Why Plato thinks philosopher should rule?

Plato believed that enlightened king means a philosopher king should rule. He had given several reasons and justification for his particular claims which he made. Plato arrived at the conclusion of the rule of philosophy firstly on the basis and analogy that he saw between individual and the state. As the human soul consists of three elements reason, spirit and appetite, so does the state the three classes in the state represents different elements. Since reason is predominant in the soul of philosopher king thus they should be the guardian of the state. Plato believed in the rule of philosopher because he held that real philosophers are inclined to find the truths in spite of being in the righteous path. Plato believed that rulers other than philosophers can easily be exploited and misguided by the prevailing conscious of society, such as religious and cultural doctrines or principles. Philosophers have the intellect capacity and ability do deal out problems and find solutions of problems when faced. Conversely, common thinkers or rulers are unable to tackle every kind of problems and situations. He held that philosopher is lover of wisdom, is the absolute ruler and interest of philosopher ruler is identical with state interest. Plato was of the opinion that philosopher love every kind of learning and is keen to understand knowledge of every type of learning. Plato also held that no other man has the passion of every kind of learning. They are just bound to their limits field and jobs. Philosopher are said to be knowledgeable because knowledge comes through every kind of learning. In the same way the love and spirit of learning of every kind creates virtue. It means that what Plato meant was that; philosopher is virtuous as well as expert ruler. To Plato philosophers should rule.

As far as my knowledge is concerned, it is not necessary uphold that philosophers must have knowledge and learning of every kind or that they love every kind of learning, common leaders or common man can have knowledge also but they cant rule. According to my point of view, Plato is culturally degrading other people, as other people dont have the right to rule. Every person is disposed of some specific and particular domain to work. Qualities and abilities of people vary with respect to their area of work. Every individual is disposed to perform different work. It is not guaranteed that philosophers have every kind of knowledge; they can have specific and particular qualities which many are different from common people but not necessarily. Warner says Plato has no understanding of personality, of individuality, and of democracy. Popper regards Plato as enemy of the open society. Platos concept of justice in the luxurious city Plato said that human taken individually are not self-sufficient. He claimed the formation of political associates is the outcome of self-insufficiency. He said that doing things mutually is in their interest. Mutual sharing and producing of the things is essential for Plato. It would beneficial for them. Plato said that city will be completely good and luxurious. Plato put forward three classes that is guardian, auxiliary and producing class. The guardian or wise class is the ruling class and is a symbol of gold. They are the philosopher kings and have knowledge and wisdom according to Plato. Plato prohibits the private property possession of guardians. The guardians would be having wives and children in common. The second is auxiliary class which is symbolized as silver. They are the soldiers; they have the courage and spirit and would

fight against enemy irrespective of any kind of fear and hesitation. The third class that is producers, who are the shoe maker, carpenter, artist, actors etc. this class is put in iron category. As the philosophers dont have any private property or money. Thats why they can be just in their dealings and duties. The various classes in the society satisfy the reciprocal needs. Everybody cant meet all his wants and desires for lack of time and capacity; he has therefore to defend on others. Plato says the origin of a city is, in my opinion, due to the fact that no one of us is sufficient for himself but each is in need of many things. So does the need of mutual cooperation among individuals rise. A society resting upon the division of labor is the expression of mans nature. In this way people come closer for the satisfaction of their reciprocal needs and form a state. According to Plato the city will be just or there would be justice in the city, if all the people are performing their duties, cooperating with each other in order to promote their collective interest because more interaction would promote the wave of progress and cooperation. For Plato justice in the city is said to be doing ones own work and not interfering in others work. Courage, wisdom and moderation all are essential for a city in order to be just. Courage performs the task of defending the harms and the city is said to be courageous. Wisdom promotes making of a city good, based on rationalization and logics means that if the wise are to rule, the city also be wise. Moderation is the third virtue; this can prevail in the city if all parts in the city play and endorse their specific role. The city is not to be appetitive excessively. If the citizens with appetitive endorse their role as producers and citizens spirited accept their place as guardians. A city may be vicious because if its appetitive rule that would make exclusively appetitive. Critically analysis Platos concept of justice in the city one of the

