What is Platos argument for the conclusion that philosophers should rule? Is it persuasive?

Abstract Platos political theory has always remained controversial through history. Scholars have labelled him as totalitarian or even racialist, others have just agreed that, from a different point of view, his theory could be useful, although at same time, it turns out to be too utopian. Therefore, through this essay, I will discuss whether this theory of political organization would be effective or if it is just a perfect example of the problems arisen by totalitarianisms through the 20th century. Introduction In his book, The Republic, Plato presents a revolutionary idea that not only shocked his contemporaries, but also several scholars during history. Through an elaborated theory, based on the education of the community, Plato presents a political structure totally opposed to the establish Athenian democracy. By doing so, he tried to correct the mistakes democracy had back then to create a perfect society where people would be specialized in three different kinds of social statements. They have been attributed different names, but for the purpose of this essay, I would use the following division: producers, guardians and philosopher kings (Reeve 2009). Thus, with the theory of forms and the tripartite soul, Plato explains why not everyone is prepared to rule the community and, according to that, only few members would be able to acquire the characteristics that a true ruler should have.

Platos theory

One of the basic point that shapes Platos theory is the division of the human soul in three different parts: the appetitive, the rational and the spirited (Plato 1976, Book 4). The first part is responsible for the basic desires of people, the rational part judges the benefit of the previous desires and imposes rationality over banal desires, and the spirited part enforces reason, bringing the total pureness to the soul as a whole. At the same time, each part of the soul is associated to each social class, the appetitive part to the producers, the rational part to the guardians, and the spirited part to the philosopher kings. Therefore, from this initial point, Plato already begin to explain why the latter class is more suitable for ruling. Nonetheless, to explain this point, Plato introduces the theory of forms (Plato 1976, Book 5). Briefly explained, this theory states that there are two different worlds: the world of forms and the world we live in. In the first one, we find the forms or ideas of what we see in our world. Those forms are the perfect representation of the things in our world; they represent the truth and reality, thus, everything we know in this world is not real, and it is just a representation of those forms. Generally, people are not able to truly know the essence of things since they do not acknowledge the forms, but with the analogy of the cave (Plato 1976: Books 7-8), Plato explains how few people, at some point in their lives, scape from ignorance and are able to see and understand the forms, making it possible for those people to have a true wisdom, and so, be truly prepared to rule. Finally, the other main point of Platos theory is the principle of specialisation and the unique aptitude doctrine (Plato 1976: Book 2). This idea states that people are born with a natural aptitude for a craft. By specialising in their own fields, they contribute to the order of the polis structure. Hence, by the specialisation through education, those people naturally fit for ruling are prepared for it, and those who succeed in their 50 years training will acquire the required knowledge to be a philosopher king.

Scholar opposition

This idea may seem to be acceptable and useful in theory, however, few people would agree that it would be effective in the real world since Plato bases all his theories in total subjective points of view. In opposition to current ideologies such as realism, that tries to explain human behaviour analysing human nature from a realistic point of view (Heywood 2011: 54), Plato escapes from reality to create an imaginary world and an utopian idealistic society. He avoids analysing his world from a scientific point of view, hence, he creates a web of suppositions that are totally subjective, and that can be interpreted from infinite perspectives. As a result, several scholars have come to different conclusions about what Plato truly wanted to say, or how his ideas have affected the future political science. For example, scholars such as Popper (Giannaras and Eidlin, 1996: 497) or Crossman (Dombrowski 1997: 556) has accused Plato of being totalitarian. From this point of view, his ideas are seen to establish a system of casts, giving to one of them the power to rule for their own benefit. On the other hand, other scholars has related Platos ideas to the medieval Christian canons and the doctrine of the Trinity (Allen 1984: 555), giving therefore place to the religious oppression during most part of history. Finally, another important criticism is that Platos theory has contributed to communism the ideal of collectivism (Bradford 1948: 114), supporting then the restriction of individual rights. Personal approach Today, we are immersed in a financial crisis, we can open the newspaper and read news about corruption, wars, violations of human rights, social protests We consider modern democracy to be the fairest system, where everyone has the power to determine the path of their own life, a system of equality that brings us the opportunity to face the oppression that most part of humanity have suffered during history. However, we should ask ourselves: is modern democracy really working? Is it really the system that finally brings justice to every human being? Although it may sound strange, I totally disagree with that.

