Part 7: The Philosopher Ruler Section 1: The Ideal and the Actual Summary: !

In this section, Plato acknowledges that his state is an ideal, and, that even if the

ideal cannot be realized, it has still been worth describing as a standard to aim at. Plato is an idealist as oppose to a materialist, realist, or empiricist. He believes that the truth is in ideas/forms, rather than in the world around us. Allowing the philosophers to rule would be the only hope of realizing his ideal, because the philosophers understand the truth. Plato states, the society [. . .] can never grow into a reality [. . .] and there will be no end to the troubles [. . .] of humanity itself, till [. . .] political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands. Reection: ! Contemporary democratic states seem to dismiss ideals regarding politics as

useless fantasies that can never be achieved. States today have too many issues to deal with in reality (the actual) to spend time focusing on the ideal. I suppose Plato would say that they are not dealing with the truth, and I am sure rulers today would rebut. In many environments today, ideals of any sort seem to be disregarded and discouraged. The moment one begins to talk of the perfect work experience at the ofce, surrounding peers will swat their hands in amusement. They perform this action because they believe that perfection (ideals are perfect) is such a far off target that there is no point in even setting it as a standard to strive for. In some ways, however, ideals are properly seen as goals for perfection. When people go on a diet, they plan out an ideal meal plan - or the perfect meal plan that will cause them to achieve their sought outcome (e.g. losing weight, building muscle - Platos overall goal is not explicit). They
1

hold this plan as a standard of perfection to get as close to as possible. I suppose it is reasonable or easier for people today to deal with ideals on things of smaller scale. ! Philosophers are disparaged, and they were in Platos time as well. He discusses

the negative prejudices against philosophers in a later section. Currently, I would say philosophers are not widely valued as the ones who understand the truth. People would rather listen to themselves, the charismatic politician, or the teenage pop singer that they idolize. Philosophers can not touch the masses like these icons do today partly because they would not want to deal with all that which touching the masses entails. ! It does not make sense that Plato thinks that the philosophers should rule simply

because they understand the truth, because different philosophers believe in different truths (unless Plato meant for the philosophers around him to rule). Plato believes that the truth is in ideals and is objective, while Aristotle believes it is found through the senses and is subjective. Clearly they would rule in very different ways. ! In the midst of his ignorant act regarding the philosopher king, Socrates admits to

knowing what a paradox [the idea] would sound; for it is not easy to see that there is no other road to real happiness either for society or the individual. I will touch upon this quote in a later reection.

Section 2: Denition of the Philosopher Summary: ! The philosopher is the man who loves wisdom in the widest sense, especially

learning, knowledge and truth. He is in love with truth, not with the changing world of

sensation, which is the object of opinion, but with the unchanging reality which is the object of knowledge. Knowledge is related to what is; ignorance to what is not. Opinion is in between, because a man who holds an opinion grasps something, and opinion is darker than knowledge. The philosopher must have a good memory, readiness to learn, breadth of vision and grace, and be a friend of truth, justice, courage, and self-control. Reection: ! Most modern people are non-ambitious in searching for the one truth - that is, if

they even believe in it (people like this denitely existed in Platos time too). They are either uninterested and/or they do not want to strike ghts with people (as Socrates was prone to doing), so they allow - to some extent - issues dealing with morality, homosexuality, and religion (few examples) to be simply subjective. They leave it at the opinion level.
Note: In the world of change and decay, various issues and social norms arise that cause people to adjust. For example, the increasing gay population and the expansion of its rights.

This type of person is becoming increasingly more common, because the modern person wishes to t in with many kinds of people. To achieve this, they must be very open-minded (or at least appear to be). They do not want to have the reputation of someone who discriminates based on what other peoples views of the truth are. This would cause loneliness and the formulation of a general dislike towards the person. Plato looks down on the public; Aristotle is much more open (offers teachings to the public), and therefore is more connectable and engaging. Plato treats the public as ignorant and unt for any intellectual work in his state. However, we can observe today that many stable countries are - and have been - run by people who have not attended a

special academy. They clearly use/used philosophical tools in their governing, even if it is/was done subconsciously. ! In addition, searching for the truth does not pay much - if at all (disparagement of

philosophy) - and so it would just serve as an odd hobby. However, there is a large selection of more fullling hobbies with less drawbacks. ! In all, it makes sense that those who understand and seek the truth are a very

small minority, because Plato intends for those few to be leaders. The majority of the population must be followers. Im not sure if any rulers today are seekers or lovers of truth.

