|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
¡°The idea of a philosopher-king is a non-starter. To the extent that s/he is a philosopher, s/he cannot function as a king; to the extent that s/he is a king, s/he cannot function as a philosopher.¡± This statement is inherently false and contrary to Plato¡¯s arguments and ideas in The Republic.
Glaucon, Plato¡¯s brother and a character in the Republic, argues that ¡°How can it be right to say that there will be no rest from trouble until states are rule by these philosophers whom we are now admitting to be of no use to them? ... In this case, the masses reject the philosopher-king due to the fact that they do not have the capacity to understand, one of Plato¡¯s own points. ...
Plato offers an allegory, or a parable to point out that even though philosopher-kings are not appreciated, they are the correct vessel in which just governing is facilitated. ...
Another argument in favor of the paradoxicalness of the philosopher-king is that even though Glaucon agrees that wisdom and enlightenment are qualifications required for governing, because of the philosopher¡¯s commitment to the good, the ideal philosopher-king would not have the ability or will to make compromises against the good, truth, and justice, to make the practical decisions necessary in government politics. ... If in pursuit of the good, he grants the offender amnesty, another human is killed, and the philosopher-king has failed in his duties as guardian of society by allowing this action to be committed not once, but twice.
Approximate Word count = 1132
Approximate Pages = 4.5
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|