Democracy, as it is today, is corrupted by few people who seek their own benefits at other peoples expense. Popular sovereignty and the common good are utopian prerogatives that only serve to hide the skulduggeries of those who actually have the power. Therefore, in this current system, I would advocate for a complete reform of human values that will actually bring the possibility of achieving a true fair society. However, the only way to change the current situation goes trough a whole reconsideration of our moral values and principles. Platos society may seem utopian and impossible to achieve and, besides, it is true that it does not represent a perfect system of equality of opportunities. Still, there is something we can subtract from his theory, and it is the establishment of a educational system that could fix the problems we face today. If we could reform the current educational systems so that morality and ethics have a much more important role, then humans would not fall into the perverse activities they perform. This may sound as utopian as Platos theory, but I truly believe that a person is totally shaped into what education makes of him. Moreover, the other idea that we should also subtract from Platos work is the principle of specialization. Doctors are suitable to practice their jobs because they have been prepared for it, therefore, why should not politicians be also prepared to rule? Plato stated that only those with the required capacities should be able to rule. Would not politics be better performed by people who have the required intellectual knowledge? The answer for all these question may differ from one person to another, however, from my point of view, there is one basic answer for this problem:the establishment of a technocratic government. Technocrats are people specialized in their professional fields, who are better prepared to practice their jobs because of the professional knowledge they have previously acquired (Fischer 1990). Nevertheless, the problem with technocracy lies on the fact that it is opposed to the current democratic value of popular sovereignty. I agree that the population should be able to elect the people who will rule them. Therefore, I would advocate for a system where the population have still the sovereignty, but where it would be only possible to elect politicians from a range of prepared people. If we sum this improvement of professional knowledge to an education reform in regards with human values, rulers could

then be much more suitable for ruling, and all those problem that undermines politics reputation, would be part of the past. Conclusion Platos theory gives place to an endless debate. There are numerous ways to interpret his ideas, but what we should get as a conclusion, is that life is not black and white. There are points in Platos theory that nobody would agree with, however, we should focus on what ideas can be applicable today, and then, base our appreciation of his work. As I explained before, my conclusion resides on the fact that there are certain point in Platos Republic that would be useful to consider. His state is not perfect at all, but neither is ours. Hence, we should consider the option of mixing both ideas and construct a new society. Bibliography Allen M. J. B. 1984. Marsilio Ficino on Plato, the Neoplatonists and the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity. The University of Chicago Press. [online] Available at:< http://www.jstor.org/stable/2860994 .> [Accessed 24 December 2011]. Bradford C. 1948. The Economic Background of Plato's Communism. The Journal of Economic History. [online] Available at:< http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7 550404> [Accessed 24 December 2011]. Dombrowski D. 1997. Platos Noble Lie. History of Political Thought. [online] Available at:< http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/hpt/1997/00000018/00000004 /116> [Accessed 21 December 2011]. Fischer, F. 1990. Technocracy and the politics of expertise. Newbury Park; London: Sage Publications.

Giannaras A. and Eidlin F. 1996. Plato and K. R. Popper : Toward a Critique of Plato's Political Philosophy. Philosophy of the Social Sciences. [online] Available at:< http://pos.sagepub.com/content/26/4/493.citation> [Accessed 21 December 2011]. Heywood, A. 2011. Global Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Plato. 1976. The Republic, Translated by Lindsay A. D. London : Dent. Reeve C.D.C. 2009. Plato. In D. Boucher and P.J. Kelly, eds. 2009. Political thinkers: from Socrates to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.