Kaufman tells us that Plato suggested the idea of a philosopher king whose sole aim is the good of the state, and who should be supported without question because only he (she?) knows what's best. Given the confines that Plato allows for--that we are all human and therefore, cannot be perfect--this seems to be a prescription for attendance to the most good for the largest number of people. This concept is at the heart of democracy, if I'm not mistaken (which is entirely possible--I'm no expert on philosophies of governing).
It's interesting, then, that Plato's conception of government sounds more like totalitarianism, in so far as that we are supposed to subjugate ourselves to the philosopher king, regardless of our personal experiences, needs, or desires. But what is not clear is how this philosopher king is supposed to come to power. Does he take the part of the totalitarian, to take power, enforcing his will on others because he "knows" better? What about the notion of power as a corrupting force? How could he stay true to the good of all if he were corrupted by power?
What about the concept of hegemony, then? My understanding of hegemony is that, similar to the philosopher king, the hegemon rules without question, but unlike the totalitarian, he is placed in power, literally called upon to sacrifice himself for the good of all, by the people. So which is Plato arguing for? If there were some indication that he favored using power to take control, I missed it. So is he in favor of hegemony? Is he, in fact, covertly trying to position himself so that the people will call upon him to be the hegemon?
5 comments:
Ha! This reminds me of the Tenacious D song, "City Hall." Jables and KG manage to overthrow the "bastards of city hall," and then Jables says "But who will lead us in the rebuilding process? ... No, not me and KG! We don't have the cognitive capacity to lead! Alright, we'll do it! [singing] We'll lead as two kings... [lalala]."
Of course Plato hoped he would be called upon to bring ..."his principles to bear on the unphilosophic many" (Kauffman 111). How could such as he be corrupted by power when he knows the proper names of things and is a "pure and rightful lover of wisdom" (Kauffman 109)? Face it: Plato is a total fascist. I've met a lot of really smart guys who seem devoted to "enforcing [their] will on others because [they know] better." Most of them, like I'm sure Plato did, harbor some fantasy of taking over the world. Mwaaahaha!
One cannot hold a conception of knowing the Truth and actually have the best interests of others in mind. There will always be some need to secure surety or make others wrong inherent in that kind of world view.
Dr. Romano brought up a good point -that maybe Plato's idea of the "Philosopher King" was just Plato having a chance to use dialectic to consider various ideas he had. That is not a thought I had in the reading of either Gorgias or Kauffman. I only saw that he was trying to exclude those who did not have the 'intelligence' to use rhetoric and went as far as to limit the group to this philosopher king. I wonder if what he said wasn't partially true to today's circumstances. In my English 102 class we have been talking about how environmental policy is created. I selected the issue of the silvery minnow to be the basis of a class debate where all interested parties (agriculturalists, environmentalists, government, citizens, etc.) got to plead their case and eventually we created and voted on a policy to 'solve' the problem. During the course of the activity it came out that "who was actually 'qualified' to participate in the discussion and who's point of view was 'right'." The students had to pick an environmental issue and similarly clarify the various arguments. During the conferences many students have brought up that the public is unaware of the complexities of their issue and possibly educating or getting them involved was the best policy. Some however, argued that the people did not care and maybe would not be the best in the policy development. They pointed out that the public was easily swayed by their economic situation or by their party (Republic or Democrat) lines, instead of seeing the whole picture or even caring about the whole picture. I think whatever Plato intended, he brought up a good point: who should really be in control, the so-called experts or the masses of opinion-driven citizens?
Honestly, I often read Plato and Socrates and think that the things I am most reading is the frustration of the author with the people who do not wish to engage in the same level of thought about the nature of things that they do, or cannot do it/brains do not work them same way. Alienation frequently breeds contempt, and the intelligent are just as liable to it as anyone else.
I think the important thing to remember, when looking at the 'opinionated masses', is that there is a program in place to create opinionated masses. (Pardon my tin hat. I used to tutor in low-income neighborhoods and I have seen this at work.)
Moreover, if and when we begin to designate who can and cannot participate in a process, it has a tendency to fissure along lines that have little or nothing to with capability. Income plays a heavy role in education, meaning that if we mean to include the 'intelligent,' it would be easy not to include the poor, who might have less access to the materials which prepare one for an IQ test, causing false resultants. Far safer, albeit frustrating, to allow everyone to participate than to try and create designated participators/
participatory groups. It will make for some historically painful moments, but at least it does not create a system which gradually excludes more and more participants.
Meant to include this. The way these kinds of things work, the field of persons who are allowed to participate tends to keep narrowing. Think of it this way. Those who have the resources to teach (and, for that matter, adequately feed their children so that the child's brains can develop as nature will allow) their children will do so, schisming society into those allowed to participate (because they can participate) and those who are not and therefore have little, if any, ability to affect decisions made about them. The group who can and do make decisions will tend to be narrowed further by those who can afford to insure that their offspring can enjoy the same benefits (or those who can insure that they will suffer no decrease in income or resources.) Out of that group, there will be those who can afford to doctor the test results (say the qualifier is an IQ test) to give a false positive, ensuring that their offspring can still compete, despite the random nature of heredity in these matters. This creates a narrowing gene pool that ignores actual ability for inherited benefits in terms of commodity and resource (sound familiar to anyone?) To the best of my ability to understand it, it is literally impossible to have a meritocracy (which I am defining as the tendency for those who are more capable to end up in positions that utilize that competency) without allowing for everybody to take a swing at it, which comes with its own problems, but I'd rather as many people as possible have the ability to go for it than have the field artificially narrowed any further than it has been, a whole 'nother discussion.
Oh, and it's pardon my tin foil hat. Ever since I been a wearin' one of those, the CIA have stopped broadcasting using my molars.
Post a Comment