It may rank as the most notorious single claim in the history of philosophy: “Until philosophers rule as kings in their cities,” Socrates casually tells his young friend Glaucon, “or those who are nowadays called kings and leading men become genuine and adequate philosophers ... cities will have no rest from evils.”
This startling assertion comes some distance into Plato’s dialogue Republic — at 473d, in the conventional pagination — but it introduces the work’s main character, the so-called philosopher-king. Socrates has defined the philosopher as not just a lover of wisdom, but as a special kind of seer, someone dedicated to knowledge truth with a capital “T.” It follows that this exceptional fellow is the sole person fit to rule any city, including the ideal city he is sketching for his interlocutors.
We might immediately wonder: does he, or Plato, seriously mean this? There is a good deal of destabilizing evidence. Socrates himself says a couple of times that he hesitates to make the claim, knowing how odd it will sound. Also, in the part of the quotation I elided above, he notes that existing philosophers, assuming there are any, would probably have to be forced to rule.
Elsewhere in the dialogue there are scattered clues that the whole ideal city setup, including the philosophically-minded ruler, is a veiled warning that thinkers ought to steer well clear of politics. Force and deception will be necessary to turn an unruly populace toward the truth, he notes, without mentioning that this seems to set up a performative contraction: how can a loyal servant of the truth use deception as means even to a good end?
Additionally, in a blood-chilling passage, Socrates drops a hint that no ideal city will be possible without first getting rid of everyone over the age of 10. Call it the Clean-Slate Premise. Ouch.
Despite all this, Plato will be forever associated with the idea of the philosopher-king, and indeed the notion of a perfectly enlightened ruler is a specter that haunts all politics. Every elected official, from the lowliest alderman to the president of a major nation, is doomed to measured against, and fall short of, this towering ideal of perfect knowledge in the service of justice.
At the same time, the idea of a philosopher-king sounds a different kind of warning: not for philosophers to avoid politics, but for citizens to be on guard when any self-styled thinker or social engineer gets his hands on the reins of power. “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” the Roman poet Juvenal wondered, in his Satires — “Who guards the guardians?” (Or, if you are an Alan Moore fan, “Who watches the Watchmen?”)
It is a very good question, especially when those guardians come armed with some big-plan ideology, a few willing henchmen and a taste for utopian social reform. Commitment to the truth sounds like a good thing, but experience shows that implementing an ideal social scheme gets messy all too quickly.
Plato himself was wary of political power. The treatment of his philosophical master, Socrates, under both oligarchy and democracy, was not encouraging; it was the latter form of rule that led to the frame-up trial which sentenced Socrates to execution by hemlock, which goes some distance to explaining the strong anti-democratic flavor of Plato’s thought.
Plato’s own attempt to mold Dionysius the Younger of Syracuse into a sort of philosopher-king was an abject failure. The youthful tyrant was addicted to luxury and the indulgence of whims, and found his Greek visitor’s epistemological advice tiresome.
Invoking this story, the critic Mark Lilla has thus spoken of “the lure of Syracuse:” an irresistible temptation among certain intellectuals to set the political world to rights, usually with disastrous results.
Nobody has so far asked me, but I figure I have the answer to the problem of the philosopher-king. Do not worry, it is not to grant me absolute power, much as I might covet that on certain days. It is, instead, to borrow a page from a different, and more ironic, tradition of ancient wisdom than the Greek philosophers.
Jacques Derrida, puzzling over the problem of the modern university, suggested that the best course to follow was to have a philosopher in charge of each and every one of them. Some of my colleagues seem bent on making this happen: philosophers are over-represented in university administration.
However, Derrida went on to note that no actual colleague, no matter how brilliant, is sufficiently enlightened to qualify as a true philosopher. Therefore the chair of the university president should remain empty.
The empty chair is a striking part of the ethic of hospitality enacted by the Seder dinner: a chair for the guest who may arrive at any moment, for whom a place must be kept.
The practice has analogues in other places. Gatherings of PEN, the international freedom of expression group, always feature an empty chair for a missing writer, in prison or under house arrest elsewhere in the world. Somewhat less sublimely, Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos apparently insists on having an empty chair at every company meeting: the chair represents the customer, according to Bezos “the most important person in the room.”
There it is — not the customer, I mean, but the chair. Instead of staging acrimonious elections for the post of president or prime minister, rather than arguing over who mismanaged a budget or failed to lower unemployment rates, we should simply hold regular viewings of the empty chair at the summit of all governance.
Behold the absent philosopher-king, the unfeasible ideal ruler, whose always imminent, always postponed arrival may guide us in the endless self-and-other relation that is politics. See how infinitely, impossibly wise!
Mark Kingwell is a philosophy professor at the University of Toronto.
Congressman Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) led a bipartisan delegation to Taiwan in late February. During their various meetings with Taiwan’s leaders, this delegation never missed an opportunity to emphasize the strength of their cross-party consensus on issues relating to Taiwan and China. Gallagher and Krishnamoorthi are leaders of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Their instruction upon taking the reins of the committee was to preserve China issues as a last bastion of bipartisanship in an otherwise deeply divided Washington. They have largely upheld their pledge. But in doing so, they have performed the
It is well known that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) ambition is to rejuvenate the Chinese nation by unification of Taiwan, either peacefully or by force. The peaceful option has virtually gone out of the window with the last presidential elections in Taiwan. Taiwanese, especially the youth, are resolved not to be part of China. With time, this resolve has grown politically stronger. It leaves China with reunification by force as the default option. Everyone tells me how and when mighty China would invade and overpower tiny Taiwan. However, I have rarely been told that Taiwan could be defended to
It should have been Maestro’s night. It is hard to envision a film more Oscar-friendly than Bradley Cooper’s exploration of the life and loves of famed conductor and composer Leonard Bernstein. It was a prestige biopic, a longtime route to acting trophies and more (see Darkest Hour, Lincoln, and Milk). The film was a music biopic, a subgenre with an even richer history of award-winning films such as Ray, Walk the Line and Bohemian Rhapsody. What is more, it was the passion project of cowriter, producer, director and actor Bradley Cooper. That is the kind of multitasking -for-his-art overachievement that Oscar
Chinese villages are being built in the disputed zone between Bhutan and China. Last month, Chinese settlers, holding photographs of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), moved into their new homes on land that was not Xi’s to give. These residents are part of the Chinese government’s resettlement program, relocating Tibetan families into the territory China claims. China shares land borders with 15 countries and sea borders with eight, and is involved in many disputes. Land disputes include the ones with Bhutan (Doklam plateau), India (Arunachal Pradesh, Aksai Chin) and Nepal (near Dolakha and Solukhumbu districts). Maritime disputes in the South China