The Philosopher-Statesman

Reading The Republic first for politics classes and second for philosophy, I have definitely noticed a difference in the nature of the material. In a political theory class one analyzes the nature of Socrates’ government: the bureaucracy, the classes, the communal nature of the Guardians’ lifestyle. However, here in philosophy the outlook changes completely and the nature of the text is analyzed more fully. We are here for the argument; the means, not the end of Socrates search. And so the feeling of this book differs significantly.

I think that that different “feeling” is represented well in Book V during Socrates’ debate with Adeimantus (473d-474c) in which he inquires about the difference between kings (politicians) and philosophers, and in Book VI where Adeimantus also notes that all the philosophers he sees are either “quite vicious” or “useless to the city” (487 d-e). They recognize that there is a significant difference between the political and philosophical minds. I believe there to be three main reasons why a politician in a democracy like that in Athens or our own does not always act as a philosopher, some reasons being more innocent than others.

First, obviously, some politicians are doing their job for the money rather than for “the art” of making society more just. He is the least righteous of the types since he consistently put his own welfare above that of the people he represents. He may also be considered the “vicious” type of philosopher, who uses his wisdom only for personal gain. The second type of politician is prevented from philosophizing for the opposite reason. This man is the populist, who, in hopes of pleasing his constituents will violate his own beliefs. He places the voters’ opinion above his own—even though his opinion may be the correct one. Finally there is the politician who knows the right thing and would like to do it, but is prevented from doing so because of time constraints or opposition. This would be well represented by the “useless” philosopher who knows what to do but is never consulted. He will leave politics out of disappointment or frustration. This politician/philosopher, although rare, is the most innocent of the three; he is only stopped because the government does not work in his favor. He would probably provide an apt blueprint for Socrates’ philosopher-king.