Philosopher Ruler as President
The Inevitable Weakness of a Philosopher Ruler as President
In his work, The Republic, Plato argues that justice is attainable by a civilized society governed by philosopher rulers, men who possess infallible wisdom and a love of truth. In this ideal city, the standard of knowledge as a basis for political rule survives only if all requirements are met such as the division of society into economic classes, strict specialization and a limited population size. Plato’s concept of a just society exalts rule by the elite over democracy, which, in his time, was defined as rule by the common people. At present, democracy denotes the involvement of the people in the running of the state. In the modern
United States, Plato’s concept of society is one that is both wildly idealistic and impracticable.
A philosopher ruler would fail to be a strong president of the United States given the nation’s fundamental representative democracy.
The presidential actions of a philosopher ruler, whose rationale consists of unchanging and absolute ideas, would prove ineffective and weak in a nation comprised of s diverse populous whose problems have no singular solution. Philosophers, according to Plato, are those who possess knowledge that is defined as both being “related to what is” and access to the Forms: unchanging, universal, absolute ideas (Plato 199; Cohen). Plato asserts that with this knowledge, philosophers will guide society to justice. However, a philosopher ruler president governing by his or her knowledge alone would subsequently disregard public interest, resulting in uninformed and ineffective legislation. The fallacy in the philosopher
ruler president’s basis of action is that he or she would govern assuming the people to be a homogenous mass of single interest. Consequently, there is little chance that presidential action will serve in bettering society as a whole as, in theory, it is the people who rulers are aiming to represent and support while
In his work, The Republic, Plato argues that justice is attainable by a civilized society governed by philosopher rulers, men who possess infallible wisdom and a love of truth. In this ideal city, the standard of knowledge as a basis for political rule survives only if all requirements are met such as the division of society into economic classes, strict specialization and a limited population size. Plato’s concept of a just society exalts rule by the elite over democracy, which, in his time, was defined as rule by the common people. At present, democracy denotes the involvement of the people in the running of the state. In the modern
United States, Plato’s concept of society is one that is both wildly idealistic and impracticable.
A philosopher ruler would fail to be a strong president of the United States given the nation’s fundamental representative democracy.
The presidential actions of a philosopher ruler, whose rationale consists of unchanging and absolute ideas, would prove ineffective and weak in a nation comprised of s diverse populous whose problems have no singular solution. Philosophers, according to Plato, are those who possess knowledge that is defined as both being “related to what is” and access to the Forms: unchanging, universal, absolute ideas (Plato 199; Cohen). Plato asserts that with this knowledge, philosophers will guide society to justice. However, a philosopher ruler president governing by his or her knowledge alone would subsequently disregard public interest, resulting in uninformed and ineffective legislation. The fallacy in the philosopher
ruler president’s basis of action is that he or she would govern assuming the people to be a homogenous mass of single interest. Consequently, there is little chance that presidential action will serve in bettering society as a whole as, in theory, it is the people who rulers are aiming to represent and support while