In Plato’s Republic we read about the Philosopher-King. According to Plato, Socrates said:
Unless… either philosophers become kings in our states or those whom we now call our kings and rulers take to the pursuit of philosophy seriously and adequately, and there is a conjunction of these two things, political power and philosophical intelligence, while the motley horde of the natures who at present pursue either apart from the other are compulsorily excluded, there can be no cessation of troubles…for our states, nor, I fancy, for the human race either.
Fortunately, at least for historians and philosophers, the Philosopher-King needn’t be a mere theory. History provides us with Marcus Aurelius. His Meditations demonstrate that he certainly was a philosopher – even Justin Martyr credited him with being a philosopher. He certainly was a king. But would anyone really wish to live under Marcus? Perhaps he was a vast improvement over previous emperors. Perhaps Marcus was the best Philosopher-King that was possible for a man of his time and background. Perhaps the exigencies of ruling and reigning in Rome made compassion and peace and justice impractical ideas.
Was Marcus a King whose extremes were tempered by Philosophy? Or a Philosopher whose philosophy was tainted by Kinging?
He certainly did nothing to curb slavery, or the brutality of the gladiatorial games (despite what Ridley Scott purports), and his wars against the Germanic tribes in the Marcomannic Wars demonstrate that he was far from unwilling to shed blood on a wide scale.
The misery of much of the Roman world was not only to be tolerated, but considered noble by Aurelius’ Stoicism. The passivity of Stoicism to things beyond one’s control, obviously, creates a moral escape – for anyone can claim that anything is out of one’s control. Perhaps Marcus abhorred the persecution of Christians, but perhaps he accepted it as beyond his control. Maybe, just maybe, he thought that the gladiatorial games were base and ignoble – but the people need their panem et circenses!
We’ve had Philosopher-Kings in the past, perhaps the most obvious example, more than Marcus Aurelius, is Solomon. And yet, as the Divine Record makes clear, all of Solomon’s philosophy, in the end, did him no good at all! Despite his great wisdom, he brought in paganism, put heavy burdens upon the Israelites as he aggrandized the House of David’s Transeuphratean Empire.
How terrible is wisdom, when it brings no profit to the wise?
And today, we see much the same thinking, which is pervasive in our politics. Everyone wants to tell the constituencies how “smart” their candidate is!
“Oh my,” they say, blushing “he’s so smart, look he went to Yale/ Harvard/ Dartmout/ Chicago/ (insert any name with enough historical clout to browbeat the lowbrows into thinking they can actually trust so and so as a bona fide intellectual because s/he has a B.S/ D.J/ M.D. from the aforementioned institution).”
We are told how smart candidates are.
And maybe they are as smart as their Madison Avenue turd-polishers claim. Maybe not. But frankly, it seems irrelevant. Smart is different than good. Goebbels was smart. Stalin was smart. Many of histories worst of the worst were very intelligent, and shrewd, to boot! Being smart has nothing to do with a person’s ability to make wise choices that will serve to bring peace and prosperity to his people. Cleon in the Mytilenean Debate said this:
The most alarming feature in the case is the constant change of measures with which we appear to be threatened, and our seeming ignorance of the fact that bad laws which are never changed are better for a city than good ones that have no authority; that unlearned loyalty is more serviceable than quick-witted insubordination; and that ordinary men usually manage public affairs better than their more gifted fellows. The latter are always wanting to appear wiser than the laws, and to overrule every proposition brought forward, thinking that they cannot show their wit in more important matters, and by such behaviour too often ruin their country; while those who mistrust their own cleverness are content to be less learned than the laws, and less able to pick holes in the speech of a good speaker; and being fair judges rather than rival athletes, generally conduct affairs successfully. These we ought to imitate, instead of being led on by cleverness and intellectual rivalry.
The point is simple – being smart, being a philosopher, being capable of rule does not make one a good ruler.
So, what is the solution? Shall we elect a dunce? No. I think that Socrates was right when he said that humanity needs a Philosopher-King. But he didn’t go far enough. We need a man who not only is able to rule, who can bend men and nations to His will, but One Who will rule justly. And for a just ruler, we need that ruler to be a philosopher – ahh, but there’s the rub! What kind of philosopher. A Nietzschean like Hitler? A Marxist like Stalin? Or something less idealistic, but all the more awful, some kind of Millsean pragmatist, murdering and robbing dispassionately? Or some as yet unseen despot of Post-Modernism, a deconstructionist apostle of regulated Relativism?
The problem is that Philosophy has yet to advance to the point of purity. And making it political philosophy only makes it worse. The cycle of history has been the centralization and decentralization of power – totalitarianism and anarchy are the bow and stern of this harried little boat we call humanity, and the waves and wake of time and trouble just cause our ship to rise and fall repeating the doleful retreat into absolutism, or the courageous crashing charge into anarchy. Revolutionaries and Emperors sit on the horns of the dilemma of human governance – and who wishes to pick their poison? Shall we choose the fiery furnace of Nebuchadnezzar or the Guillotine of Robespierre?! Shall we live under the Czar or in Somalia? Do we want Moscow or Mogadishu? Who can choose?!
Philosophy is needed – and yet, we are either unwilling or uncapable of creating and carrying out a philosophy which will secure peace and prosperity for all!
We need a King, who is a Philosopher – but who is also good and righteous. The Philosopher-King must, in truth, be a Prophet-Priest-King. He must speak with truth and wisdom of the Prophecy of God; yet He must mediate between the offenders and the Offended. And He must rule in a way which silences all opposition.
There is much more that could be said on this topic – I feel bad simply dropping the three-fold office at the end. But history has shown, I think adequately, if not conclusively, that while a Philosopher-King is needed, he must be a greater than a Socrates.