/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12194718]

If every country in the world, today, was run by a Philosopher King, would the world be better off?

[Anonymous No.12194725]

>>12194718

If by philosopher king you mean a Platonic philosopher king, i.e. a man whose wisdom, virtue and goodness are near perfection then of course it would. Especially if they had absolute power.

If you accept Plato's premises, namely that some men are wiser than others and by virtue of this wisdom they know what is good for everyone, and if you believe that such a man could exist and was given the government of a city or a state, then you cannot disagree with the fact that a state in the hands of a wise good man would be a better place.

[Anonymous No.12194727]

That already is the case.

[Anonymous No.12194736]

>>12194725

Not likely, because there's an intrinsic human desire not, necessarily, to disobey, but to do things of one's one will and desire. If the perfect philosopher king had absolute power, in what way might he use that power without causing resentment and rebellion? If, however, the perfect philosopher king simply lead by example, I think things would be better.

Think of school shootings: it's illegal to murder. It's illegal to purchase guns for minors. it's illegal to bring a weapon to school. Which means we don't have a legal problem, we have a social problem. What *compels* a person to murder?

[Anonymous No.12195065]

This man is proof that such a thing is possible

[Anonymous No.12195080]

>>12195065
>Pic not related

[Anonymous No.12195113]

No, it's a slave mentality to wish for the Even Greater Master. Countries aren't meant to be "run by" powerful individuals, institutions are meant to be public servants, who, gasp, should serve the public.

[Anonymous No.12195116]

>>12194725
Disagrizzle.
Even Gandalf, virtually an angelic being, knew that in having the ring, he would try to "use it for good" and become tyrannical. Not even the very wise can see all ends, cabron.

[Anonymous No.12195136]

No, the Islamic Republic of Iran hasn't worked out too well in practice.

[Anonymous No.12195291]

>>12195116
>using fiction to make a statement about the actual world
Please stop posting any time. You're on par with those Harry Potter protestors.

[Anonymous No.12195315]

Philosopher kings don't real.

People who know fucking nothing about politics should keep their mouths shut, but unfortunately politics is one of those fields where being wrong isn't immediately and dramatically obvious. If you're a bad engineer your buildings fall down. If you're bad at politics nothing really happens. It takes decades for foreign policy mistakes to even have consequences.

The long and short of it is that any philosopher king would only be in power because individuals choose to follow him, so his continued tenure would depend on his ability to meet the desires of his backers. Just like all politicians in all political systems. He would be exactly as shit as everyone else.

>"wow you really impressed me with your babby tier analysis mr politics expert"
Shut up. I'm not trying to give blistering insight into the fundamental condition of man as displayed in political behaviour. I'm just explaining the fucking retardation that motivates even asking this question.

It's not that man is fundamentally flawed or evil or greedy or any gay dumb fucking stupid shit like that. It's simply that the expression of politics in a locale is so tied up in systems and circumstances that individual agency can only be expressed within a societal bounding box. Nobody is powerful enough to rise above that, because power inherently comes from the free action of subordinates who are part of and help construct the bounding box in the first place.

[Anonymous No.12195390]

>>12195291
>Asking a hypothetical question and expecting a concrete, empirical answer.
JUST

[Anonymous No.12195419]

>>12194736
The clause of "near-perfect" oimplies incorruptibility. That he will not be corrupted by being given power, of any level. This is fundamental for the concept to even be spoken of, else he'd be like any other person.

[Anonymous No.12195435]

>>12195315
I agree about the system being too vast to make these things more realizible, yet, I still hold that one day a true philosopher-king could come and shape their nation and all others immensely. The idealist in me, it seems.

[Anonymous No.12195454]

>>12194718
no, we need democratically elected representatives to maintain our hard earned freedom and prosperity

[Anonymous No.12195460]

>>12195435
It's not that I'm a cynic because I'm not. I hate cynicism, and too often it's only a cover for ignorance and naivety anyway.

But people too often focus on final victory. That's silly. If you can just make things a little bit better, that's really good. All of the good things we have today are the result of entire generations making things just a little bit better in their time.

We don't need a philosopher king. We just need concrete, achievable goals motivated by principle and effective in practice. What can a philosopher king do for us, that we can't do ourselves?

[Anonymous No.12195488]

>>12195454
Bait

[Anonymous No.12195495]

>>12194718
Yes. Case in point: Abraham Lincoln.

[Anonymous No.12195501]

>>12195488
if the ruler doesn't have explicit consent of the people, he is a tyrant and must. be deposed. this isn't difficult to understand.

[Anonymous No.12195502]

>>12195495
then we're lucky it doesn't happen very often.

[Anonymous No.12195507]

>>12195460
This is true. Also, it's more pressing for the populace to change themselves, than for us to expect a single figure to be able to do so for them. If each individual would be dedicated to self-improvement, inckuding the leaders, everything would steadily get better and better. And yet, individuals tend not to improve themselves so much, and so our world looks as it does. This is my opinion anyway - that we are the source of most of our problems, and if every individual simply looked inward and was stern about their shortcomings, and sought to change them, the whole world would become immensely better. But this, again, is idealism, as people behave as people behave, and not in the manner we wish them to.

[Anonymous No.12195509]

>>12195113
public servants are exactly what the philosophical guardian class of the republic are supposed to be.

[Anonymous No.12195516]

>>12194718
No.
Plato plan was an utopia.
Utopias, by definition, are not only impossible but filled with contradictions.

[Anonymous No.12195528]

>>12195516
list ten contradictions within the ideal state as presented in plato's republic

[Anonymous No.12195539]

>>12195315
>It takes decades for foreign policy mistakes to even have consequences
t. gross over-generalisation

>The long and short of it is that any philosopher king would only be in power because individuals choose to follow him, so his continued tenure would depend on his ability to meet the desires of his backers. Just like all politicians in all political systems. He would be exactly as shit as everyone else.
You're not wrong here though, I have to say. However if a lot of his followers are educated as well, and put in him faith WITHOUT specific desire, he would be free from the chains of having to 'meet the demands of his backers'. In essence he would just be some guy they plopped there because they believed in /him/ above all else, not some guy they put there because they believe in what /he's/ going to do. Modern politics is a different beast, man.