critique is that, if someone is born abnormal or is not suitable for any of the three classes, mentioned above, due to some particular problems or disease, then according to Plato, he has no right to live as he is not appropriate and suitable to be included in the three of class. He is then said to be burden in the society. But this is really disappointing and deplorable with reference to humanity and human beings. Platos concept of justice in the soul The soul consists of three elements reason, spirit and appetite. Appetite is irrational and an ally of pleasure and satisfaction from which spring love, hunger, thirst and other desires. The element of reason is superb insofar as it guides right action and creates bonds of union between members. It helps men to know the right path. Between the two elements comes the spirit. It represents politeness, honor and pride. It inspires the individuals for stakes and battles. All three motivating forces are present in every individual. However they differ in dominance. One of them is always dominant. And the other two are always subordinate. For Plato a soul is just when it uses rationalization and gives reason based on logics. When desire is opposed by the calculating part of the soul that is reasoning and logical then the soul is said to be just. It kills the appetite and the desires with respect to reasons. In a society men will group themselves according to the element predominant in them. In this way society is divided in three classes. When someone uses his rational part irrespective of any race, greed, interest, or culture then justice is present in the soul. Justice for the individual results from temperance. Each person is dominated by one of the three basic impulses, appetite, spirit, and reason. Justice will be secured if he lives a life in which his primary impulse is made to serve the community and the lesser impulses are strictly curbed.

The role women and slaves play in a household In ancient Greek women did not enjoy as much rights as did man, because women were considered incomplete or insufficient. They enjoyed very few rights. They are controlled by their fathers, husbands for their whole life. They were limited to their houses and running households. Women were held responsible for supervising and managing the responsibility of households, that is looking and weaving. Women play their crucial role in households with regard to preservation of what their men attain. They did not take part in politics, because their reason was said to be less than that of man. Women were considered inferior to man. Aristotle believes that superiority of master to slave and the superiority of man to a woman is destined by nature and would not be overlooked by human laws, customs, or heritage or beliefs. Aristotle considers property as an essential instrument of family. This property includes both living and non-living things. It is the living property which he terms as slave who constitutes one of the natural elements of the household. Aristotle justifies slavery on the universal principle of nature according in their capabilities and capacities. Slaves are human beings only in appearance and not in comprehension. They are no doubt, born of human parents but lack capacity to employ reason of their own. They are slaves by birth. They look at others for direction and command which they blindly obey. It means they understand others reason. It is the characteristic that they are superior to the beasts and freemen. Rather they are more nearer the beast than the freeman. It is because they can be used like horses, cows and dogs by their master. It is as just as the soul rules over body, reason over appetite, male over female, parents over children

and above all men our animals. It would be no exaggeration to say that Aristotle did not hesitate to employ nature for un-natural ends and to employ scientific methods for the unscientific conclusions. To the laboring and toiling classes Aristotle denies the right of citizenship as he considers them no more than instruments for production and not as members of the state. Aristotle theory is subject to various criticisms.

Why Aristotle thinks a city state is necessary for good living? The fundamental characteristic of state, according to Aristotle, is that it is an association of human beings, the highest form of association. Every associations aims at some good. The state, which is the highest association, aims at the highest good. The other communities that were established to do some good to the individual are family and the village. They were established chronologically prior to the establishment of the state. But only a state makes possible a better life. The state is a community and it is the highest of all community which aims at good. He says in the very first paragraph of the politics: the state is a kind of koinonia. Koinonia means community or association. But the community or association to which Aristotle refers is not the platonic state with dull uniformity. It is a functional unity of varied and reciprocal parts made one by the pursuit of a common aim. Family is the precursor of the state. It is out of the families and the villages that state is formed. Hence, he not only related families and other associations but also gives them a pride and place in the political scheme if his ideal state. It is a sort of living together of men of different tastes for their common life. It is a partnership in every virtue, and in

