The basic form of my question is: Considering the disagreement rampant amongst philosophers even in Plato's day, did Plato really think that his proposed philosopher-kings could reach a single, best conclusion about how to rule?
I think that he may indeed have thought this. The idea is not actually that implausible; on many subjects, it seems that philosophers frequently do reach agreement after sufficient consideration - if one dissents, it is often because that philosopher has missed an important point in the opposition's argument, and after considering that point they will change their views to match that of their prior opponents. This sort of unanimous agreement does not always occur, but it seems to happen often enough that Plato's idea is not altogether ridiculous.
However, the idea is less likely to work in today's society. The increase in international population size since Plato's day, the centralization of power around corporations and a few wealthy individuals, and the complexity of governments makes it highly unlikely that any philosophers could actually gain enough recognition and power to be anything like the philosopher-kings Plato envisions. This, more than the difficulty in agreeing on ideals, seems to render Plato's idea impossible in the world as it is now.
No comments:
Post a Comment