him asking philosophical questions. Socrates was famous for his philosophical method of Socratic questioning, where he would ask a number of questions leading to a central theme or idea- the line of questioning was seemingly a harmless way of achieving the truth, but interpreted the wrong way looked impious.
Philosophy throughout the ages has persistently been a threat to different groups of people, and this fact lead to many tragedies- including the death of Socrates. It seems crucial that the Republic, written after the death of Socrates, would feature none other than Plato’s teacher as the central interlocutor. Not only is Socrates the focal voice of the Republic, but he advocates justice, wisdom, courage, and moderation as the central- good- virtues that can be found in both the individual and society, and that a just life is worth living. The Republic seems to be a forum in which Plato argues for both the benefits that philosophy has on the individual and those that it has on public and political structures as well. This argument, in theory, would show how philosophers shouldn’t be condemned or executed (this point being made even more clearly by Plato’s use of the wrongfully executed Socrates), but should be revered for their wisdom and the benefits they could bestow on individuals and societies. However, it is important to note that only those who were properly raised in an educational environment suited for the virtues of spirit and wisdom can exhibit these beneficial aspects of applying philosophy to their everyday lives.
The entire city in speech was constructed as an allegory to the individual in order to determine what justice is. After the discussion in book one about justice and injustice, Socrates admits to the other interlocutors that “So long as I do not know what the just is, I shall hardly know whether it is a virtue or not and whether the one who has it is unhappy or happy” (354 c). In order to determine the effects justice has on the individual and society, Socrates and the interlocutors set out on the quest of defining and observing justice and injustice. Justice, as it turned out, consisted of each part of the city doing its own designated part (434 a). This is an interesting definition of justice due to its parameters. In order to be just, a person must do what they’re most naturally inclined to do. However, many people don’t know what they’re best at, especially without a proper education to be exposed to many different things in which to choose from. Even with education, sometimes people still don’t find what they’re best at. Does this mean that people who never find their natural talent are unjust? By this definition, maybe; this leads to the question of the plausibility of ever having an entire population who can be just, but that’s just another question of plausibility and application of the city in speech (which we found out in class, there are a lot of).
Looking into the city in speech, one must analyze the division of the city into its classes, each of which encompassed a different virtue. The three classes included the guardians, the auxiliaries, and the many citizens; the guardians represented wisdom, the auxiliaries spirit and courage, and the many represented desire (428 d- 430). The city, in turn, is a political reimagining of the virtues of the soul. The political aspect of the city in speech could be thought of as highlighting the communication and interworkings of the virtues in the soul, to showcase how each virtue can have an effect on the whole. If you think about this, it makes a ton of sense; Plato’s Socrates is trying to find justice, define it, and see its impact on the soul and the individual as a whole. How else would one evaluate this virtue and its effects on the individual without analyzing its interactions with the other virtues within the individual?
With this in mind, it is easy to see the application of Plato using a city and polis as analogous to the virtues’ interactions with each other and the individual. This analysis of the soul, its virtues, and their effects on the individual are all philosophical concepts that Plato uses to understand aspects of humanity. In this light, Plato is using philosophy in order to further understand virtues and human nature/interactions. This knowledge, when truthful and applied correctly, can help people become more just, and ultimately (according to Plato’s Socrates) live better lives. This not only highlights the true (innocent) nature of philosophy, but it also shows how it can be largely beneficial for anyone who properly studies and applies it to their lives. One major image in the city in speech through which Plato uses Socrates to show the benefits of philosophy on a political regime is the guardians.
The guardians were the ruling class of Socrates’ three part city in speech. Each of the citizens in the city in speech were naturally inclined to one type of virtue, with the guardians representing wisdom. When describing the nature of the guardians, Socrates claimed that each must “in his nature be philosophic, spirited, swift, and strong” (376c). The guardians, in order to be able to wisely rule the city, must be philosophic in their nature – a lover of knowledge. For philosophy (in this sense) is only a person who seeks out the most knowledge possible about whatever they’re naturally inclined to. By creating a ruler who is also a philosopher, that ruler would be able to use knowledge and wisdom in ruling their city, and in turn would provide what is necessary for the city and be a great ruler. Philosophy in this light heavily aids politics and would be beneficial for those who used it in their political ruling.
In order for the guardians to pass the test to separate themselves from the auxiliaries and become true guardians, they must first be properly educated. It’s pretty obvious the emphasis Plato places on education, seeing how he dedicated an entire book in The Republic to the education of the guardians and auxiliaries. Plato’s Socrates even claims that, once established, “the regime…will roll on like a circle in its growth. For sound rearing and education, when they are preserved, produce goo natures; and sound natures, in their turn receiving such an education, grow up still better than those before them (424 a).
It is interesting, however, that the guardians and the auxiliaries receive the same education. The only defining difference between the guardians and auxiliaries is established by a test in which “the one who on each occasion, among the children and youths and among the men, is tested and comes through untainted, must be appointed ruler of the city and guardian” (413 d-e). This test displays some difference between the guardians and auxiliaries, a difference that the guardians are benefitted by, and the auxiliaries cannot overcome. This difference lies somewhere beyond the physical, it is something in the nature of the guardians which allows them to retain the knowledge they have learned and apply it correctly. This difference between guardians and auxiliaries could very well be that philosophic nature that guardians possess. It is granted that not every guardian is a philosopher, but that they are naturally inclined to the virtue of wisdom and have a higher power beyond those of the auxiliaries. According to Plato’s Socrates, these are the best fit rulers for the city.