all perfection. According to Aristotle, every association aims at some good. The state or political community which is the highest of all and which embraces all the rest, aims in a greater degree than any other, at the highest good. The state is supreme association due to two reasons: Firstly, it stands at the apex of social evolution. Secondly, man realizes the highest moral perfection of his nature in the state. Aristotle begins from a civilized man who could form a family consisting of himself, the wife and the slave. But the conditions prevailing before that have not been explained. This theory of origin of state is this incomplete. Aristotle considers state as of prime importance in comparison to the individual. But at the same time, he considers state as an organ for the promotion of good life of the individual. His theory is as such ambiguous. It is not clear whether the state is an end or means. What is the best form of government according to Aristotle? Pure governments according to Aristotle are three, monarchy, aristocracy, and polity. If one person rules for the good of community under law, the government is monarchy. Monarchy, for Aristotle, is the best form of government. If a few rule for the good of all, it is aristocracy. Then again if many persons rule for the interests of all, it is polity. Each form has its perversion, which are also three: tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy, the corrupted form also run according to the same numerical formulae. This is if one person rules for the selfish interests if his own the ruler is tyranny. Again if a few (wealthy) for their private class interests the government is oligarchy. Lastly if many people (poor) rule for their interests not the interest if all, it becomes democracy. According to

Aristotle, monarchy is the rule of one perfect man who should not be made subject to law. Such a one man truly be deemed a God among men. Here Aristotle conception of king is almost similar to Platos conception of philosopher- king. The classification is out of date from our point of view. It does not cover a number of governments which exists today. For example: limited monarchy, totalitarian government, dictatorship, representative democracy, parliamentary system, federation and so on. Second, modern writers tend to reject Aristotles thesis that democracy is the government by many poor people. There is a possibility that the majority of people in a given country are rich and prosperous. Describe Thomas Hobbes state of Nature?

Here we are concern only with the great social contractualist Thomas Hobbes and his theory of state of nature, covenant and the ultimate end of all these in the form of an absolute sovereign. Hobbes utopia created a pessimistic and negative picture of people of state of nature according to Hobbes man is selfish, egoistic wicked, brutal, covetous and aggressive creature. His state of nature is pre social and pre political. There is no morality no concept of good and bad. Might is right concept was prevailing. There was no distinction between man and animal in state of nature. There was a condition that to kill whom you can and takeaway what you can. It is pre political and pre social in a sense that there is no peace, no collective life, no navigation, and no commerce, no culture no industry, no art, but all warfare, bloods heeding and violence. Man is the arch enemy of man. In a nutshell, life of man was solitary, nasty, poor, brutish and short. Why should be made a covenant to appoint a sovereign?

Social contact is made by the people of state of nature to change the horrible and evil condition of life where the entire individual surrendered their all rights is the favor of one man or a group of men who offered no pledge and promise of any kind. This treaty or contract was one sided and we can say unilateral. Hobbes sovereign is leviathan. He is master less man. He is not mean to obey or not obliged to any kind of law. He is unique and not part of covenant. Lastly the question arises that why the people of state of nature wanted to abolish the natural laws and to get rid of envious life. What was the driving force that left no stone unturned to leave the state of nature and to enter into a nascent political life. According to me that was their own conditions which pushed them to make a contract of the preservation of their life, property etc. but at once how they made covenant without bloods heeding and surrendering their right to a bizarre man if they where pre social and pre political. The sociologists and anthropologists evidences show that human beings have always lived under some kinds of authority. Though social contract of Hobbes is speculative, deductive and imaginative but its real value cannot be degraded and neglected. It denied the divine origin of state that becomes a powerful instrument in defense of kingly despotism. The ultimate concept of absolutism, dictatorship and authoritarianism came from Hobbes theory of state.

What powers should the sovereign have and why?

As man is social animal and always wants the protection of his own interest. Although he lives always in chain, interconnected and interrelated with one another. Mans life is brutal, short and nasty as in state of nature, so he is in always waged in war against each other. So in order to overcome this problem there is need of a king who is not answerable to people rather people are accountable to him. He has absolute power and the whip of state is essential in this regard. According to Hobbes, in the result of social contract commonwealth is created where supreme power and authority or sovereignty is vested in the hand of king. He is absolute. His power is indivisible and unlimited. He is above law. Man has no power to revolt except a compromise if the question is of his life. Hobbes concept of state is totally despotic and dictatorial. Law of nature sanctions total allegiance to state whose law protect life and property of all and ensures justice. The existence of a power full king is the existence of a commonwealth, society and government. Three are the same and no one can distinguish one from other. From Hobbes theory emerged the modern concept of totalitarianism and, dictatorship and absolutism.