What Is The Recipe For A Perfect Ruler?

Plato is a philosopher; however, in “Plato’s Republic,” Plato’s view on philosophers within society is rather unorthodox compared with others who study philosophy. This is due to Plato’s views of individuals each having different skills they are naturally good at; he states that only true philosophers will be fit to rule. All others who attempt to rule will create terrible consequences for a city. The people shun philosophers because they are lovers of knowledge and are perceived to be different from them. The majority of people in a city are not lovers of knowledge but rather lovers of beauty.

            On the contrary, Plato's idea of the ruler is almost exactly the opposite that of Machiavelli's.  Plato's reason for his ideal ruler and state was to explain the meaning of justice. One must examine what it means for a state to be just and what it means for a person to be just to truly understand the meaning of justice.  According to Socrates, ??if we first tried to observe justice in some larger thing that possessed it, this would make it easier to observe in a single individual. We agreed that this larger thing is a city?(Plato 96).?  Plato?s ideal ruler must have a good mind, always be truthful, have knowledge and discipline, and not be afraid of death.  The ruler is a philosopher that satisfies the four virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation/self-control, and justice.

He writes, “You must contrive for your future rulers another and a better life than that of a ruler, and then you may have a well-ordered State; for only in the State which offers this, will they rule who are truly rich, not in silver and gold, but in virtue and wisdom, which are the true blessings of life.” For Plato, virtue and wisdom are all he needs in a leader for that leader to be considered a good one. But are virtue and wisdom enough to lead? It is certainly important for a leader to have a moral compass and adequate education, but expecting someone with virtue and wisdom to have leadership ability seems

In their work, Plato and Paulo Freire have offered harsh critiques of education and learning. Plato compares people to prisoners in a cave of darkness in relation to knowledge, and Freire refers to a “Banking Concept” of education in which teachers put their thoughts and information into students’ minds much like money is deposited into a bank. Instead of this money being of value, Freire and Plato acknowledge that the value declines. Although many people refute the concept of accepting new knowledge and admission of mistakes, I claim that both Plato and Freire produce valid points about the corruption of education because people cannot learn unless they have an open mind and truly desire to learn. Ultimately, what is at stake here is the effectiveness of learning and continuing the cycle of education.

As Plato pointed out in The Republic, the government should be ruled by the most wise, intelligent, non-corrupt and individual in the city who does not want to rule, thus being the philosopher. The "philosopher king" idea on paper works well because it portraits the philosopher as a robotic figure who has no heart and does whatever that's good for the city. In real life, humans no matter how unbendable they are, they will still be changed by the original sins like lust and greed. Even Plato admitted with the allegory of the Ring of Gyges, which no matter how legitimate an individual is, as soon as he get his hands onto power he start to sin. In The Republic, the Ring of Gyges is described as a ring that gives invisibility power then the man goes out and does whatever he wants and is unnoticed. In reality, even when a philosopher is given a king's power, his sins would make him unfit for Plato' model.

Plato is, in essence, alleging that the one who is offered – and the one who seizes – the opportunity to traverse “the intelligible realm,” or “the realm of knowledge” (63), cannot – and will not – be romanced by notions of returning to the other, more primitive state of existence, even if retreating to this state means that he, or she, will be bequeathed a certain measure of “prestige and credit” (62); that the one who has seen both insuperable marvels and the unsurmountable truth will, being wholly engrossed by, or taken with, these, opt to cling to their memory, even when, in doing so, he will be resigning – or, perhaps, condemning – himself to an existence governed by isolation. Plato is intimating that unaffected “truth and knowledge” are so incredibly rewarding in and of themselves that one could, and would, be happy and willing to eschew all else – including societal conventions and standing – in their pursuit.

