1.

I would start with a clear definition of a philosopher according to Plato. What

makes him special, how he differs from a modern academic philosopher, what kind

of knowledge he posses, why is this knowledge superior, etc. This is a key part along

with a definition of philosopher king. You often mention ‘superior knowledge’,

’special level of knowledge’, ’perfect wisdom’ as one of your main arguments, but

it’s not clear what exactly is meant by that. One needs to provide specific,

philosophical arguments to support his point. You can start here and here. And I

would focus mostly on Plato’s actual ideas and then secondary on other thinkers

(Guenon...)). For example:

Plato’s definition of a philosopher is not only one who loves knowledge, or strives for

wisdom, which itself indicates something incomplete, preparatory and insufficient.

‘If curiosity makes a philosopher, you will find many a strange being will have a title to

the name. All the lovers of sights have a delight in learning, and must therefore be

included. ’ (The Republic, Book V)

Even less is he debate-loving intellectual who likes to play with words for fun and due to

his conformist nature is not capable to think for himself (Plato’s sharp critique of poets

and rhetoricians is notable). On the contrary, Plato’s philosopher is more like a sage or

prophet, who already has direct access to Ideas - ultimate realities that exist behind all

phenomena and especially to the highest reality - Idea of the Good. This is what defines a

real philosopher. Only he perceives reality as it is, in its ‘isness ’, we can speak about a

special kind of clairvoyance or direct perception of first principles. He perceives Beauty,

True and Justice in itself as eternal, timeless qualities, as something that is most real of all

1
realities. Non-philosophers can know only particular, imperfect representations of

transcendental essences hence their focus lies solely on sensible world. Because of their

limited understanding of real causes, they are destinated to make wrong decisions and

eventually fail as leaders. And this is a reason why highest leader must have this level of

knowledge, that is knowledge of principles (epistēmē) and not only craft-like knowledge

(technē). He can only avoid being corrupted by having an inner compass based on

something absolute and not relative.

2.

Your main argument for philosopher king seems to be his superior knowledge and

moral virues, e.g. you last paragraph with conclusion and many other sentences. I

would argue that this is not Plato’s teaching. You forgot one key aspect:

Philosopher king represents the ideal embodiment of knowledge and will, contemplation

and action, theory and practice. He is as much a warrior as he is a scholar, there is no

distinction here. That’s why he is a philosopher and king, and not only a philosopher who

was allowed to rule. Being king means to own very specific qualities necessary for the art

of ruling. Even wisest and virtuest philosopher without such qualities cannot become a

king. Plato was aware of that: ‘And so we have arrived at the conclusion, that in the

perfect State wives and children are to be in common; and the education and pursuits of

men and women, both in war and peace, are to be common, and kings are to be

philosophers and warriors, and the soldiers of the State are to live together, having all

things in common; and they are to be warrior athletes, receiving no pay but only their

food, from the other citizens’ Republic, Book VIII

2
In Republic, Plato detaily describes how intense education should philosopher king has.

From an early age, he receives extensive physical training to strengthen his will,

discipline, and courage to enduring pain. Then he needs to study theoretical subjects such

as mathematics and astronomy along with practical skills for ruling, especially military

art and politics. (More about Philosopher king’s education can be found here). Of course,

philosophy and knowledge of ‘good’ represent the peak of his studies. But more than

practical ruling skills is important to have a certain balance between inner forces that

constitute a warrior (thumos) and a philosopher (nous).

Plato’s position is perfectly expressed in this loose translation from Republic:

‘He who is only an athlete is too crude, too vulgar, too much a savage. He who is a

scholar only is too soft, to effeminate. The ideal citizen is the scholar-athlete, the man of

thought and the man of action.’

Philosopher-king-warrior is not a utopia, because there are several radiant historical

examples who meet basic requirements. Then it’s only natural to consider this form of

government to be absolutely best.

3
 Student ID: 20332392

Do you Agree with Plato that the Philosopher King Makes the Best Ruler?

