In Plato’s Republic, Socrates attempts to define justice by depicting a hypothetical city that is perfectly just. In his argument, Socrates declares that the only people fit to rule such a city are philosophers. To understand the context of such a claim, one must first understand the nature of a true philosopher. Socrates describes the philosopher as a wise stargazer on a ship full of arrogant sailors who lack seafaring skills. While the sailors denounce the stargazer as a babbler, they fail to realize that the stars are vital to the navigation of a ship, and the ship is doomed by sailors who cannot navigate. Similarly, philosophers are the only people who truly understand the underlying truth of what is just and good, while non-philosophers denounce them as fools. Furthermore, the sailors on the ship are analogous to non-philosophers in that they seek power for the sake of power, not for the good of the people. A philosopher, argues Socrates, would never seek a ruling position without protecting the interests of the ruled, because philosophers do not yearn for power in the first place. I agree with Socrates’ assessment of philosophers and their place as the only leaders who can act in the best interest of the city. Because only philosophers have knowledge of what is true, and because philosophers take no personal interest in power, they are the only people who could correctly rule over a just city.
Plato argues throughout the Republic that only philosophers possess the knowledge of the Forms of justice, wisdom, beauty, and the good, among others. But the knowledge of the Forms themselves do not necessarily qualify the philosopher to rule over the perfectly just city. Rather, it is the knowledge of what is best for the city and its people that distinguishes the philosopher-king from other rulers. Socrates highlights this notion when he asks, “Then who will you compel to become guardians of the city, if not those who have the best understanding of what matters for good government?” (521b7-8). Philosophers, then, are the ultimate bearers of the knowledge of correct political action that will benefit the people in the city. A few important characteristics give philosophers a distinct advantage as political leaders. First, philosophers have knowledge of the Form of Justice and its definition. Possessing philosophic knowledge about justice is the only way to truly understand justice in its essence. This knowledge allows the philosopher to conduct his rule in a just way, while the non-philosopher would only rule by guessing which actions align with the true form of justice. Only one with knowledge of justice can rule justly. Second, philosophers exclusively possess knowledge of virtue which allows philosophers to understand the kind of character every person intrinsically desires. While non-philosophers yearn to know what actions will make them virtuous, philosophers possess this knowledge, which is a necessary trait to rule the perfectly just city. No person can properly rule a populous without first knowing what the populous wants, and no person without the knowledge of virtue truly understands what makes people happy. Thus, philosopher-kings are the only rulers of the perfectly just city that can legitimately care for the entire population.
Furthermore, philosophers own a characteristic that distinguishes them from the rest of the population and makes them fit to rule. Philosophers’ detachment from the artificialities involved with ruling over a city allow them to rule over the just city with complete objectivity. While the democratic system prides itself on giving power to the person who desires it enough to run for office, the philosopher-king serves as a contrary to this system. It is wiser to give power to those who desire it least than to those who yearn deeply for it. The person who spends a lifetime working towards the rule over a city will not be trustworthy in that position. He will use the position to gain more power, benefit himself at the expense of the city, and make decisions without truly understanding the Form of the Good. On the other hand, philosophers will act only in the interest of the city because the philosopher’s goal will be to bring others to see the Form of the Good that he has already seen. In extending the cave allegory, Socrates says, “Therefore each of you in turn must go down to live in the common dwelling place of the others and grow accustomed to seeing in the dark… because you’ve seen the truth about fine, just, and good things, you’ll know each image for what it is” (520c1-6). The philosophers, after seeing the light of the Form of the Good, will have no desire to rule over the non-philosophers still trapped in the cave for any other reason than to bring them to the light they just experienced. One criticism of this idea is the notion of a benevolent dictatorship, which is viewed as a broken system because no one person could ever know what makes an entire city happy. However, it is precisely because the philosopher has escaped the cave and understands the Forms that he does know what is best for an entire city. Additionally, a philosopher would take no personal benefit from leadership, which proves that his actions are directly aligned with what is good for the city. Complete objectivity allows for adequate rule.
Taking all things into account, philosophers are the only people who would be fit to rule over the perfectly just city. This argument, though, rests on the basic assumption that the philosopher who rules over the city is a true philosopher. Only one who has escaped the cave, seen the Form of the Good, and now has no personal vestment in ruling over the city can be an adequate philosopher-king. If the philosopher meets these requirements, then he can be trusted as a ruler of the city more than any other person.