MikeLigalig.com

In a discussion I had with fellows, we debated on the basis of Plato's Philosopher Kings as being the ideal (or not) basis of a ruler in a Republic.

Some enthusiasts relegated the idea that a philosopher won't abuse his power.

I recall that Socrates talks about educating and training the prospective kings. If his character is properly developed he will be able to use the power wisely. I don't think that Socrates provided any checks and balances.

He arrived at the idea of the philosopher king after considering other types of government, and describing how one type leads to another. He finally arrived at the idea of the philosopher king after recognizing the weaknesses of the other types. I'm not sure that he really believed that it would work, but he concluded that it was the best in theory. The problem I see would be in getting a philosopher to agree to become king.

What are your views on Socrates' Republic ?

A fellow of mine, a political science grad student, is enthusiastic that a philosopher king is idealistc, in a utopia-esque society as it abides in classic postulates of guardianship through enlightened experience and schooling.

Now, I, being the realist, cannot help but question and ponder the 'what if' scenarios.

In essence, the question that has plagued philosophers since Plato's day: Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? or to translate to modern language "Who guards the guardians?"