The Philosopher-King

This question was for Professor Frasier and not myself but I knew that if I raised my hand he would allow me to answer. I believed that I could provide an answer. I leaned forward in my seat and raised my hand. There was no way he was going to miss me. I was too tall and too dark to be missed in that crowd of students. He nodded towards me acknowledging that I would have my chance at some minuscule glory.

“Do you have an answer for us?” He asked pleasantly.

“I am sure I do, Professor Frasier. For an answer to my friends question I think we must look to the beginning of political thought.” I said coolly.

“That’s interesting, that’s very good then let’s hear it.” He said excitedly.

“I see it starting with Plato but that was only the groundwork many followed and a summation might do in answering my colleague. I just ask everyone to keep an open mind.” I laughed at my own joke and saw Tahira smile because she too was in on it.

“Let’s just paint the proper picture as things should be. I mean, we can’t really talk about how we want them to be but more how things are and then decide how to make things how we want them to be within this practical world. Justice is not a simple matter because men are not simple. The same goes for peace, freedom, and to a lesser extent equality. Men are not content with simple things and we want as much as we can imagine. We are acquisitive and needy, wonderful and appalling. The result is a natural conflict amongst ourselves. This is the propensity of men to be at war with one another gaining allies and foes along the course of one’s life. Rivalry and cleavages become identities and bring newer divisions than before. If you’re follow me you’ll see that I mean to say ‘we’ are the problem. All our problems lie within man’s nature. The state, the political affairs of society, are not magical, they come from us, we develop them, we are at the head of them. Politics and the state are what they are because men are what we are. Better states, or rather, a better world will not come until better men come and make better states.” I paused to pay attention to people’s eyes. I wanted to see for myself if they were following what I was saying. I doubled back a bit.

“The problem with most things, with most affairs, is not with the thing or affair itself but with the men who control such things. And so to rectify the problems and ills of things one must make better men. And if one can make better men then these men should be the ones that handle our affairs, right? An analogy might help my cause.” I repositioned myself in my seat and used my two hands as guides. “When you play sports and you pick people to be on a team, let’s say basketball. Let’s take the NBA as an example. When the general manager, or GM, the person controlling player transactions, is looking to put together the team that will earn him the highest honor, the NBA championship, what do you think he looks for?”

“Where are you going with this? What’s the point?” A disparaging voice said somewhere below me.

“Just wait. I’m just saying that when you want to be the best you look for the best. You would love for LeBron James or Michael Jordan to be on your team. You don’t care about how he looks, or what he says to make you think he is good at what he does. You care about whether he is the best at what he does and if he will do for you what you need him to do. The same goes for a good mechanic or doctor. If your car breaks down you want to go to the person who is going to fix her right up, not charge you an arm and a leg for it and won’t have you back there anytime soon. If you are sick, you want a good doctor regardless of looks or status. Why is this not the case for those who lead our country? This is where I am going with this. If you are going to be the head of the state you should be an expert in bringing about the best state and managing affairs accordingly. This is the person, or people, you are looking for my would-be-thinker friend. You want a learned person to guide, a better person. One who is seeking justice and has values he or she is willing to put above themselves and a small few for the gains of the whole. You want a philosopher to be king.” I could hear distaste in their murmurs.

“Philosophers should diligently inquire into the questions of the world, yes, but they should not just keep those answers for themselves afterwards. They need educate and when they can implement those answers as practicably as possible. Take our democracy which we love so much for an example. Put aside all that political rhetoric you see spat out these days. Democracy for one must be set straight and put simply should be the perfect equality of opportunity, particularly in education. Opportunity does not show itself brighter anywhere than in education. It also does not mean that any person can run for office and be elected. I think that is a silly notion and misinterpretation of equality. Only those who have prepared to do so and have become learned in the affairs of the state should be allowed to take part in making the state’s decisions. And so instead of politicians who are masters at deals and deception you have statesman, for statesmanship is a science as well as an art that must be taught and lived.”

“But philosophers should not be in that business of leading men. They are thinkers and should not find themselves in a position to compromise the truth,” Tahira said quickly. I nodded her way as to agree partially with some of what she said. It is true, Socrates himself noted this paradox.

“I believe philosophy to be not only that of thought but of action too. When I think about politics in its pure sense, it is what we now call political philosophy — the development of the ideal social organization. Ideally and in theory, the affairs of the state and the development of it should be judged and conducted with proper reason, logic and applicability. However, this is hardly the case and we have a discrepancy between politics (the practice) and political philosophy (the theory or idea of politics). A problem of politics is that it is discretionary and based on one’s values. Morality and politics then conflict especially when values are so subjective. I believe it is because politicians do not learn philosophy. There is not an objective view of truth and justice. It is then harder for men who do not understand the indispensability of reason and logic in governing, policy-making and legislating to do what’s right. One then feels free to discard reason if it does not benefit in achieving a specific end, i.e. reelection. In a society that is now globalized and allocations of power lead to excessive marginalization, justice and reason become only vestiges of an inapplicable philosophy based on subjective values which perpetuate acrimony and stall progress.”

I think the best of what we can make is a democratic aristocracy (for the democracy we feign to believe in now makes a solid mistake. We are saying that because we are all perfectly qual under the law that we are entirely equal in every other regard and so anyone has the right to do however they please and have all the they want to their hearts content) and a constitutional government where we have effectively disallowed anyone who has not gone through some proper training from running for office. And, that after a community of us have chosen what ends should be purused by government that only the experts and philosophers should choose how to carry out our plans through the best possible means. The office of state should be reserved for those will equipped, the best of the best — the Top Guns.

vv. Francs IV