>I'm just explaining the fucking retardation that motivates even asking this question.
t. brash and pretentious
t. not willing to explore avenues

>It's simply that the expression of politics in a locale is so tied up in systems and circumstances that individual agency can only be expressed within a societal bounding box. Nobody is powerful enough to rise above that, because power inherently comes from the free action of subordinates who are part of and help construct the bounding box in the first place.
True to a certain extent. The amount that individual agency can accomplish and the distance it can take you scales with the scope of your political project. Although I'm forced to agree with your premise. If you had a philosopher King, who was King and therefore had end-all say (but of course was still subject to debate and argument!) presiding over a cabal of other philosopher rulers, you could see it done, no?

Regards, Slightly-Read Brainlet Teen.

[Anonymous No.12195559]

>>12195460
>>12195507
Extremely true! This just may be the idealist in me speaking, but if education systems were improved, (unlikely!) you could rear a generation of philosophically thinking socially conscious self-improvers. A step closer to such a republic, rather than relying on one man to change all, or relying on gradual change, you could instead help everyone make great change within themsleves, which would have an emergence of great-chance all around. Philosopher Kings residing over a philosopher s o c i e t y.

[Anonymous No.12195595]

>>12195528
Aristotle himself BTFOs pl*to

[Anonymous No.12195601]

>>12194718
Yes.
>>12195516
If only high intellectuals such as you could run the world. Please teach us my lord!

[Anonymous No.12195602]

>>12194718
yeah but this question is autistically based on the premise of others virtues and morals

[Anonymous No.12195604]

>>12195559
Very well said. I wish I could see something like it in my lifetime, but it's certainly closer to something of a dream.

[Anonymous No.12195617]

>>12195539
>In essence he would just be some guy they plopped there because they believed in /him/ above all else, not some guy they put there because they believe in what /he's/ going to do.
I can't think of any ready examples of this happening to draw on, but I'd hypothesise that people would very quickly stop believing in him when what he did ran counter to what they wanted. People might not have specific policy desires, but they don't need to have specific policy desires. It's enough just to have a vague feeling that "this guy isn't fighting for me, this guy isn't on my team, this guy isn't delivering for me." The higher the transition costs, the stronger this sense needs to become to provoke action (e.g. democracies change leaders more often than tinpot dictatorships because the transition cost for individuals switching genuine support from one leader to another in democracy is nonexistent, whereas in tinpot dictatorships it can be extremely high). If the philosopher king was in a democracy he'd be subject to the people, and if he was in a dictatorship he'd be utterly reliant on his military backers (who tend to be arch-conservatives). Even if they put him in because he was "the best man for the job," "just to see what would happen," their little experiment would lose its appeal as soon as the first sacrifices for the greater good were demanded.

Basically, I doubt he'd be able to maintain their belief in him without delivering for them. Even if he is doing a good job for the country, their perception of how good a job he is doing is inextricably tied to how well he delivers for them - because they can only experience their own lives, not the life of the entire country.

>The amount that individual agency can accomplish and the distance it can take you scales with the scope of your political project.
Scales inversely, you mean?

>If you had a philosopher King, who was King and therefore had end-all say (but of course was still subject to debate and argument!) presiding over a cabal of other philosopher rulers, you could see it done, no?
Not unless the philosopher king ruled a nation of philosopher subjects. It comes down to the simple fact that power comes from the collective decisions of individuals to support a person. The philosopher king needs to bribe people for their support or he'll lose it and become powerless. You can only avoid this by adding philosopher subjects who don't need bribery to the thought experiment, and that rather defeats the point of it.

Good leaders are not enough. We need to use good systems like democracy to influence the decisions people make on a mass scale for the better.

[Anonymous No.12195618]

>>12195595
okay, but i'm waiting for a list of all those contradictions in the republic

[Anonymous No.12195625]

Philosopher Dictator > Philosopher King.
What good is a Philosopher King if his subjects are incompetent, disobedient retards? Read Marcus Aurelius, he bitches that every day he has to deal with stubborn retards.
It's necessary to sacrifice some of the virtue to gain real world results. If you put virtue first you won't accomplish much. It's easy to hide in a comfy polis and talk about wisdom and goodness, another thing is to rule over dozens of millions of people.
Stalin was a philosopher dictator. He lured Germans into the war solely to reck them. Stalin's original plan was to conquer all of Europe.

[Anonymous No.12195628]

>>12195604
Hey man, see a need, fill a need. It can begin with each and every one of us making moves to educate people. REAL philosophy and it's actual purpose has died in the modern era and instead been replaced with religious discourse, justification for strange deluded socio-political world views, or just argument-fuel. You could see it in your life time within your local community if you became something akin to Aristotle's exemplar and went out to have it happen.
I.E Idealism without delusion or defeatism is the greatest, because then it's just envisioning your goals.

[Anonymous No.12195629]

>>12194736
You fail to realize that a Philosopher king would be aware of this and enact legislation that takes this into account

[Anonymous No.12195641]

No, Socrates and Plato were full of ressentiment. Genocide is the logical endpoint of such ideology.

[Anonymous No.12195642]

>>12195136
Why do you say that?

[Anonymous No.12195670]

>itt: people guessing what a philosophical concept might mean from how it sounds without reading the book it comes from

i can't believe hegel literally believed in pic related

[Anonymous No.12195674]

>>12195390
A philosopher king is feasible, while magic rings and wizards are not. Please read more non-fiction, Anon.

[Anonymous No.12195675]

>>12195617
>Basically, I doubt he'd be able to maintain their belief in him without delivering for them. Even if he is doing a good job for the country, their perception of how good a job he is doing is inextricably tied to how well he delivers for them - because they can only experience their own lives, not the life of the entire country.
I concede; you are very right. I suppose that an uneducated populace would see this individual's changes and at times not understand their benefits or simply grumble as they were not made for them.

>Scales inversely, you mean?
My apologies. I misused it, like I said previously, 'brainlet teen'.

