The philosopher Plato wrote about the perfect city in The Republic, creating a vivid idea of what an entirely efficient society would have to have in order to maintain existence. That idea was also a farce: an exaggeration of theory, used to prove the very ideal of such a place as implausible under the constrictions of the unenlightened. The unenlightened eventually will rule the city as the enlightened no longer have a desire to do so, leading to the restriction of self gain by way of any knowledge or ability not held by those in power. The city is to then become a place where the goal is harmony among classes; a land of ‘equality’ where every man receives according to his need, and gives according to his ability. In reality, this system has proven itself far from functional, so this creates the question of what role the enlightened should play in society, or in the general political body. The answer does not lie in a routine bureaucratic placement, but in the removal of the need for a distinction between the enlightened, and the unenlightened.

Plato questions the role of the philosopher in the city, and upon the natural desire of his philosopher, that role is rightly ambiguous. As Plato describes with his Divided Line analogy, which is furthered by the simile of The Cave, as one moves up the ladder of thought, one becomes less and less concerned with the rungs below. The lower levels of thought are fantasy and contrived distraction, continuing onto materialistic focuses. This is the general human level, and the level where a person in power seeks to rule. Everything above only concerns those who are enlightened, yet in continuing to make such a distinction, Plato’s ladder remains necessary. Again, the question is not answered by remaining within the previously established systems, the ability to even submit an answer only comes once those systems are tossed aside and disregarded. This is the meaning of a philosopher: to simply move beyond the realm of men who do not take it upon themselves to think.

Political thought is a function of government, not a function of humanity. Once man decides to create an entity to reign over other men, those other men then seek to find a way to understand the new entity, and better their lot in life by being a part of it. The philosopher is not a part of this entity, but a goal separate from it. The life of the philosopher is the life of reason, for reason’s sake, not for power granted by reason over others. Reason dictates that man lives by his own ability for his own good, not for the good of others, and not for the purpose of the detriment of others. Working with the intent to harm others does not benefit the self, and is therefore not a part of the reason-governed society of the philosopher. To the effect of reasonable men working for themselves and understanding inherently that all other men are also working for themselves, the reasonable man does not need government, or any ruling entity. Under the guide of reason, political thought is not needed.

To be understood though, this is on the fundamental assumption that reason is universal, without shades of grey, or ambiguity. Through the application of reason, this assumption is unnecessary however; as only the unreasonable propagate the idea that different premises exist. “The philosopher is in love with truth, that is, not with the changing world of sensation, which is the object of opinion, but with the unchanging reality which is the object of knowledge.” (Plato 195) This love of truth is representative of the concept of absolutes: things that are universal and not dependent on any one individual or ideology. The absolute here is reason, which is based of fundamental premises. Two men with entirely different premises cannot both be considered reasonable, one is right, and one has yet to come to understand what is right. A world or society of reasonable men will hold the same premises, so although the abilities and applications of those abilities may differ from man to man, the motivation of each will remain the same. Once the premises of the society are recognized, contradictions will no longer exist. Man does not require a guardian when he is governed by reason.

This then comes to what man owes to his chosen society, or city, and what it owes to him. This is a necessary discussion as Plato’s city offers a justice that gives back to a man based on what is owed to him. “ ‘Well then,’ said I, ‘as heir to this argument, tell me, what is this saying of Simonides that you think tells us the truth about doing right?’… ‘That it is right to give every man his due,’ he replied; ‘ in that, I think, he puts the matter fairly enough.’ ” (Plato 8) The question then of course comes to the city of ‘what is a man’s due?’ What is any man owed by his governing entity, and conversely, what does any man owe back to it. Realistically, the city, or government, gives back to its citizens exactly what those citizens allow it to give back; nothing less, and nothing more. The ruling entity has no ability to give anything to its citizens if the citizens do not first give it the means to do so, by accepted donation, proclamation, or taxation. Truly, the city owes nothing to anyone, including the philosopher; in the same way the philosopher owes nothing to anyone but himself. Furthermore, the philosopher desires not to be owed anything by the city, just as much as he desires not to owe anything to it. As the motto of reasonable men, Ayn Rand establishes the foundation of her utopian society in Atlas Shrugged to be: “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (Rand 731) This is the reason of Plato’s philosophic class, men that do not seek to be acknowledged for their actions through the presentation of gifts or false alliances, but through respect alone, if anything is desired at all.

The thought may then come about to a normal man that rather than disregarding the structure of the world, why not have these philosophes be the ones to rule? After all, would that not lead them to enact radical change in society, leading to an overall more reasonable population? The simple answer is found by referring back to Plato’s Divided Line analogy. A better answer is found in the discussion of the Justice of the State between Socrates and Glaucon: “ ‘And won’t they try to follow the principle that men should not take other people’s belongings or be deprived of their own?’… ‘Yes, they’re bound to.’” (Plato 130) Reason does not need to be bound to anything other than reason, so while Socrates’ question fits well with the philosopher’s ideal, Glaucon’s response then directly removes the desire of any reasonable man to live in his governed society. Two men, governed by reason, may interact with one another without need to be bound by anything other than the knowledge that each is living by the same premises. Philosophers do not need, nor do they desire to have a king, and as philosophers, both are inextricably linked. What is needed is all that is desired; so in a world of reasonable men, the king has no role.

 

 

Works Cited

 

Plato, G. R. F. Ferrari, and Tom Griffith. The Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. Print.

Rand, Ayn. “Anti Greed.” Atlas Shrugged. New York: Random House, 1957. 731. Print.