Since there is such an obvious emphasis on education in The Republic, there must be some aspects of early development of wisdom with spirit that allow for a better philosophic nature. As Klein points out in his article Plato on the Relation Between Character Education and Rationality, by teaching children discipline and structure before anything philosophical, they are able to further their education of philosophy (when matured and ready) without distractions or falsities (Klein, 1989). This is crucial, because children who are raised without discipline, even if exposed to a proper education, might not have the drive to properly learn or apply their knowledge. If they lacked this drive, they either wouldn’t philosophize, or would do so incompletely or incorrectly. Without discipline, people cannot focus on anything knowledgeable and be able to ascertain the most out of every situation. By allowing the guardians to receive the same education as the auxiliaries, Plato is ensuring that the guardians will have the proper nature to reach their full philosophic potential later in life. With discipline comes the ability to fully analyze a subject and extract the most knowledge possible from it.
To further stress the benefits of philosophy, Socrates alters the city in speech to include women and children in common (449 c). This idea was radical for the time, and could be thought of as implausible (which Socrates admits in 450 d). Socrates claims that the only way this city could be possible was through the implementation of philosopher kings (473 d). In order to showcase why philosophers would be the best monarchical leader for this altered city, Plato’s Socrates discusses love, and what true love is (in the light of beauty paralleled to philosophy). Socrates describes the love of something as being the love of every aspect of it, not just a part; he elaborates through the example of beauty – how people love beautiful things, but no one appreciates beauty itself (479a). It is here showcased that loving something means loving every aspect of it, not just what is obvious or pleasing to the individual.
This emphasizes that a true philosopher, who is a lover of wisdom, would love all of wisdom. This implies that they would need to know what is, and “what is entirely, is entirely knowable” (477a). In an ideal world, a true philosopher would explore all knowledge and be incredibly wise. This would make for an ideal ruler because he would be able to use his wisdom to properly rule the people, hence the philosopher kings. Steinberger, in his article Plato’s Paradox: Guardians and Philosopher-Kings, stated that “Philosopher kings…do not gravitate spontaneously to the cave but are compelled to return there; once there, they presumably propagate laws and policies explicitly and intentionally designed to ensure that empirical cities function as harmoniously as possible…guided quite strictly by the dictates of right reason” (Steinberger, 1990). Even in the real world, someone who employs their time to gaining knowledge would become wise and in turn would still make a fine ruler, leading to the point Plato makes through Socrates that philosophy is a potential positive and beneficial aspect to the individual and society. 
The benefits of philosophy, however, not only boil down to the many seeing how philosophers could be beneficial, but of philosophers themselves applying their knowledge to society. As Foster points out in his article Some Implications of a Passage in Plato’s “Republic”, “They [philosophers] must be shown that this sacrifice is a debt which they owe to the city in return for the opportunity which it has afforded them of becoming philosophers” (Foster, 1936). Foster is pointing out the responsibility of the philosophers themselves in gaining positive recognition from the many. For even though the many discriminate against philosophers, if philosophers never fight back and show their significance, how will the many ever think them of anything other than useless? It is extremely crucial for philosophers to demonstrate their knowledge and beneficence to society, not just to wait for society to recognize their importance. By writing The Republic, Plato is doing just this; he is using the dialogue as a way of showcasing the importance of philosophy and its beneficial aspects. He is also philosophizing, via the dialogue between interlocutors, showing a way of properly deducing philosophic concepts. All in all, The Republic analyzes philosophy in many different lights, from its interworkings to its beneficial deductions.
It is important to note that in Book 4, justice is found to be “the having and doing of one’s own…for which his nature made him naturally most fit” (433a-434a), and throughout the Republic Socrates’ stresses the importance of doing one’s own work and only one’s own work in order for there to be harmony (moderation) in the city (and in analogy to the soul). This, in extension, is applicable to philosophy as well – that only those naturally inclined to philosophize should. This can be seen when Socrates mentions the philosophy kings in Book 5, “Thus, when they have come plainly to light, one will be able to defend oneself, showing that it is by nature fitting for them both to engage in philosophy and to lead a city, and for the rest not to engage in philosophy and to follow the leader” (474b-c). While philosophy can be largely beneficial, it too needs to be left to those naturally inclined to the virtue of wisdom. Many times, Plato’s Socrates warns against the improper usage of philosophy, and how that can harm not only the individuals, but the name of philosophy itself.
The Republic has many interpretations to its meanings, but it cannot be denied that it casts philosophy in a favorable light in terms of the self and society. By using Socrates to convey this message, Plato seems to casts some significance on the need to see the innocence of philosophy by using his executed mentor. By showing how a philosopher could be a great ruler, and showing a definition of philosophy that is the innocent search of knowledge, Plato is able to reassure the public of the harmless intentions of philosophy, and in turn philosophers.



Works Cited

Foster, M. B. 1936. ‘Some Implications of a Passage in Plato’s “Republic.”’ Philosophy 11: 301-
            308.  
Klein, Sherwin. 1989. 'Plato on the Relation Between Character Education and Rationality.'
            Southern Journal of Philosophy 27: 239-254.
Steinberger, Peter and Duncan, Christopher. 1990. ‘Plato’s Paradox? Guardians and Philosopher-
            Kings.’ The American Political Science Review 84: 1317-1322.