>Not unless the philosopher king ruled a nation of philosopher subjects. It comes down to the simple fact that power comes from the collective decisions of individuals to support a person. The philosopher king needs to bribe people for their support or he'll lose it and become powerless. You can only avoid this by adding philosopher subjects who don't need bribery to the thought experiment, and that rather defeats the point of it.
I suppose your right that it would defeat the point of it if the entire populace was on-par with said philosopher king, yes. However there are varying degrees of understanding, and intelligence. If everyone merely had basic socio-ethical and socio-philosophical understand, obviously some with more, and the King and his cabal of cohorts being the absolute authorities, would it not be feasible?

Essentially, a society that is philosophically conscious and capable, but not masters enough to be on par with the King. A highly wise and benevolent ruler surrounded by others alike him, rearing society in the right direction, with a content society that's conscious enough to realise he's doing them well. Would that ammendment not too be acceptable? Good leaders, a good society and a system un-suceptible to demagogues or oligarchs.

[Anonymous No.12195684]

>>12194718
Nah. "Democracy" acts as nice smoke&mirrors giving populace delusion of them being in control, when in fact their voting behaviour is guided by media that in turn gulps its agenda from academia. This is a very robust and stable social construct. Women (vast majority of humanists are women) behind the curtain remain hidden and people instead direct their anger at elected proxies, thinking they can change something by replacing mere elected government every few years.

[Anonymous No.12195723]

>>12195501
The German people loved Hitler.

[Anonymous No.12195737]

>>12195675
understanding* Whoops, typo.

[Anonymous No.12195741]

>>12194718
Put /his/ in a office and see what happens.

[Anonymous No.12195746]

>>12195675
>However there are varying degrees of understanding, and intelligence. If everyone merely had basic socio-ethical and socio-philosophical understand, obviously some with more, and the King and his cabal of cohorts being the absolute authorities, would it not be feasible?
Well, yeah, but then it no longer resembles our world. Rather than being "would this work" the question is "is this possible?" Can you reeducate enough people to be philosopher subjects to create democratic support for the philosopher king even when he enacts unpopular policies? And, if you could, how would you implement it? And so on. It's an enormous project to even conceptualise, if you wanted to do it for real. If you don't want to do it for real, what's the value of the thought experiment? What are we learning here? Not to be too dismissive, because I am enjoying this conversation, but the discussion is leaving the bounds of applicability to modern politics.


>Essentially, a society that is philosophically conscious and capable, but not masters enough to be on par with the King. A highly wise and benevolent ruler surrounded by others alike him, rearing society in the right direction, with a content society that's conscious enough to realise he's doing them well. Would that ammendment not too be acceptable? Good leaders, a good society and a system un-suceptible to demagogues or oligarchs.
Sure, but it's the same problem as the above. Okay, we have the broad view of what a better world would look like. Now what's the step-by-step plan to implement it? How do we get from this world to that world?

There are also a crucial and contentious assumption here too:
>benevolent ruler
This doesn't mean the same thing to all people.

[Anonymous No.12195747]

>>12195723
about a third of them, sure. but his power didn't come from the people, he was made chancellor by emergency presidential decree as a result of the scheming of an anti-democratic clique that misjudged him as easy to control.

[Anonymous No.12195776]

isn't laws the real political dialogue? I thought The Republic was more morals.

[Anonymous No.12195784]

LKY, check out singapore. Probably as close as we could get to one in the contemporary age. He even tried to do away with factionalism of races.

[Anonymous No.12195785]

>>12195746
>Well, yeah, but then it no longer resembles our world. Rather than being "would this work" the question is "is this possible?" Can you reeducate enough people to be philosopher subjects to create democratic support for the philosopher king even when he enacts unpopular policies? And, if you could, how would you implement it? And so on. It's an enormous project to even conceptualise, if you wanted to do it for real. If you don't want to do it for real, what's the value of the thought experiment? What are we learning here? Not to be too dismissive, because I am enjoying this conversation, but the discussion is leaving the bounds of applicability to modern politics.
I must concede and agree here, yeah. This is a very idylic concept I just spitballed, and I'm not quite sure it is even feasible or founded in reality. I suppose the current state of education prevents such a society; as the education system is designated to create factory workers, not thinking philosophers. But, I can conceptualise and envision a, while improbable and unlikely, scenario it could be enacted. Also to clarify, the value of the thought experiment is idealism. I staunchly believe that as long as you remove the delusion from idealism (as I've said here before) and the defeatism of 'This can't be done!' and merely look at the ideal concepts and goalposts you can pick out pieces that are feasible. In other words, proper-idealism allows us to design good ideas. Anyways, the scenario:

Envision a man, who I'll call Alexander. Alexander is a Philosopher King-esque figure, and also vastly wealthy from business. Alexander decides to found a city called Gnopolis. He takes a crowd of 50,000 western individuals, constructs the city, and places them into housing and situates them with jobs. He puts heavy funding into post-highschool education so that everyone can learn to become philosophically conscious, and also each learn the trade the desire. In essence, Gnopolis slowly starts to resemble (key word resemble, not exactly like) a MASSIVE Epicurean commune. As everyone is being educated, and the group is fairly small so this is financially feasible, Gnopolis' society itself philosophically 'awakens' so to speak. Now, Alexander puts heavy funding into schooling and deviates it from modern schooling, teaching every child to love learning, and learn for themselves, whilst still getting a proper education. He ensures to pay teachers better, and hire sophist-esque teachers who are genuinely intelligent, and in of themselves, philosophers, lovers of knowledge. As each of them are passionate about teaching, they inspire the youth to be passionate about learning. As they are passionate about learning, they do so, and as they learn philosophy, they learn TO learn for themselves and think for themselves, as well as to be socially conscious. Now, Alexander selects a cabinet of highly intelligent philosophers to help sub-manage many sections he can't see-

[Anonymous No.12195797]

>>12195746
>>12195785
-to himself, and he focuses on major changes he can make. In essence, they are his mini-philosopher Kings presiding over smaller 'kingdoms' so to speak. Now the first generation of Gnopolis is nothing more than a small beautiful well-kept town full of aspiring-but-not-quite there learners. Some further than others. It's a step forward, but not where we need to get. The real change is when the generation Alexander helped bring about, the children of Gnopolis, kick in.They have been taken up their entire life with these principals, and thus have been striving to become 'moral exemplars' their entire life. Thus, they are all or vast most, philosophically conscious, like the people I described, and would be content with Alexander and his cabnet. Badabing badaboom, with a ridiculous quantity of money, ridiculous effort, top-notch educators, courses for adults, and a pool of 50,000 settlers, Gnopolis has become the idylic settlement. Although I very much do recognise there are an insurmountable amount of plotholes that could be picked with this concept, understand that this is not an absolute 'If we do this, it'll work!' it is moreso a 'This is perhaps a way it could work'.