Describing the ideal society in The Republic (Plato 2007), Plato introduces the concept of
a philosopher king, arguing that philosophers should become kings, since they possess virtue and
a unique kind of knowledge that is required for a successful rule. In order to truly understand
Plato’s concept of the philosopher king, it is necessary to consider it in the historical context of
Greek philosophy and focus in more detail on the meaning of the word ‘philosopher’ from
Plato’s perspective. Whereas the idea of a current philosopher being a ruler in today’s world may
not seem appealing, Plato’s perception of a philosopher shows some singularities, and therefore
creates space for further considerations. Supposing philosophers are indeed virtuous and dispose
of unique qualities as well as a special level of knowledge described by Plato, I do agree with
Plato that the philosopher king make the best ruler.
With the aim to support Plato’s concept of the philosopher king, I argue that since
philosophers naturally strive for gaining wisdom, only they have the potential to acquire superior
knowledge, and are therefore suitable for ruling. My reasoning is based on the ancient saying
‘Know Thyself’, claiming that profound knowledge and supreme wisdom can only be attained
through the process of esoteric teaching. As opposed to exoteric teaching, it is able to provide
true knowledge which one must find within himself, since it can only be acquired through a
personal experience. That is the reason why Plato said that ‘everything that a man learns is
already within him’ (Plato, cited in Guénon 1931, p.5), meaning that everything one experiences
in the external world is merely an occasion for him to realize what is within himself. According
to the saying ‘Know Thyself’, the real knowledge is not linked to the reason, but rather to the
spirit and the whole being. Once a man achieves the supreme wisdom and is aware of himself in
his deepest essence, then he knows the supreme principle and everything that springs from it as
well, and hence becomes perfectly legitimate for the rule. As the philosopher king eventually
reaches the perfect knowledge as the ultimate objective, he is definitely intellectually suited to
rule and should become a king. ( I would skip this part about esoteric teaching. Not that it
wasn’t true, but it sounds strange, unnaturally and vague in this contex. It’s beyond the scope of
this essay to properly explain what esoteric teaching is. Philosopher king can be rationally
justified and Plato’s teaching is your biggest help here.)
Plato’s understanding of a philosopher suggests that the philosopher king does not only
love wisdom and possess the most profound understanding, but in order to attain the highest aim
he also possesses the requisite skills – virtues, hence is the most virtuous of men and therefore
most qualified to rule. To elaborate on the characteristics of a philosopher, it is important to first
clarify the etymological meaning of the word. ‘Philosophy’ expresses the fact of loving Sophia,