Section 3: The Prejudice Against Philosophy and the Corruption of the Philosophic Nature in Contemporary Society Summary: Philosophers are either useless or dangerous. Useless, because contemporary democratic society has no use for him; dangerous when corrupted. Plato exhibits his distrust of the working of democracy, and his dislike of the educational tradition of the contemporary school of Isocrates. Plato believes that knowledge should rule. Reection: ! Knowledge does not rule in a contemporary democratic society, rather it is the

most popular parties who have the most inuence. Opinions rule over knowledge - the party with the most popular opinions is awarded more say than the others (I am assuming that voters support a party based on its mandate). Everybody is relatively happy, because everyone (> 18 years old) has a voice. Whether it is drowned out by the

yelling of other proud souls is another issue. The point is that people want to use their voice, and democracy grants them that wish. Democracy is also a form or ideal. Some states are close to the ideal and strive towards it. Others are further, and some dont attempt to go near it (corrupt/tyrannical governments manipulating the vote). ! If one has exceptional knowledge, they should stand up and try to help in the

ruling of the society (or at least make a difference in their community), as oppose to grouch about how inefcient the system is. Plato is grouching in this section. On the other hand, he is making a difference through his handed down records of enlightening philosophical dialogues. ! Plato is a rationalist therefore, he believes that a priori knowledge, not a posteriori

knowledge, is the foundation of certainty. Therefore, it makes sense that he would want a priori knowledge to rule, as oppose to the shared opinions and feelings (emotions) of the majority of a population.

Section 4: The Philosopher Ruler Not Impossible Summary: ! Philosophers have a distaste for politics as it is annoying for them to deal with

ignorant politician types. The philosopher ruler is not inherently impossible however, the philosophic training must be the right one, and the changes in society would have to be radical. Philosopher king is a position taken by compulsion (duty not wish). He must sacrice self interest to engage in political life (this is needed for the state). Philosophers know the underlying essential reality. Reection:

It seems interesting how Plato demands so much change and dedication of the

people, when he and his comrades nd it strenuous to nd it within themselves to do their part (rule). It cannot be that difcult for them to get off their asses - as they are simply starring at the sky and pondering - to bring their present society closer to that of the ideal (the ideal they have been so passionately formulating). If the philosophers (the expected rulers) complain about some annoyance preventing them from fullling their deeds, than this ideal state was truly a waste of thought. Everyone in the state has to sacrice self-interest to engage in their dictated life. All of the jobs are taken by compulsion! Plato and his gang are just now realizing how uncomfortable life in their state would be - because now they too have to take part in this system where they are assigned not only job, but a life. The philosophers are being infantile. An annoyance is the least of the troubles that they are going to encounter in bringing this state to life. ! If this state is truly a form, then ignorant politician types should not exist within it

in the rst place. ! The childish philosophers create a number of paradoxes when concluding that a

philosopher must rule. First, the people would never accept a philosopher king because he would not be able to connect with them (as explained in a previous reection). Second, the philosopher would never want to be a king (as explained above), and if a king was trained to be a true philosopher, he would no longer wish to be a king. Third, if a philosopher ever did become king, he would no longer be a philosopher but rather a poet (one who practices rhetoric). This is because the philosopher would be so washed or changed by the political activities that he would forget his grounding in true philosophy. These paradoxes relate to Socratess admitting quote in my rst reection.

So I suppose that the society can indeed never grow into a reality, and there will be no end to the troubles of humanity itself because a philosopher king is an impossibility. ! Plato says, the true philosopher, as you know Adeimantus, whose mind is on

higher realities, has no time to look at the affairs of men [. . .] his eyes are turned to contemplate xed and immutable realities. This particular quote caught my attention, as I made a point in an earlier reection about how contemporary democratic governments are too occupied by the standard realities to consider the higher ones. This, in part, proves the separation of philosophy and politics today. ! Section 5: The Good as Ultimate Object of Knowledge Summary: To rule, philosophers must have knowledge of the Good. The form of the Goods role in the intelligible world is analogous to the role of the sun in the visible world. The Good is responsible for bringing all of the other forms into existence. When our minds eye is xed on objects illuminated by truth and reality, it understands and knows them. Yet when it is xed on the world of change and decay, it can only form opinions. Because, in this world, its vision is confused and its opinions shifting, it seems to lack intelligence. Knowledge of the Good illuminates what is good and valuable. Reection: ! Plato is a dualist; so he regards reality in terms of the ideal and the actual. He

obviously thinks that forms are more valid than appearances (knowledge from senses). The Good is the rst form (other than the forms of the state) that Plato introduces in detail. It is odd to think that this esoteric form, which Plato does not explicitly explain