[Anonymous No.12195803]

>>12195674
The fiction mirrors the real anon. Lotr is a story about human characters, the magic is just a means to that end.

[Anonymous No.12195814]

>>12195803
LOTR is a story written by a human who created different human personalities. Not even the author can fully accurately represent human psychology and condition, not better than reality can at least.

TL;DR Tolkiens characters are well written but they are in no means people you can base case studies off of, same goes for all written works. The only thing you can case-study as a way to measure human behaviour, is the behaviour of actual humans.

[Anonymous No.12195830]

>>12195814
Fair enough.

[Anonymous No.12195840]

>>12194718
No, over roughly one generation the world would shift to Timocratic governments, where the more spirited people assume power at the cost of some reasoned judgement. This would devolve into oligarchies, democracies, and eventually tyrannies. That's what Plato said, anyways.

In any case, pretty much all evidence you could reasonably consider would lead you to conclude that the American system is the best form of government devised in human history. We have the most wealth, we run the world economy and do more for the poorest than any other country has in human history, our poor are better off than anywhere else or any other time in human history, we still have plenty of freedom, and we've kept the same basically stable system for hundreds of years.

It really is a shame that people want to reduce the division of power and trample freedoms (on the left and right). If America doesn't persevere it will be the worst loss in human history.

[Anonymous No.12195858]

>>12195528
maybe i wasnt clear enough. what i said was that utopias (platos or anyones for that matter) are impossible to create because of the contradictions that arise by the attempt itself.

it has nothing to do with plato. im saying his project is/was bound to fail. not because his ideas are wrong, but because they are impossible to execute in a setting like our own.

im not trying to trash plato, im saying that a "philosopher king" only works in paper. we are not capable (yet? who knows) of understanding and managing the level of complexity of the setting in which we live.

our current life and cultural/technological achievments are, in different degrees, based on heuristics that have been evolving and changing for fucking thousands of years. the multiple hypothesis that still work, do beause they relate to "stable" subjects of knowledge (like math, for example). thats why social sciences, education, psychology, medicine, and other fields of knowledge have been revisited, and still are, and will continue to do so, for as long as our enviroment changes (changes produced by our own interaction but also because of the never-ending interexchange inbetween the elements within the envirioment itself)

everything we have developed, has been through a process of trial and error. everything we hold as a "solid theory" can or could be challenged, given enough time and enough development.

hell, most of our heuristics come in "contradictory pairs" in a sense, and how they work, or dont, requieres different degrees of wisdom and experience.

i dont think we really, truly, have a clue about how a lot of thiings work, even in ourselves, to go ahead and claim that there is a possibilty to conjure a "king" that know all answers and whos every decisions will be the "right" decision.
utopias always have this implicit assumption: "perfection is achievable".

if you are trying to say that plato understood this and his claim was more in relation to "put someone in power thats wise enough to not fuck up", then sure, i agree. and im also sure that, even though that king tries its best, he will fuck up.
if you are reading platos idea about a king that "knows all answers and will eventually make everything better", then im saying thats not real.

[Anonymous No.12195864]

>>12195840
>we've kept the same basically stable system for hundreds of years

giving women and blacks the vote and civil rights was a mistake

[Anonymous No.12195899]

>>12195601
im not an intellectual and i dont aim at world rulling. im just saying, utopias are not possible.

put his plan in context, modern context for that matter:
my point is that people are diverse. so diverse that we have build cultures with so different ethos and cosmological views that, right now, some of them stand in oposition to one another.
life is pretty fucking complex and we dont really understand whats going on. value systems differer in between groups, and even intra group if you consider a sufficiently long time reference.
i think philoking assumes "theres one better/perfect value system" from where to operate in the world.
so then what, you are going to impose that system? you gonna convice 7 billion people that your shit is better than theirs? look at our current global political situation. its shit BECAUSE there are people out there pursuing that very same idea "my shit is better so you need MY shit, and if you disagree, ill bomb your shit"

[Anonymous No.12195937]

>>12195899
>you gonna convice 7 billion people that your shit is better than theirs?

observations in nature will show that is possible.ever seen a lone bull elk with a harem of 150 cows?

[Anonymous No.12195981]

>>12195937
the problem to me is a one of scalability.
solutions at a micro level dont necesarily work at a macro level. often, solutions on one level come to a contradiction if considered from a different level.

[Anonymous No.12196005]

>>12195840
>In any case, pretty much all evidence you could reasonably consider would lead you to conclude that the American system is the best form of government devised in human history.
Are you fucking stupid?

The Bill of Rights is shit that puts your fundamental freedoms in the hands of an unelected Court; the lack of party discipline makes your legislature an unwieldy shitshow of corruption; and the lack of mandatory voting or an independent electoral commission makes you barely democratic to start with. Not to mention that your state/federal division of power is idiotic.

The US government is fucking awfully set up. Truly terrible. It is the worst Western democracy and that's why nobody has fucking copied it, and everyone has Westminster systems.

The Washington system is an abortion.

[Anonymous No.12196041]

>>12195390
brainlet detected

[Anonymous No.12196046]

You're a fucking idiot OP, the exact reason there is problems in this world is because of people who follow morals similar to Plato.

"Life is about pleasuring yourself."
You know who else has that belief? Pedophiles, and guess what, a thousand or two thousand years after Plato there was pedophilia in Greece.

"philosopher king", however his philosophy is about as broken as the people who believe them.

[Anonymous No.12196057]

>>12196046
>Shouting out angry and bold statements
>Not backing any of it up
>Disregarding the fact that millions of people far more intelligent than both of you or I both agreed that Plato had a great philosophical foundation not for random hur de-dur chance, but for a reason.
All of that was ad hominem. Back it up or shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.12196070]

>>12196057
Those people are fucking idiots and fucking pedophiles, and they can go fuck themselves. And so can you you fuckface.

