Plato, Republic 488e-489d, « Ship of state »
[Dialogue, Socrates and Adeimantus]
The cities will find a release from their troubles when the philosophers
(who are considered useless) become their rulers :
Analogy : A shipowner, who knows how to sail, is always surrounded by the sailors who are
begging him to give them the tiller ; sometimes, they even drug him or make him drink to take control
of the ship. When someone is good at finding ways to persuade the shipowner to let them sail, they
give him their respect by calling him a real seaman/captain.
What they do not understand is that one who truly fits to take command must be familiar with
seasons of the year, the stars, the winds, etc. How to steer is seen as the art of being a ship’s captain and
not as something that can be learned, a skill that could be taught. Therefore, in this situation, a person
actually equipped to be captain would be mocked and called an useless stargazer.
It describes the attitude of cities towards true philosophers, who are not treated with respect.
The uselessness, however, is not in the philosophers, but on the people who is not using them (for their
knowledge). A captain would not ask his sailors to come under his command or a wise man would
never go to a rich person’s door. As no matter if someone is rich or poor, when they are ill, they need to
seek a doctor ; the people who wants to be ruled has to go seeking a person who knows how to.
Philosophers are described as villains by their opponents, that makes philosophy (the good)
useless. Therefore, it is inevitable to those who go into philosophy will turn out as villains too
(philosophy is not to be blamed).
Alan Ryan, On politics pp. 31-38,
« The Paradoxical Plato » and « Plato’s Life »
The history of political thinking began with Plato, even though his political thought is anti-
political. Lots of thinkers thought a certain degree of social harmony would make disappear political
conflicts and politics. Utopian thinkers hope to maintain social order and meet the needs of the
population without economic or political competition.
Plato did not take seriously the inescapability of politics. An other writer, more than two
millennia later, Karl Marx did the same. He thought the abolition of capitalism would abolish economic
conflict and with it the need for government and politics. His refusal to prescribe for an unknowable
future was admirable; but his unwillingness to say more about how a society might operate, beyond
saying that the first step was to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, turned out to be disastrous.
Many commentators have thought of Republic as a treatise on education, but its political
message is the need to enlighten us so that we may become fit to live in kallipolis, the ideal city.
Plato’s subject is the ignorance of politicians. The thought that nothing will go well until kings
are philosophers or philosophers are kings, he believed that knowledge was the root of salvation and
ignorance the root of perdition. We may wonder why Plato was convinced that lack of knowledge was
the major issue rather than greed, anger, or the other dangerous emotions to which we are prey.
Socrates held some of the doctrines attributed to him by Plato: that nobody does evil willingly,
wickedness is error and that it is better to suffer wrong than to do it. The ideas that modern readers find
least plausible are those with the clearest origin in Socrates’s known doctrines, particularly the equation
of virtue with knowledge and the doctrine that no one does evil willingly. It is possible that he, like
Plato, thought that democracy is the second-worst of all forms of government, one step better than
tyranny.
, Plato came from an upper-class Athenian family, and his relatives were members of the
murderous oligarchy that briefly replaced the Athenian democracy at the end of the Peloponnesian War.
He took no part in politics and welcomed the restoration of democracy as the restoration of the rule of
law, but was disillusioned by the judicial murder of Socrates.
The trial and execution of Socrates in 399 (B.C.E.) was a key moment in European thought;
more immediately, it was a crisis in the lives of his students and disciples. Many of his followers went
into voluntary exile, Plato among them; he returned to Athens several years later, and founded the
Academy in 387.
There were competing schools, and others sprang up later, but there was an earlier tradition of
individual teachers of rhetoric and philosophy giving instruction to ambitious young men who hoped to
make a name in politics. They were the Sophists, who receive hostile treatment throughout Plato’s
Dialogues. The Sophists took their clients’ desire for worldly success as the starting point, and taught
them what they needed for success in the law-courts and in debate in the assembly.
Plato’s practical interventions in politics were limited, and they nearly cost him his life. During
his exile, he was befriended by Dionysius I, the tyrant of Syracuse, who then became irritated with him,
and may have decided to sell him into slavery. Some years later, he was cajoled into an other attempt to
turn a tyrant into a philosopher-king, and again escaped with some difficulty.
Alan Ryan, On politics pp. 97-99,
« Aristotle’s Classification of Constitutions »
Aristocracy is in principle the best form of government: the best men rule because they possess
judgment, courage, justice, and moderation. Yet experience shows that aristocracies have a regrettable
habit of becoming oligarchies in which class pride rules.
To see how Aristotle resolved the
difficulties as he understood them, we
must turn to what he is best remembered
for, the sexpartite distinction between
forms of government according to the
numbers who participate in them, on the
one hand, and their goodness or
corruption, on the other :
Aristotle believed that poverty should disqualify men from active citizenship. The “narrow
democracy” or “expanded aristocracy” of the well-balanced politeia is the remedy. A narrow
democracy would not permit the lowest social class to hold offices; conversely, an expanded
aristocracy would be a system in which the requirements were not onerous, as oligarchical parties want
to institute. A too restrictive or broad constitution arouse resentment: the middle ground is the answer.