(probably because he is not sure of what it is himself), is the source of all intelligible knowledge. It is the foundation for all reasonable and rational thought, yet it is unclear what it exactly is. It seems to be a imsy foundation, however, so is our knowledge foundation of the beginning of life and the universe. The foundation of math, 1+1=2 is weak. It is an assumption, because no mathematical equation proves it - rather, other equations are proved by it. In addition, there are numerous proofs for why 1+1 does not equal 2. Then again, all of the knowledge about the beginning of something is assumption, and therefore not sturdy. But this is dealing with the foundation/source of all intelligible knowledge and the truth!

Section 6: Divided Line Summary: The Divided Line is a spectrum of truthfulness of knowledge. Intelligence: full understanding, culminating in the vision of ultimate truth (reached by philosophy). Reason: the procedure of mathematics, purely deductive and uncritical of its assumptions. Belief: commonsense beliefs on matters both moral and physical which are a fair practical guide to life but have not been fully thought out. Illusion: the various illusions - secondhand impressions and opinions - of which the minds of ordinary people are full. The latter two are perceived by our senses, while the rst two deal with forms. Reection: ! It makes complete sense that the intelligible realm is more truthful than the visible

realm. In the visible (belief), a person could look at a tree and say it was large and green, however, human senses are not fully reliable. Mirages, the refraction of light, and

distractions are only some examples of how our senses can be tricked into believing what is not. In the visible realm, things change and therefore, the knowledge extrapolated changes, rendering it inconsistent and unreliable (every tree is unique, and each tree goes through changes - this would lead into questions of identity). In addition, secondhand impressions ll the minds of ordinary people. A modern example: news providers distribute manipulated news to the public for a desired effect. With mathematics, there is hardly any grey area of misconception. This is because it is eternal. People thought up the numbers to represent quantities, as well as mathematical theories for deducing useful information. Theories may progress and new ones may be discovered, but it will all be through consistent reasoning from an unchanging foundation. The procedure moves solely through forms to forms, and nishes with forms.

Section 7: The SImile of the Cave Summary: ! The simile of the cave begins with prisoners restricted so that they can only look

at a wall inside a cave. There is a re behind a walkway which is behind the prisoners so shadows of walkers walking by are displayed on the wall at which the prisoners are starring. The prisoners attribute the sound that the walkers make to the shadows because that is all that they see (or have ever seen their entire life). These prisoners take these illusions/shadows to be true, and once one prisoner is pulled out of the cave to see the real truth, he cannot handle it all. He must rst accept the illusions, then the objects themselves, and then gradually build up to reasoning and the intelligible realm.

When he rst returns to the cave to enlighten his old peers, they will think he is crazy. But after explanation and further evidence (the emerged could show the prisoners a ower for example), they too will eventually emerge from the cave of misconstruction. Reection: ! The simile of the cave compares this cave scenario to an intellectual emergence -

crossing over from the visible to the intelligible realm. The cave is also a metaphor for the discovery of intelligence by mankind. The rst ones to leave the cave, or those to comprehend all that the outside world of objects and forms consisted of, were the philosophers. When they (nowadays they can be mathematicians, scientists, or any other person who discovers something) preach things uncanny to the public, they seem to be ridiculed and ostracized. However, over time (as the cave simile suggests) the ones who have emerged are able to (with rsthand proof) persuade those still xated on the cave wall. Eratosthenes was a mathematician who discovered that the world was round, however when attempting to share his discovery, the public did not welcome it as true. Time went on and it was later veried and accepted by the public, however, now we can simply get in a spaceship and see the earth rsthand from space (evidence). ! The rst ones to break ground moving from the visible realm to the intelligible

were small numbers of philosophers and mathematicians. However, now the number of contemporary emergers is much greater, and is increasing as ne education becomes more accessible world-wide. Most youth have been taught some degree of math so I guess that they have already dealt with the intelligible realm to some degree. ! There are contemporary cave dwellers. They are simply those who currently are

deeply blinded by the illusions of society, such as propaganda and other secondhand

10

sources; those living purely or mostly in the lowest level of the visible realm. I suppose that most of the population of North Korea could be considered cave dwellers.

11