[Anonymous No.12196073]

>>12195065
>kronstadt

[Anonymous No.12196075]

>>12195937
no one here sees nature only books and school,it is observations in nature that lets one see the shadows for what they are

[Anonymous No.12196080]

>>12196070
Back it up. Or shut. The fuck up. Because you sound like a major retard right now.

[Anonymous No.12196085]

>>12196075
stepping out of the cave and viewing the reality of nature is the way to truth

[Anonymous No.12196087]

>>12196005
So, you don't like civil liberties and having a court to appeal to when everyone else decides to try to democratically take them away, or a power hungry executive oversteps it's bounds?

You call it a lack of party discipline, but the difficulty that comes with passing a law is a feature, not a bug. It preserves freedom.

Also not sure what you don't like about states rights. It's a good thing that Texas and California are free to try different approaches and everyone can see and decide for themselves what works best.

And yeah, few countries have copied it, but that's all the more argument for the American system. Again, best economy, more to lift the world's poorest out of poverty, retained freedom, stable for hundreds of years. No one else even remotely competes. Seriously. Who else do you perceive as even coming close to the US?

[Anonymous No.12196106]

>>12196080
You're a fucking idiot, it's already backed up, pedophiles are parasites to society. There is no merit to what this fucking idiot says, the only people who believe in what this fucking idiot says are pedophiles, sexual predators and serial killers, this means you should be locked the fuck up for the rest of your life. Or better yet executed. Save the taxpayers some money and go kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.12196114]

>>12196087
>So, you don't like civil liberties
The Bill of Rights is a piece of paper. It doesn't guarantee anything.

>having a court to appeal to when everyone else decides to try to democratically take them away
Yet that same court can take them away at the stroke of a pen, no democracy involved at all.

>or a power hungry executive oversteps it's bounds?
You don't need a Bill of Rights for that.

>You call it a lack of party discipline, but the difficulty that comes with passing a law is a feature, not a bug.
Laws are necessary. Making it hard to pass laws makes it hard to do the necessary work of government. That's why Congress is a shitpile of corruption - because every member needs to be individually bought. Systems with party discipline function much more smoothly.

>It preserves freedom.
At what cost? Clearly, government has a point. We all sat down and agreed to have a government, so there is something good about it that is worth the price. All you have accomplished is to have all the negatives of government while making it as difficult as possible to obtain the positives.

>Also not sure what you don't like about states rights.
They're a bureaucratic clusterfuck that make no sense.

>It's a good thing that Texas and California are free to try different approaches and everyone can see and decide for themselves what works best.
So what you're saying is that it's a good thing that one state will be using an approach that demonstrably is not as good as what is being used elsewhere?

>best economy
Pfft. Biggest, maybe, but certainly not best.

>more to lift the world's poorest out of poverty
Ahem. China's done more of that than you have.

>retained freedom
At an extortionate cost. Other Western countries are at worst MILDLY less free, and enjoy substantially more effective government.

>stable for hundreds of years
Fucking laughable. It's barely even stable NOW, let alone the Civil War.

You don't know very much about politics, clearly. You're repeating all of the brainlet cliches. It's perfectly fine to defend the Washington system (as shit as it is), but you're not doing so intelligently.

[Anonymous No.12196173]

>>12195858
jesus christ. you said that a. plato proposes an utopia and that b. utopias are defined by self-contradiction. if these are true then you should be to point out the contradictions in plato's state, or else either a or b are false. of course you can't point out shit in plato because you haven't read a sentence of plato, you're just fronting, but it's amazing that you find it easier to produce this whole rambling essay about nothing rather than just say "i don't know".

[Anonymous No.12196193]

>>12196106
I'M not a paedophile. I'm asking you to back up what you said about Plato. And even then, it's awful practice to be highly hostile and use basically nothoing but ad hominem. I'm asking you to back up why Plato's philosophy is broken and why Plato is bad. All you basically said in protest of this concept is "Grr, paedophiles also believed in this!". Hitler also believed you shouldn't smoke, so clearly, go smoke 8 packs. Go back up the claim that plato's philosophy is broken, go, do it.

[Anonymous No.12196202]

>>12196046
>morals similar to Plato.
>"Life is about pleasuring yourself."

???

[Anonymous No.12196247]

>>12196202
>Mfw the only Greek philosopher to have ever said anything close to that was Epicurus and even then he also stressed that there were clear moral limits.

[Anonymous No.12196294]

>>12196173
Maybe im not explaining myself clearly. English is not my first language.
Ill try again:
My statement has nothing to do with the proposition given by plato. Maybe his idea(on paper) is sound and robust.
Im saying, in reality, is not feasible. No utopia is.
I can not envision a situation where a single individual is able to posses, let alone compute,every single piece of information available at any given time,in order to “rule wisely” the complexity that arises through the interactions of individuals in a group (not to mention the information given by the enviorment they dwell and the complexities that arise because of that dynamic).
You seem to belive that that is possible.
I dont.
Thats all.

[Anonymous No.12196305]

>>12196114
lol dude you're all over the place.

Yes, the bill of rights is a piece of paper. No, the courts can't take away your rights with the stroke of a pen. The courts cannot enact or enforce laws, those are powers reserved for congress and the executive. The court may not protect your freedoms from congress and the executive, but the whole point of the division of power is that they are a last resort. I agree it isn't perfect, but it's still the best solution to that problem.

Of course, none of that matters, given that you clearly want more laws and less freedom, from what I can tell from your next few statements. Freedom is worth the cost, that's a founding principle. States rights, the bill of rights, and difficulty passing laws is literally the design of the founders to preserve freedom. Without those roadblocks, we're just back to literal tyranny.

>So what you're saying is that it's a good thing that one state will be using an approach that demonstrably is not as good as what is being used elsewhere?
Yes. You may be assuming that what's best for one state is best for another state, which is not true. Different states trying different things is the laboratory of democracy, the actual process by which we figure out what works best in practice. What is your brilliant alternative?

