I think we must face the fact that behind the sovereignty of the philosopher king stands the quest for power. The beautiful portrait of the sovereign is a self-portrait. When we have recovered from the shock of this finding, we may look anew at the awe-inspiring portrait; and if we can fortify ourselves with a small dose of Socrates’ irony then we may cease to find it so terrifying. We may begin to discern its human, indeed, its only too human features. We may even begin to feel a little sorry for Plato, who had to be satisfied with establishing the first professorship, instead of the first kingship, of philosophy; who could never realize his dream, the kingly Idea which he had formed after his own image.
…What a monument of human smallness is this idea of the philosopher king. What a contrast between it and the simplicity and humaneness of Socrates, who warned the statesman against the danger of being dazzled by his own power, excellence, and wisdom, and who tried to teach him what matters most — that we are all frail human beings. What a decline from this world of irony and reason and truthfulness down to Plato’s kingdom of the sage whose magical powers raise him high above ordinary men; although not quite high enough to forgo the use of lies, or to neglect the sorry trade of every shaman — the selling of spells, of breeding spells, in exchange for power over his fellow-men.
I’ve opined many times here on the exact degree of Plato’s philosophical shitfulness, but not having read his Republic, I was unaware of the degree to which he was quite the proto-totalitarian bastard as well. Popper has set me straight on that matter.
January 14, 2014 @ 1:05 am
I was reading the other day (no links…mea culpa) that there are modern people, Americans even, who burble in great deal about the joys of absolute monarchy.
I have to admit to skepticism about Our Great Republic, but nonetheless, too see self-described intellectuals babble about how stable monarchies are, how beneficient the king is….