Within the study of rulers, we read differing views from five different authors. The first author, Plato, wrote in his book, The Republic, that there are different levels of understanding the world. The lowest level of understanding, he said, was when someone could see the shadow of the image, then above that level of understanding was to understand the images themselves. That level consisted of most of the people within a society. A select view could understand the next level; scientific manifestations of objects. Finally, the highest level of understanding was known as understanding the pure forms. Plato wrote that whoever understood the pure forms of the world was fit to be the ruler, which he called the philosopher king. He believed this philosopher king would guide the

One without knowledge can only conform to a leader or the majority’s will. A man from a cave, who has experienced the taste of enlightenment, would never return to his former dwelling with the same ideals he left behind. Plato meticulously introduced this idea in his allegory comparing the enlightenment o knowledge to a man, who found light after only recognizing darkness since birth. Despite the pain light can induce to eyes adjusted to the pitch black cave, the man was happier in the light than in the dark. Knowledge can aid in overcoming pain to find ecstasy. Knowledge would then develop into wisdom that can educate future generations of one’s own thoughts and culture. Knowledge and wisdom are inevitable assets to

Plato 's dialogue Meno touches on many important questions of virtue and the ability to teach someone to be good. Arguably one of the most interesting of these questions concerns the nature of learning itself, as Socrates and Meno discuss the relationship between knowledge and true opinion. Socrates concludes by not only defining knowledge and true opinion as separate entities, but also by placing knowledge as the higher of the two in value. He makes this value judgment by pointing to knowledge 's status as opinion that is substantiated with reasoning and truths, arguing this makes knowledge concrete and unwavering. However, due to the notion of change as the central tenant in the search of scientific knowledge, I am inclined to disagree with this static description.

In Socrates’ mind education is not simply an information exchange; rather it is a painful experience, since all that one had previously believed is typically wrong. This painful experience can be seen as the “philosopher” turns around and stares into the light and eventually learning that everything he had experienced in life were just shadows.

Plato once said, “Human behavior flows from three main sources: desire, emotion, and knowledge.” Some believe that the desire for knowledge and the emotions that arise from it can be dangerous. This assumption is incorrect because possessing vast amounts of knowledge causes many positive impacts everywhere. Knowledge is not dangerous because it causes advancements in the lives of others which leads to a more harmonious society.

Plato's Republic is a blueprint for his ideal society. In his republic education is something only attainable to the philosopher-kings. It is beneficial for the philosopher-kings to be very well educated so they will make good decisions while they are ruling the republic. The reason that no one else should receive such an elaborate education (in Plato's opinion) is because the rest of the people in the city only need to do what they are specialized in. This seems to be divergent from what Socrates previously said, ."..the power to learn is present in everyone's

Throughout the course of history, political philosophy has been dominated by two great thinkers: Niccolo Machiavelli and Socrates. Although both highly influential, Socrates and Machiavelli may not see eye to eye. When it comes to the idea of how an “ideal prince” would act, Machiavelli believes that they should lead through fear and follow a thirst for power, no matter the cost. Socrates, on the other hand, believes that they should lead through morality and have a healthy thirst for knowledge. Overall, these two would not exactly agree on what the actions of a good leader would look like or how a political system should be run.

In addition, people of unexamined life don’t like change, and they never try to change themselves to become a better person. They don’t know why they need to change, and why they should pursue a better life. Plato used Socrates word, “It is clear then that those who do not know things to be bad do not desire what is bad, but they desire those things that they e believe to be good but that are in fact bad(10)”. The unexamined people keep repeating what they are doing every day, just like a “walking dead”. And they believe being lazy, sleep all day long, keep watching the TV show to get the entertainment is good for them. Consequently, they do not desire to do the good thing, and they are being no change, of not improving themselves. However, they should feel ashamed of doing that because they are human beings. Plato said, “It is a human being’s goal to grow into the exact likeness of a God(52)”. The examined life people always want to change, they know they are human, sometimes they make mistake. They may have a lot of weakness, that why they need to improve themselves to be a better person. Everyone is not perfect, that why we must change. And how much we should change? Plato showed us a goal, to become perfect, liked a God. Although it is impossible to become a God, it is a goal for us to pursue, try our best to change. As examined life

Throughout class one of the major themes has been what qualities make the best possible ruler. Two of my favorite philosophers, Plato and Machiavelli, although very different both attempt to give an answer of what makes a good ruler. Plato’s Philosopher King and Machiavelli’s Prince share their similarities and differences, but in the end Machiavelli paints a more realistic picture of a ruler which makes his prince more favorable.