>best economy
>Pfft. Biggest, maybe, but certainly not best.
Um... what? How should we judge an economy if not by the wealth it generates? Your feelings? Reddit upvotes?

>retained freedom
>At an extortionate cost. Other Western countries are at worst MILDLY less free, and enjoy substantially more effective government.
Don't forget that the countries you're thinking of benefit immensely from the US economy and military (which is also funded by our economy). In any case, what freedoms do you want to turn in and what do you want in return?

>Fucking laughable. It's barely even stable NOW, let alone the Civil War.
So... you agree that it's stable?

What is your actual grievance? We have too much freedom? I really don't understand where you're coming from. I think I defended the American system plenty fine. I'm still waiting to hear from you which country is better...

[Anonymous No.12196312]

No. Ruling the world efficiently takes more than wisdom and good intentions. Would any good wise man actually accept an offer to have to manage policies and problems that affect the 9 billion people on the planet? He'd kill himself after a year.

[Anonymous No.12196339]

>>12194736
Under the platonic ruler the kid's thoughts wouldn't be anywhere near that stupid shit, the entire education system contributing to what you just described would justly be dismantled and reimagined.

[Anonymous No.12196373]

>>12195864
How did you take any of what he said and reach that stupid conclusion?

[Anonymous No.12196378]

>>12196339
You seem under the impression that its possible to gain a level of control and direction of human education of such magnitude that every single person in fucking earth would willingly listen (and even agree) to anything suck king would have to say.
Good luck with that.

[Anonymous No.12196398]

Most human problems come by human actions. The question I ask you guys is whether individuals in society can be changed.

Thieves, rapists and murderers, for example, are entirely accountable for their actions, save for the rare cases where they commit the crime from necessity and not will (such as an extremely poor person stealing something). If these people would not behave wrongly, obviously would their crimes not enter society. So if all immorality is from the individual, how does one make individuals moral? Why do some even have low moral constitutions in the first place, and others higher? If everyone in society were of the latter, then we'd not even have such problems. There are some people, who will never, under any circumstance, steal, r*pe or k*ll another. Yet others do, routinely. What explains this difference?

Is there any question more important than this, when the topic is of how to improve society?

[Anonymous No.12196524]

xi jinping is the closest to a philosopher king that the world currently has

why do you think china has grown so rapidly

[Anonymous No.12196533]

>>12196294
>is not feasible. No utopia is.
the point is that you have failed to demonstrate that plato's thought is "utopian" under your own definition of "characterized by self-contradiction", meaning that all you've written after that point is worthless. more world salad won't fix anything when you're failing logic 101 by insisting that plato is wrong because he's utopian and utopian because he's wrong, at no point making any reference to anything plato actually wrote. all that shit you just typed out about a perfect omniscient individual does not appear anywhere in plato, in fact the state from the republic is not even ruled by an individual but a philosophically trained class of civil servants. this means you not only didn't read the fucking book, you didn't even look up a summary, you just stared briefly at the phrase "philosopher kings", made up a meaning for it on the spot and are now idiotically arguing against that impromptu fabrication.

this is moronic. morons do this. you will not stop being a moron until you start reading books before you argue about them.

[Anonymous No.12196534]

>>12196398
You still there? If so I'll answer your question.

[Anonymous No.12196538]

>>12196533
Bless your fucking soul sir.

[Anonymous No.12196591]

>>12195113
>>12195509
In the republic the ruling class is not allowed to own property or grow their own food. They subsist on alms from the ones who they "rule" and their life is devoted to public service.

[Anonymous No.12196597]

>>12196538
>sir.

[Anonymous No.12196618]

>>12195315
>Philosopher kings don't real.
You should read about the power structure and caste relations in Vedic period India. I've always thought it was the most obvious example of a benign philosophical ruling class.

[Anonymous No.12196619]

>>12196618
wasnt India basically just apartheid

[Anonymous No.12196635]

>>12196619
If you mean the lowest classes couldn't just walk up to a king then yes, you'll find that has been and is the case throughout the history of civilisation.

Otherwise no, castes in that period had some degree of intermingling.

[Anonymous No.12196643]

>>12194718
what do you mean by better OP?

[Anonymous No.12196644]

>>12196635
I mean that the ruling caste was an invading people of a different race

[Anonymous No.12196670]

>>12196643
also people afraid of death don't deserved life every political idea has as ultimate goal the elimination of death and pain but that would be impossible.
Politics are rooted on fears.

[Anonymous No.12196683]

>>12195670
dude did you know that Wittgenstein's philosophy is actually about IMAGES? lmao what a mindfuck desu I thought it's about logic and language

[Anonymous No.12196686]

>>12196398
>crime comes from criminals!

get this naive shit out of there, this is a plato thread

>"[Great flood survivors] were not intolerably poor, nor driven by poverty to quarrel with each other; but presumably they did not grow rich either, in view of the prevailing lack of gold and silver. Now the community in which neither wealth nor poverty exists will generally produce the finest characters because tendencies to violence and crime, and feelings of jealousy and envy, simply do not arise. So these men were good [...]"
-laws, book 3

[Anonymous No.12196687]

>>12196378
>Hurr durr I didn't read the OP
Well why didn't you say so sooner

[Anonymous No.12196691]

>>12194718
Nope

[Anonymous No.12196730]

>>12195419

How do you convince people to follow wise advice without threat of force or compulsion?

>>12195629

What if people don't like the legislation? How do you compel them to live consistently with it? What I'm getting at is: how do you *instill* values (which lead to a better society) without enforcing values?

>>12196339

See above. What is the method of transferring wisdom without resentment-inducing edict?

[Anonymous No.12196820]

>>12196644
Nowhere does Plato say the Republic must be racially homogeneous

[Anonymous No.12196981]

>>12196730
>How do you convince people to follow wise advice without threat of force or compulsion?

Wisdom that follows logos and is just compels following, and for actions that harm the country or its people why should forceful punishment be excluded?

>What if people don't like the legislation? How do you compel them to live consistently with it? What I'm getting at is: how do you *instill* values (which lead to a better society) without enforcing values?

Again, good wisdom inspires acceptance if it is transparently presented. Key is presenting clear reasoning and not going behind the back of the polity, whether for their own good or not.

