To Plato, there existed fundamental patterns in the universe, Forms so pure and unblemished that most people will never know them, even as they act as existence in its purest form. All around us, everyday objects toe the line between these pure existences, never committing to one yet never abandoning one. To those few who could gaze upon these paradigms and look beyond the pale imitations in every object, Plato gave the name Philosophers.
In the Book V of the Republic, Plato’s definition of philosophers is essential in illustrating the closest possible parallel in real life to his model city by taking account of the occasion of the argument and acting as the foundation of his argument. One of the main reasons Plato delves into this explanation is made obvious by Glaucon’s exclamation: ‘My dear Socrates, if you make pronouncements of that sort, you can’t be surprised if a large number of decent people take their coats off, pick up the nearest weapon, and come after you in their shirt sleeves to do something terrible to you.
If you can’t find an argument to hold them off and escape, you’ll learn to your cost what it is to be laughed at. ‘ (Lee 192) Why would people laugh at the notion that philosophers should lead? The reason lies in value dissonance. When a modern man conceptualizes a philosopher, he would quite likely imagine an old, wise man knowledgeable in the ways of the world. Such wisdom could undoubtedly benefit society a classical society. The fundamental problem with this line of reasoning is that it ignores the time and place where the argument took place: Classical Greece.
Instead of the wise, old men thought of today, the Greeks thought of philosophers as either stark, raving mad or simply useless, doing nothing all day but think. Such people, who did not have the persuasive ability required in democracies, the wealth needed in oligarchies, or the lineage to be part of the aristocracy, were, frankly, located at the bottom dredges of society in terms of the social ladder. To have refuse as leaders, why, it was unthinkable! Differing from most Greeks of the time, Plato had, in his mind, a different definition of “philosopher.
A philosopher would be a person who sought after, and comprehended, the Forms of the universe, such as Beauty in itself or Justice in itself, without confusing them with the tiny parts of each Form present in every object. A person who had such a goal and possessed the capability to achieve it would also understand that political power is a responsibility, not a privilege, making them reluctant to rule. In addition, a philosopher must have, in accordance with their nature, traits suited for ruling, such as honesty, a love for justice, good memory, and a sense for good proportions.
This definition of a philosopher, so in contrast with the commonly accepted conception of a philosopher, is needed to address the implications of the claim that only philosopher-kings could bring about the closest possible simulation of Plato’s utopia, as the meaning of his statement must be clarified due to the occasion of his argument, Classical Greece. This idea of clarification brings us to a similar, yet different, way of viewing the rhetorical reasoning for Plato’s definition. Viewed in the light of the Toulmin method, Plato’s definition seems to serve as the foundation of his argument.
Expressed as concisely as possible, Plato’s claim is that philosopher-kings would be the best way to bring about his ideal society. Without anything to back that up, however, the claim, instead of answering any questions, just makes new ones. What is a philosopher king? Why are philosopher-kings the best conduit for the utopia? To answer these questions, Plato begins explaining his argument much in the same way one constructs a tower: from the foundation. Plato starts by singling out a certain group of people to be “philosophers. ” Philosophers are people who have the desire and ability to comprehend the true Forms of the world.
Following up on the limits, Plato reasons out what traits such a nature would necessarily include, such as honesty. With this, the foundation, or grounds, of the argument is complete. Although not necessarily irrefutable, this definition is the start of the entire argument. Yet, despite having both the foundation and the claim, there seems to be a certain link missing. Why is the type of philosopher is described the best candidate? In order to complete the argument, a warrant is required, so an assumption is made: the traits the philosopher Plato defines has makes it suitable for the role of bringing about the utopia.
Without the clarification made in Plato’s definition, the assumption would have no basis to work off from to reach the claim, and the claim would have no support, or in other words, people would just laugh at Plato if he stated the assumption and his assertion without actually creating a foundation. Combining these two viewpoints, the extent of rhetorical purpose of Plato’s definition of a philosopher is revealed as serving as the foundation of his argument because of the occasion.
If the occasion were different, an occasion where Plato’s definition is the commonly accepted one, then Plato would not have needed to create a definition as it would have been implied, with people automatically thinking of the traits Plato’s philosopher would have. From this clarification of what it means to be a philosopher, Plato can finish his argument. Yet, even after the argument is fully elaborated upon, an intriguing question remains. Does Plato consider himself one of these esteemed philosophers?
