The great philosopher Socrates argues, as a character in Plato’s Republic, that “it is by nature fitting for [philosophers] both to engage in philosophy and to lead the cityâ€Â.1 While there is little contention that Plato’s Philosopher-Kings would make the best rulers, what is of contention is whether or not the rule by philosophers is natural or even possible. By examining what constitutes the nature of a philosopher and of ruling it can safely be concluded that Plato is correct in his belief in the Republic that Philosopher-Kings would not only make the best rulers but would also rule naturally, simply as an extension of their virtue and wisdom. This will be defended through three main contentions. First, it will be argued, contrary to Strauss and Bloom, that the art of ruling is not inferior to the art of contemplation but rather an extension of it. Secondly, an examination of the nature of ruling and its relation to the philosopher’s knowledge of the Forms will conclude that only the philosopher could rule. Finally, by examining the existentialist notion of relationships and in particular the ability of relationships to provide unique insight into life and therefore add to the overall wisdom of a person it is clear that the formation of a very unique relationship, that of a ruler to a polis, would not only be in the nature of a philosopher but would also be a desirable aspect to the examined life. After all this analysis is complete, the final observation to be made is its relevance in modern times, which comes by examining the nature of liberal authoritarian governments throughout the world.

Get the Full Text (PDF) »

Get Adobe Reader