>See above. What is the method of transferring wisdom without resentment-inducing edict?

The Philosopher King is a worthy leader because he physically and mentally manifests strength and compassion. Justice and fairness rarely inspire resentment except in a weaker person, where the societal structure does not allow them the influence to damage the country as a whole.

[Anonymous No.12197050]

>>12196533
>plato
>not an idealist.

Ok bro, you got me. I only throw word salads in here.

[Anonymous No.12197079]

>>12197050
"idealism" as in platonic idealism has nothing to do with utopia. you're just making yourself look even stupider by misusing basic terms.

[Anonymous No.12197095]

Yes. And the only way this is possible is with perfected intelligence. AI overlords when?

[Anonymous No.12197096]

>>12196981
>compels following.
>inspires acceptance

By SOME people.
Not everyone thinks likes you, behaves like you or is willing to follow the same ethics you do. Plato assumed that what you are saying is not onlypossible but a perfectly reasonable conclusion about human endeavors.
He was and still is wrong.
There is no one pure model of thought and wisdom and interpretation that will save us all, that gives solution to everything justly and evenly and is at the same time sane, rational and compassionate. That does exist, and if it does, we as a race are very fucking asay from achieving it, let alone understand what would that “thing” would entail.

[Anonymous No.12197101]

>>12196730
The guardians enforce the the wise advice with force, and they are obedient to the philosophers kings as a result of their education.
It's important to keep in mind that the philosopher king in this ideal scenario would not give wise advice that is meant to serve his machiavellian purposes, because the state would already be stable and legitimate due to the wisdom of the philosopher kings. The philosopher kings are explicitly not interested in the power of their position, but only led by their duty, virtue and wisdom.
It should also be noted that resentment is usually carried out against one one envies. But there would be less envy in the state ruled by a philosopher king, because people would be in their right places, doing the work right for them, and thereby being satisfied with their position.
How this state of affairs established isn't addressed, and it's a serious question on multiple levels, but is not within the scope of the OP.

[Anonymous No.12197121]

>>12197096
>There is no one pure model of thought and wisdom and interpretation
Two out of three isn't bad. Wisdom comes in many forms but it is all basically the same thing across cultures.

[Anonymous No.12197158]

>>12197121
Yet the difference is sufficient in order to produce very, veeeeery different ethics and world views, even during the same periods of time, amongst cultures.
Thats my whole point. Philoking implies one true perfect and incorruptible knowledge (platos idealism) being achievable by one individual. That just doesnt happen. Quite the contrary.
We, as a species, have only been able to produce time-framed models of interpretation that constantly need updates or do-overs.

[Anonymous No.12197183]

>>12196981

>transparently presented

This is the 'lead by example' I was referring to. People can't be forced, but they can be inspired.

[Anonymous No.12197237]

>>12197158
>implies one true perfect and incorruptible knowledge
It doesn’t just imply it, Plato lays it out in the republic. The philosopher kings would be able to, with their knowledge, comprehend The Good and know all things that partake in it. Justice is in no way subjective, which means different ethics of equal legitimacy are not allowed. The philosopher Kings are right and all other views are wrong, because they stray in one way or another from justice, from goodness.
Now, you could argue that there is no objective goodness, and so what the philosopher kings are believing is just another subjective interpretation. That may well be true, but if this “interpretation” of justice creates more happiness and goodness than the others, and is held by incorruptible men, then it is the best interpretation we’ve yet come up with, and would be most stable if held as objectively correct

[Anonymous No.12197245]

>>12195814
I think Tolkien was just saying that the wise recognize that power corrupts, and anon was just using tolkeins character to illustrate that point. You are right though in your pinpoint analysis that Gandalf was not in fact a real person you fucking brainiac.

[Anonymous No.12197261]

>>12197237
Again, sounds ok on paper.
Is it feasible? I dont think so
“Our truth is the best and only truth, and we mean good and it will be good” How many global attrocities has humanity undergo by now by this very same fucking logic?
Other anons in the thread have already pointed out that, in order to carry on with this project, inforcement is not only inevitable, is practicaly the only resource.
So yeah, no thank you. Philoking is a cancer idea

[Anonymous No.12197278]

>>12196730
The answer is you teach them that the wise people ruling are indeed wiser, and if you disagree it’s not because you have a valid argument but because you lack that which is required to understand why they’re right. And in Plato’s republic, with everyone in their proper place doing their proper job, they won’t even be thinking about their opinions on the legislation. They will be focused on their job and believe that anything else, including thinking about politics, is a distraction that worsens them. Now how do you have the system without enduring resentment? Well first if the rulers are making all the truly right decisions it seems unlikely that many people would find themselves anything but benefited by the legislation. But if people were to feel unhappy conceding that others are wiser, or feel that they would do a better job ruling, all you’d have to do is show them the life of the rulers. In their life they have no possessions, they don’t make money or get glory or have pleasures. In no way is their life enviable or worthy of resentment. The people will be happy to go back to their place and continue their life of pleasure and ease, and in fact would be happier if they just stayed there, resentment gone.

[Anonymous No.12197281]

>>12194718
Jian Wu went to see the mad (recluse), Jie-yu, who said to him, 'What did Ri-Zhong Shi tell you?' The reply was, 'He told me that when rulers gave forth their regulations according to their own views and enacted righteous measures, no one would venture not to obey them, and all would be transformed.' Jie-yu said, 'That is but the hypocrisy of virtue. For the right ordering of the world it would be like trying to wade through the sea and dig through the He, or employing a mosquito to carry a mountain on its back. And when a sage is governing, does he govern men's outward actions? He is (himself) correct, and so (his government) goes on; this is the simple and certain way by which he secures the success of his affairs. Think of the bird which flies high, to avoid being hurt by the dart on the string of the archer, and the little mouse which makes its hole deep under Shen-qiu to avoid the danger of being smoked or dug out; are (rulers) less knowing than these two little creatures?'

