Part three can be found here.

The ancient theorists of political philosophy were, of course, Plato and Aristotle. Plato was no friend of democracy, while Aristotle believed a certain form of democracy was possible (though he rejected what he called “extreme democracy”). Both of these thinkers are important not only for their ideas but how they set the stage for subsequent thought and development about the dream of democracy. Also, these ancient political philosophers were very much concerned with human nature – with the enduring drives, passions, fears, hatreds, and aspirations of human beings (elements of humanity that are true across time and space). For the ancients, these important elements of human nature were the starting point of their political (and ethical) philosophy. This was especially true for both Plato and Aristotle.

Plato wrote one of the most important books in political history called the Republic. It is not only a work on politics and the state, but describes the intricate relationships between political thought and ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, and even art. Plato had a peculiar view of the state but his understanding of the state comes from his theories of knowledge (epistemology) and reality.

In order to understand how Plato’s epistemology influenced his political theory, it is important to see first what forms of government he rejects. Moving from bad to worse, Plato rejected timocracy, by which he meant the rule by those who are primarily motivated by ambition and honor. In such rulers, an inferior part of the soul, the spirited and emotional part, has gained dominance. He also rejected oligarchy or plutocracy, the rule of the (few) rich. According to Plato, a preoccupation with wealth is even more base than a preoccupation with honor, and, moreover, the rule by the wealthy would inevitably bring about class warfare and alienation.¹ Next he rejected democracy as yet a further degeneration of government, though what he meant by this word is something different from a modern understanding of it. For Plato, in a smallish city-state like that of Athens, democracy meant the actual and equal participation of every citizen in the affairs of state, rather than participation by representation.² When one examines Plato’s formation of democracy it is easy to see that democracy has evolved and developed from his conception of it. Plato’s classic critique of democracy is that majority rule ultimately becomes mob rule. Finally, Plato rejected despotism and dictatorships as acceptable forms of government.

Plato’s solution was to create a regime of the best, or better yet – an aristocracy. But Plato didn’t mean rule by the landed nobility. Aristocracy simply means “rule of the best” and for Plato the best were philosophers. And this is where Plato’s epistemology comes into play. Plato believed philosophers were the only ones who have escaped the world of becoming and peered into the transcendent world of pure being. From this, Plato believes philosophers can discover the absolutes of truth, goodness, and beauty. Philosophers are those who have been unchained from the mundane elements of this world and able to discover the ultimate truths of reality. According to Plato, they have escaped the darkness of the Cave and have beheld the Good.³ Plato himself calls this the central thesis of the Republic: “Philosophers must be kings.”⁴ In the Republic, Plato uses Socrates to explain why a philosopher king would be the best ruler,

Unless either philosophers become kings in their countries or those who are now called kings and rulers come to be sufficiently inspired with a genuine desire for wisdom; unless that is to say political power and philosophy meet together, while the many natures who now go their several ways in the one or the other direction are forcibly debarred from doing so, there can be no rest from troubles, my dear Glaucon, for states, nor yet as I believe, for all mankind; nor can this commonwealth which we have imagined ever till then see the light of day and grow to its full stature. This it was that I have so long hung back from saying; I knew what a paradox it would be, because it is hard to see that there is no other way of happiness either for the state of for the individual.⁵

Plato believes that the best form of rule is the “philosopher king” and such a person will have the innate qualities of temperance, courage, graciousness, and one who loves truth, justice, and wisdom. Plato rhetorically asks the question “Since the philosophers are those who can apprehend the eternal and unchanging, while those who cannot do so, but are lost in the mazes of multiplicity and change, are not philosophers, which of the two ought to be in control of the state?”⁶

Plato did try to install a philosopher kingship in Syracuse but was asked to leave when his project failed. It is difficult to conceive of such a regime in the twenty-first century. It is unlikely that, today, many will accept the idea that philosophers should rule over the masses. Not everyone holds to Plato’s metaphysics of truth and reality and it would be difficult to find a Platonic philosopher-king today that will appeal to a majority of people. History has rarely seen a philosopher given to political pursuits, or a politician given to philosophical investigation. While there have been many political philosophers throughout history, few have been able to combine a genuine pursuit of philosophy with the pragmatic, consensual, and daily concerns of political life. (A couple of rare exceptions would be Marcus Aurelius and perhaps Vaclav Havel in the twentieth century.) Nonetheless, any form of intellectual aristocracy would fail to gain the consent of a large segment of a society that is always suspicious of intellectual or philosophic elites. Furthermore, not everyone would like other features of Plato’s social-political program. While it is true that he was one of the earliest advocates of women’s rights (the philosopher-king could easily be a woman for Plato), he also proposed a full-scale social program of shared community property and children, eugenics, arranged marriages, and censorship. While Plato was no friend of democracy, his critiques of shared rule have shaped the discussion of democracy for thousands of years. It was Plato’s student Aristotle that is among the first of the ancient theorists to give a presentation and defense of democracy. The next post will explore the political contributions Aristotle makes to political thought.

1 Miller, 494.

2 Ibid.

3 In the Republic, book seven, Plato gives his analogy of the cave. Plato argues that most people take this world for ultimate reality when in fact the particulars of this world actually reflect transcendent reality that is more real than this world. Only by escaping the embodied reality of this world – the cave – and peering into the transcendent realm can one find truth and ultimate reality.

4 Miller, 494.

5 Plato, The Republic, 473C – E, tr. Francis MacDonald Cornford (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945).

6 Ibid., 484B.