Plato was not only a great philosopher but also one of the first political theorists in written history, applying his philosophical outlook to the problems of state and society. One of his most famous works, Republic, outlines the author’s approach to the organization of government. While developing the model of a perfect ruler and an ideal state, the philosopher finds faults with all types of government present in Ancient Greece, be they timocracies, oligarchies, democracies, or tyrannies (Plato VIII).
In particular, he criticizes democracy for threatening hierarchical power structures and promoting anarchy. Plato’s proposed alternative is the rule of a philosopher-king – a wise person able to see the essence of justice and, consequently, have the precise knowledge rather than a mere opinion of what is right. However, the perfect state he envisages is not fault-free either and demonstrates notable philosophical downsides. Plato’s idea of wise rulers who can discern justice proves unconvincing, because his definition of justice is self-enclosed, and the philosopher-king’s rule is ultimately as unstable as he democratic one.
Before pointing out the shortcomings of Plato’s ideal state as a preferable alternative to democracy, it is necessary to cover, however briefly, the philosopher’s criticism of the latter. According to Plato, the main downside of a democratic rule is that it promotes anarchy by gradually undermining any authority and hierarchy. As he puts it, democracy breeds “subjects who are like rulers and rulers who are like subjects” (Plato VIII).
This adverse impact on the existing power structures not only manifests in public politics but in every aspect of social life, including private households, According to the philosopher, in a democratic society, fathers lose their parental authority over their offspring ,and children “have no respect or reference” for their parents (Plato VIII). One step at a time, anarchy finds its way into every social group, every family, and every household, until the denial of authority poisons the society as a whole. This gradual destruction of established power structures and hierarchical relationships is one of the critical arguments against democracy as a form of political organization offered by Plato.
Yet one should be aware that Plato’s vision of a perfect state and society is just as prone to destroy the power structures already in existence in his contemporary society. It is not even necessary to interpret the Republic for a historical perspective and utilize the millennia of accumulated philosophical knowledge to note this fact. Even Socrates’ own companions in the treatise point out that his ideas directly threaten the existing social order. One of them comments that, upon hearing of Socrates’ radical ideas, “numerous persons, and very respectable persons too,” would grab any weapon that happens to be nearby and attack him on sight (Plato V).
The implications of this observation are clear: the numerous and respectable people in question would fear that Socrates’ political ideas undermine their power. Therefore, Plato’s idea of a perfect state as narrated by Socrates in the Republic threatens hierarchies and power structures to a no lesser degree than democracy.
Consequently, the only reason to prefer a philosopher-king’s rule to democracy is that the former destroys unjust hierarchies to promote the just ones, while the latter does not. Yet Plato’s treatment of justice as a concept deserves due criticism because his portrayal of those who can and cannot see it creates a potential for logical blunders. According to the philosopher, the ability to see “the absolute and eternal,” including justice, only manifests in a limited number of wise persons (Plato V).
Those who see the mere impressions of things rather than their true forms and operate personal opinions rather than infallible knowledge are “simply blind” when compared to those who have mastered philosophy (Plato VI). Only a philosopher may discern true justice, and others, as exemplified by Socrates’ remark to Glaucon, are “not… able to follow” this superior understanding (Plato VII). While this distinction is entirely in line with Plato’s approach to ontology, its implementation in practice undermines the argument in favor of the wise philosopher-kings.
Separation of people into two categories – philosophers who can see the actual forms of things, including that of justice, and common folk who lack this ability – seems to create a logical fallacy. While this distinction supposedly gives philosophers a claim to power, it also undermines Plato’s argument if one takes a closer look at it. If no ordinary person may comprehend true justice – as mentioned above, ordinary people are “not… able to follow” philosopher’s reasoning even if they try – a philosopher’s opinion becomes the only point of reference for them (Plato VII). While Plato himself would claim that forms exist objectively, it makes no difference for those who cannot see them anyway.
If they adopt his reasoning, then, from their perspective, justice is what a philosopher defines as such. Yet, on the other hand, Plato has already defined a philosopher as a person who understands justice. This creates a self-enclosed definition: justice is what a philosopher declares just, and a philosopher is a person able to see justice. Hence, Plato’s case for philosopher-kings is based on a logical fallacy and, as such, is not an example of persuasive philosophical reasoning.
One may object that, even though Plato’s case for the rule of philosopher-kings rests on a faulty logical premise, his imagined ideal state has other comparative advantages, such as stability. Indeed, maintaining balance and preventing unrest is the utmost concern in Plato’s political philosophy and likely the main function of the guardians of the state as he portrays them. In one instance, he notes that the rulers should be “true saviors and not the destroyers of the state” (Plato IV).
Saving rather than destroying the state implies maintaining its stable continued existence and, according to Plato, a wise philosopher-king who values “knowledge more than power” would create a perfectly stable society (Prior 125). Thus, one may argue that, while Plato’s ideal state is not superior to other forms of political organization from a strictly logical perspective, it still has comparative advantages in purely practical terms. Even if the argument for philosopher-kings is logically unsatisfactory, their rule would still be a preferable alternative if it could offer stability unachievable in democracies.
However, Plato undermines this potential objection himself in his discussion of the different types of government. He does that when discussing how a timocracy – a type of state guided by honor and governed by military leaders – arises from an aristocracy, of the imaginary government of the best and wisest. He states outright that even the perfect constitution as envisaged in the Republic “will not last forever, but will in time be dissolved” (Plato VIII). According to him, it would happen when the ruling philosopher-king proves unable to raise decent successor due to a “miscalculation of the proper time for breeding the guardians” Arruzza 115)
. Thus, even the idealized wise ruler, as represented in Plato’s treatise, is not immune to mistakes, and, more importantly, these mistakes inevitably bring the end of Plato’s perfect government. As a result, the rule of the wise comes to an inglorious end with the same assuredness as the very democracy Plato criticizes for its instability and propensity for civil unrest. Considering this, one may hardly agree that it offers greater stability to the citizens of the state.
As one can see, Plato’s case for the rule of philosopher-kings as a preferable alternative to democracy is mostly unconvincing. The Greek philosopher identifies the main fault of democracy as undermining power structures, but his companions quickly note that the impact of his ideas is precisely the same. To explain the difference, Plato points out that a philosopher-king would destroy unjust hierarchies and promote the just ones, unlike the democratic leaders who lack the knowledge of true justice. Yet this strict separation of people into two categories based on their supposed ability to see forms eventually leads Plato to craft a self-enclosed definition of justice.
Since self-enclosed definitions are logically wrong, Plato’s argument for the rule of philosopher-kings appears unconvincing. One can still argue for the reign of philosopher-kings based on stability it is supposed to provide, but Plato undermines this counter-argument himself by noting that his imagined government is also prone to decay. Thus, the Republic offers no decisive argument in favor of Plato’s ideal political order.
Works Cited
Arruzza, Cinzia. A Wolf in the City: Tyranny and the Tyrant in Plato’s Republic. Oxford UP, 2019.
Plato. “The Republic.” Translated by Benjamin Jovett. Project Gutenberg. Web.
Prior, William J. Virtue and Knowledge: An Introduction to Ancient Greek Ethics. Routledge, 2017.