[Anonymous No.12197303]

>>12197261
This is true, it may well be impossible for us to ever implement. However, the ideas here go beyond “well I’d we COULD, it would be a good idea”. If you concede this, then you concede that there is an objective justice that tries to attain and objective goodness. Like you say, many people will never agree with this so a wide scale system of ruling in which this is implemented may never be possible. But one of the SINGLE BIGGEST POINTS in the republic is that regardless of how this applies to real civilization, you can still apply it to your soul. If, as you say, this looks good on paper, then you are conceding what I said earlier. So instead of figuring out how to apply this to everybody in a system of government, apply it to your own life and appetites and soul. If enough people do this, maybe some day we will teach a point where it is more feasible. Until then, at least your soul and life will be as objectively good as possible

[Anonymous No.12197402]

oh my god. psa: the idea that in the republic plato advocates that society should submit to the authority of a single genius head of state called "the philosopher king" is one of those famous misconceptions that people who don't read have. in the republic as plato actually wrote it there is nobody above the guardian class and the famous line about philosophers becoming kings and kings philosophers is just a poetic expression of the need for political power and philosophical pursuit to be brought together - so that this class of philosophically educated civil servants can arise. there is no specific figure of a philosopher king in there and you're all unbelievable pseuds arguing about a book you've never read.

[Anonymous No.12197419]

>>12195116
>tyrannical
A meme and spook.
Post rejected and dismissed.

[Anonymous No.12197430]

>>12194718
Yes. But only if the kings work together to govern by the principles in the scriptures aka theocracy

[Anonymous No.12197598]

>>12197281
Best answer so far.

[Anonymous No.12197761]

>>12197303
I agree with you. I do belive that a better interpretation to the philoking is an individual one. Rule your kingdom the best you can, conjure the best wisdom you are capable of and guide your life accordingly.
Not so much with your note about objective justice. But, i thibk thats an ok point to disagree, the above is, imo, more robust than this difference.

[Anonymous No.12197895]

>>12197245
Power doesn't corrupt, the contest for power does.

[Anonymous No.12198077]

>>12197761
>Not so much with your note about objective justice

Justice has become a dirty word, relating absolute judgements of criminality on individuals. Do you not agree that, in a non-corrupt system, actions can be categorised either as morally good or bad?

[Anonymous No.12198241]

>>12194725
Unfortunately, no matter how 'wise' and 'good' a man is, they are imperfect. A philosopher king is utopian.

[Anonymous No.12198570]

>>12194727
What?

[Anonymous No.12198600]

Philosopher kings would not work in our widespread, increasingly connected society. If we still lived in feudal farming systems of land division, it would probably work.

[Anonymous No.12198650]

>>12197895
Power will always involve contest at some time or another

[Anonymous No.12199601]

>>12198570
Look into who actually rules the world without falling into the traps of any meme ideologies.

[Anonymous No.12199674]

>>12198077
Yes, but those categories are always grounded on a very complex system of interactions on a set of existance.
They change inbetween groups and intragroup also, given enough time.
This mean, there are several categories of whats “good” and “bad”, some even contradictory by comparisson. Which in turn means that there is no just One Way to view the world where everything comes from or after. That One eay eould have to hold contradictory premises rendering either impossible or complex enough to be useless to us.

[Anonymous No.12200395]

>>12196305
>No, the courts can't take away your rights with the stroke of a pen.
Yes they can, because your rights are subject to their interpretation. They could interpret that the right to free speech only applies to journalists tomorrow, and that would be the law the very same day. Learn how the system works before you attempt to defend it.

>I agree it isn't perfect, but it's still the best solution to that problem.
What problem? Is people having democratic control over their own rights a problem?

>Freedom is worth the cost, that's a founding principle.
That's not a principle, it's shitty rhetoric. Value judgements need to be made based on actual criteria. Treating a value judgement like an axiom is brainlet tier.

>Without those roadblocks, we're just back to literal tyranny.
Demonstrably wrong.

>What is your brilliant alternative?
To divide up state and federal power according to a reasonable appraisal of whether or not the federal government would be the more efficient actor in the area. Or do you think air traffic regulations should vary by fucking state?

>How should we judge an economy if not by the wealth it generates?
Are you fucking retarded?

>Don't forget that the countries you're thinking of benefit immensely from the US economy and military (which is also funded by our economy).
Meaningless non-sequitur.

>In any case, what freedoms do you want to turn in and what do you want in return?
Irrelevant. The question is about government efficacy, not my personal opinion on freedom.

>So... you agree that it's stable?
Yes. But you didn't say "the US government is stable now", you said "the US government has been stable for hundreds of years."

What a fucking joke.

You argue like a god damn fucking /pol/yp and you need to go back.

>What is your actual grievance?
I've fucking told you. The Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights are fucking garbage that put power which should be handled democratically into the hands of an unelected body; the lack of party discipline makes Congress a fucking shambles; the lack of mandatory voting and an independent electoral commission makes the US barely even democratic in the first place; and the state/federal power divide is completely batshit.

[Anonymous No.12200408]

>>12196339
>the entire education system contributing to what you just described would justly be dismantled and reimagined
wow it's almost as though this has always been the correct answer to solving public school violence
it's a shame it will never happen as long as running a state-enforced education racket returns a reasonable profit margin

[Anonymous No.12200424]

>>12194718
If every country were ruled by a philosopher king, as per de omnibus dubitandum, then by the logic of necessary inference, then no country would be ruled by a philosopher king. The justification is trivial and has been left as an exercise for the reader.

[Anonymous No.12201251]

>>12195642
Khomenei modeled it after The Republic. Islam is the great lie.

Persians were the carriers of platonic philosophy for generations under the guise of islam.

[Anonymous No.12201258]

On the whole yes, but the conflicts would also be way more autistic

[Anonymous No.12201285]

>>12195840
>we've kept the same basically stable system for hundreds of years
Only somewhat. In a comparable very small amount of time we IMMENSELY expanded the suffrage of the population. We arguably spent most of our time in something more akin to an Aristocracy than a Democracy.

[Anonymous No.12201291]

>>12194725
People disagreeing with this post don't understand it. You can't rebut "If you accept Plato's premises" with "I don't accept Plato's premises".

[Anonymous No.12201308]

>>12197245
The more important point is that the LotR analogy doesn't at all contradict the original claim, despite being presented that way.