4
or wisdom, yearning for it and aiming to acquire the perfect wisdom. Based on the ancient
thought, the man who showed inclination towards wisdom was referred to as a philosophos
(Guénon 1931, p.2). In the context of the ancient Greece, these philosophers were either viewed
as perpetual adolescents considered totally unfit to rule (Lane 2013) and completely engrossed in
the world of abstract ideas, or as individuals with a real impact on the society that applied their
knowledge practically. Attaining knowledge is inseparably linked to striving towards the truth,
thanks to which philosophers’ desires are significantly weakened, meaning no longer being
subjects to human weaknesses such as lust for money, pleasure or fame, which tend to lead to
immoral behaviour. Because of their knowledge and the love of truth, philosophers can rule
justly and are superior in virtue to everyone else. Embodying justice and virtue, philosophers are
both morally and intellectually suited to rule (Lane 2013): morally thanks to their natural drive
towards the truth and knowledge, freeing them from the lust or greed which may encourage
others to abuse power, and intellectually since only they can fully gain the knowledge of reality.
Moreover, the philosopher king, escaping from the “cave”, is the link between heaven
and earth and has the capacity to guide others the same way as a man with the perfect sight
would guide a blind man. According to Plato (2007, p.204), ‘philosophers only are able to grasp
the eternal and unchangeable’, whereas the others are referred to as blind men with no true
knowledge of reality or standard of perfection which would help them to identify what is right
and what is wrong. In fact, the purpose and ideal of the ancient society were to guide the people
the purification of the soul as well as the attainment of happiness and well-being. Since only
philosophes were capable of reaching the most supreme objectives through their virtues, only
they could become the ultimate authority trusted to guide the people to the truth or salvation.
This spiritual aspect of their suitability for a ruler is closely related to the profound meaning of
‘knowing thyself’. This saying has also a sacred character implying that, propelled by their
unique desire for wisdom which eventually leads to knowing the gods, philosophers also serve as
the link between the human and the divine world. Philosopher kings are after all also servants to
something higher, and therefore show devotion beyond themselves. Since they derive authority
from ‘above’, and possess the perfect understanding suitable to guide the other, their rule is
perfectly justified.
Another reason which I believe justifies the rule of the philosopher king is his aim to
achieve the ideal polis, where political rule solely depends on the philosopher’s knowledge,
rather than on power. The history as well as the present show numerous examples of nations
experiencing a rule based on power, during which the actual knowledge remains irrelevant. For
this reason, it occurs that even though the ruler is a subject of respect and authority, his
intellectual capacity is limited. Accordingly, his emotions tend to influence his actions, as
opposed to thinking critically and ruling the country justly and wisely. In order to prevent
changeable emotions from taking important decisions concerning millions of individuals, I find it
crucial that the ruler possess great knowledge as well as a profound understanding of the
happenings in his soul and of the consequences of his acts. Nonetheless, while this concept of the
rule of knowledge in ‘Kallipolis’, or the beautiful city, is theoretically ideal, the presence of
power is seen as an important element in the process of initiating or pursuing political activity
5
(Matassa 2013). To my mind, however, philosophers, as the most educated ones, dispose of the
power of knowledge. Although this power is not the one Matassa was referring to, I assume it
suffices as long as the philosopher king uses his intellectual capabilities to grasp the political
power. Since he knows about ethics, logic, political philosophy or metaphysics which serve as
his unique intellectual power, I believe the philosopher king is indeed the most suitable ruler.
The previously described arguments do support my opinion, but also create space for
counterarguments, implying that the concept of the philosopher king is an unrealistic one in
contemporary politics. For instance, Matassa (2013) argues that despite Plato’s argument
supporting the fact of democracy being ‘the rule of the unfit’, in the modern countries where
democratic systems prevail it is necessary that the ruled are represented. As the name already
indicates, in a democracy as a representative form of rule, people ought to be represented by their
rulers who support and implement their interests. Supposing that the philosopher king is the
ruler, he is indeed the man with the most profound knowledge and the deepest understanding, but
this fact does not automatically mean that he is an expert on the true interests of the society. One
must distinguish between the intellectual nature of a philosopher striving for the perfect rule and
optimal solutions on the one hand, and the real demands of the people on the other. Moreover,
because of polarized demands of people, it might seem more reasonable and fairer to apply the
representative model of democracy, which enables voters to determine who will represent them.
Democracy in this sense seems to be more just as it better reflects the actual interest of its
people. However, from my point of view, the rule of the philosopher king is more consistent and
less complicated as he does not have boundaries and the obligation to search for compromises to
please all. Instead, considering his virtue and intellectual qualities, I have no doubt the
philosopher king can justly decide on the functioning of the state and contribute to the well-being
of his people possibly in their best interest, despite not necessarily acting according to their
wishes.
Another common subject of criticism related to Plato’s concept of the philosopher king is
that such rule where all the power belongs to one person, can be classified as a benevolent
dictatorship, and is therefore not ideal. A benevolent dictator is in this case an ‘enlightened
despot’ who governs the people’s interests without prior consulting them (Wolff 2006, p.62). In
the context of the modern age, such concept is unacceptable, as people increasingly insist on
having a greater say in the governmental issues. Alongside with the negative impacts of past
totalitarian regimes, more active engagement in the running of the government has gained
popularity in modern states. Nevertheless, having democratically represented interests does not
imply that modern governmental systems eventually lead to better rule when compared to the
rule of the philosopher king. Although democracy strives to consider opinions of all, their views
and interests are highly polarized, and therefore the process until a decision is reached lasts
significantly longer when compared to a benevolent dictator. Moreover, when choosing their
representatives, voters are rather easily influenced or manipulated based on irrelevant
information in political campaigns. Besides, many are simply not interested in the governing
process or do not have the necessary knowledge to positively contribute to the ideal of
democracy. The philosopher king, on the other hand, is consistent is his views and objectives and
6
due to being the only ruler, the decision-making process is rather easy, fast and practical.
Another fact to consider is that, as opposed to a dictator, the philosopher king does not have the
desire to rule but, being aware of his qualities, does so out of responsibility to the people.
Though individuals might feel that the absolute power of the philosopher king is unjust, many
democracies are in reality dominated by only a number of political parties (Matassa 2013), or
elites who often lack the ideal knowledge that a philosopher possesses and instead benefit from
their charisma, rhetoric, or simply their strong personalities. Therefore, I am convinced that the
philosopher’s rule is much more efficient and just, and leads to wiser decisions which in the end
positively impact the whole society.
Concluding my thoughts, I argue that the philosopher king indeed makes the best ruler,
supporting my arguments with Plato’s thoughts expressed in The Republic as well as discussing
the counterarguments related to the concept of the philosopher king. Because of his unique
potential to acquire superior wisdom, a special level of knowledge and his virtue, the philosopher
king rules driven by his desire for the truth, which makes his rule justified both intellectually and
morally. Though his political rule is solely based on knowledge and virtue, and does not reflect
the actual polarized interests of the people, the philosopher king remains to be the most qualified
for rule, as he acts to achieve justice and ultimately the well-being of his people. Furthermore,
despite being criticised for describing what is believed to be a benevolent dictatorship though
democracy dominates the current world, Plato is right to claim that philosopher king makes the
best ruler, as his rule is after all more just and efficient, and eventually positively impacts the
society. For these reasons, I completely agree with the Plato’s concept of the philosopher king
and believe it to be ideal.

7
Bibliography

Guénon, R. 1931. ’ Know Thyself ’. El-ma’rifah