Aristotle connects the excellence of citizens with the excellence of the constitutional form. A
virtuous man is more likely to be corrupted by absolute power than to become wiser and more virtuous;
[Dialogue, Socrates and Adeimantus]
The cities will find a release from their troubles when the philosophers
(who are considered useless) become their rulers :
Analogy : A shipowner, who knows how to sail, is always surrounded by the sailors who are
begging him to give them the tiller ; sometimes, they even drug him or make him drink to take control
of the ship. When someone is good at finding ways to persuade the shipowner to let them sail, they
give him their respect by calling him a real seaman/captain.
What they do not understand is that one who truly fits to take command must be familiar with
seasons of the year, the stars, the winds, etc. How to steer is seen as the art of being a ship’s captain and
not as something that can be learned, a skill that could be taught. Therefore, in this situation, a person
actually equipped to be captain would be mocked and called an useless stargazer.
It describes the attitude of cities towards true philosophers, who are not treated with respect.
The uselessness, however, is not in the philosophers, but on the people who is not using them (for their
knowledge). A captain would not ask his sailors to come under his command or a wise man would
never go to a rich person’s door. As no matter if someone is rich or poor, when they are ill, they need to
seek a doctor ; the people who wants to be ruled has to go seeking a person who knows how to.
Philosophers are described as villains by their opponents, that makes philosophy (the good)
useless. Therefore, it is inevitable to those who go into philosophy will turn out as villains too
(philosophy is not to be blamed).
Alan Ryan, On politics pp. 31-38,
« The Paradoxical Plato » and « Plato’s Life »
The history of political thinking began with Plato, even though his political thought is anti-
political. Lots of thinkers thought a certain degree of social harmony would make disappear political
conflicts and politics. Utopian thinkers hope to maintain social order and meet the needs of the
population without economic or political competition.
Plato did not take seriously the inescapability of politics. An other writer, more than two
millennia later, Karl Marx did the same. He thought the abolition of capitalism would abolish economic
conflict and with it the need for government and politics. His refusal to prescribe for an unknowable
future was admirable; but his unwillingness to say more about how a society might operate, beyond
saying that the first step was to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, turned out to be disastrous.
Many commentators have thought of Republic as a treatise on education, but its political
message is the need to enlighten us so that we may become fit to live in kallipolis, the ideal city.
Plato’s subject is the ignorance of politicians. The thought that nothing will go well until kings
are philosophers or philosophers are kings, he believed that knowledge was the root of salvation and
ignorance the root of perdition. We may wonder why Plato was convinced that lack of knowledge was
the major issue rather than greed, anger, or the other dangerous emotions to which we are prey.
Socrates held some of the doctrines attributed to him by Plato: that nobody does evil willingly,
wickedness is error and that it is better to suffer wrong than to do it. The ideas that modern readers find
least plausible are those with the clearest origin in Socrates’s known doctrines, particularly the equation
of virtue with knowledge and the doctrine that no one does evil willingly. It is possible that he, like
Plato, thought that democracy is the second-worst of all forms of government, one step better than
tyranny.
, Plato came from an upper-class Athenian family, and his relatives were members of the
murderous oligarchy that briefly replaced the Athenian democracy at the end of the Peloponnesian War.
He took no part in politics and welcomed the restoration of democracy as the restoration of the rule of
law, but was disillusioned by the judicial murder of Socrates.
The trial and execution of Socrates in 399 (B.C.E.) was a key moment in European thought;
more immediately, it was a crisis in the lives of his students and disciples. Many of his followers went
into voluntary exile, Plato among them; he returned to Athens several years later, and founded the
Academy in 387.
There were competing schools, and others sprang up later, but there was an earlier tradition of
individual teachers of rhetoric and philosophy giving instruction to ambitious young men who hoped to
make a name in politics. They were the Sophists, who receive hostile treatment throughout Plato’s
Dialogues. The Sophists took their clients’ desire for worldly success as the starting point, and taught
them what they needed for success in the law-courts and in debate in the assembly.
Plato’s practical interventions in politics were limited, and they nearly cost him his life. During
his exile, he was befriended by Dionysius I, the tyrant of Syracuse, who then became irritated with him,
and may have decided to sell him into slavery. Some years later, he was cajoled into an other attempt to
turn a tyrant into a philosopher-king, and again escaped with some difficulty.
Alan Ryan, On politics pp. 97-99,
« Aristotle’s Classification of Constitutions »
Aristocracy is in principle the best form of government: the best men rule because they possess
judgment, courage, justice, and moderation. Yet experience shows that aristocracies have a regrettable
habit of becoming oligarchies in which class pride rules.
To see how Aristotle resolved the
difficulties as he understood them, we
must turn to what he is best remembered
for, the sexpartite distinction between
forms of government according to the
numbers who participate in them, on the
one hand, and their goodness or
corruption, on the other :
Aristotle believed that poverty should disqualify men from active citizenship. The “narrow
democracy” or “expanded aristocracy” of the well-balanced politeia is the remedy. A narrow
democracy would not permit the lowest social class to hold offices; conversely, an expanded
aristocracy would be a system in which the requirements were not onerous, as oligarchical parties want
to institute. A too restrictive or broad constitution arouse resentment: the middle ground is the answer.
Aristotle connects the excellence of citizens with the excellence of the constitutional form. A
virtuous man is more likely to be corrupted by absolute power than to become wiser and more virtuous;
