>”Philosopher Kings must be put in power and kept in power by force”>”Why can’t they just get democratically elected like every other politician?”>”Because voters don’t vote for goodness, they vote for politicians who are politically savvy”>”But Plato, you yourself said the Philosopher Kings would be the most politically savvy individuals that there can be, that they would be better at leading the people than anyone else. If that were true, would it not be simple for them to get elected.”>”Uhhh, no, because… JUST NO, NOW FUCK OFF”A Philosopher King who must resort to authoritarianism was never a Philosopher King in the first place
>>13319808plato be like: a philosopher king (me) must be put in power
>why won't anyone else me king????
>>13319808.... how do you decide a successor?
>>13319900The same way we decided on who would be the first one
Being a good ruler and a good liar should be different things, yet your assumption is that they are the same?
>>13319808He's right, people need authoritarianism, otherwise they vote for absolute bottom of the barrel scum like Merkel, Macron, Trump, Biden, Busj jr Hillary, .
>>13319910Plato himself sets out that the Republic would be a “state of lies” with the Golds lying to everyone below them
>>13319910Your assumption being that only liars get elected?
>>13319930It is indeed like that all over the western world. Nothing but professional politcians who never held a real job in their entire lifes.
>>13319808The hypothetical philosopher king would be able to win elections much more easily then anybody else, just like how a captain would be able to earn the role of piloting the ship fairly easily among sailor crew in democratic vote as well, but the problem is that they would be wasting lots of time and resources proving their worth to the masses when their worth should be obvious enough already. Depending on the greek city state, a philosopher king may even be subject to their every major decision being put down to a vote. It's just not efficient compared to pure monarchy.Also keep in mind that ancient greek democracies were democratic, but not republican (not in US party sense), so you essentially had mob rule with no constitution keeping people in check or guarantees that your rights won't get voted out or ignored.All in all, in a pre-republican world being monarchistic made more logical sense.
>>13320016And so the better option to this is just to have the liars win? Obviously it would be better if we could just put the Philosopher King in charge, but since we can’t do that, doesn’t the Philosopher King have a duty to the people and the common good to work within the system he’s given?
>>13319937Being a politician is a job
>>13320641No, it is a phase of life, one that you take on for a while, but that should never define you.A man may have to take on the role of a politician for a bit, but he should never BE a politician.
>>13319808Philosopher King is an oxymoron. Philosophers cannot be Kings, Kings cannot be Philosophers.
>>13320627>And so the better option to this is just to have the liars win?Yes. At least acording to machiavelian and legalist perspective, a person's morality is irrelavent for as long as they're very politically savvy and are good at their job, regardless if they're moral or immoral. And historically, most great leaders and conquerers, the Ceasers, the Timurs and Shi Huangs weren't exactly the types of people we'd call beacons of morality.Granted, such pragmatic outlook on the world runs counter to the idealistic notion of a philosopher king. The idea that an ubermensch, a Ceaser with the soul of christ is what we need for everything to be put in order. I personally just don't believe such people exist. If you do enough digging, you'll be able to compile a list of mistakes and immoralities even from people like Marcus Aurelius, who lost battles and persecuted christians. He was human afterall. Not only that, but an idealistic pursuit of a great moral leader has time and time again resulted in awful cults and dictators. Overall, I'm left under the impression that the idea of a philosopher king is ironically more dangerous then the idea of an opportunist taking power.
>>13321672What are you considering “attempts at Philosopher Kings gone wrong”?
>>13319900You don't. Like any successful regime, it dies with its founder or exists on life support with progressively shittier leaders until it outright dies as a shadow of its former self.
>>13319808A Philosopher King would be savvy enough to lie, cheat, and do whatever he has to do to get into power just likes his opponents would do. The difference between a Philosopher King and a run of the mill king is what he does once he gets into power.
>>13320016>so you essentially had mob rule with no constitution keeping people in check or guarantees that your rights won't get voted out or ignored.Constitutions (as in, a codified set of 'sacred law') aren't a prerequisite for a modern democratic state, the UK is a prime example of this
>>13321795What is the Magna Carta
>>13321874A treaty, not a piece of fundamental law, and a treaty that was later annulled anyway, British law has no set rules, Parliament's current absolute power is a matter of precedent, just as the Kings power before it was, the Magna Carta didn't make Charles II's attempts at exerting royal power inert, when the courts in Britain make a ruling, that ruling doesn't impede parliament in any way, for an example, in the case of R v Gold & Schifreen, a British court found their conviction under a specific act to be invalid stating:"The appellants' conduct amounted in essence, as already stated, to dishonestly gaining access to the relevant Prestel data bank by a trick. That is not a criminal offence. If it is thought desirable to make it so, that is a matter for the legislature rather than the courts." In the American system, if a law was found not to apply in a court case, or violated the constitution, as i understand it, the law is effectively struck down, British courts have no such power to effectively strike down legislation, because there's no bedrock rules parliament must follow in creating legislation, Britain has no Constitution, and yet is, by any reasonable definition, a democracy in the sense of the word commonly used (representative institutions staffed by elected positionholders)
>>13321892So what do you do when parliament makes an abusive law?
>>13322091That's the downside of a lack of constitution, while it allows the state to be flexible (and, in extreme cases, reigned in by election), "Parliament passing an abusive law" is an oxymoron, if Parliament passed it, it's law, no constitution is effectively going to prevent a legislature and public willing to abide dictatorship, and the British model doesn't attempt to even do this, if things are so bad, that parliament is effectively voting to abolish it's own duties to legislate, then the point is moot, for example, after 9/11 and 7/7, Parliament voted to extend the amount of time a suspect can be held in jail prior to being presented reason they were detained, which was an objective loss in terms of the rights of British citizens.At the end of the day, modern democracy is maintained through informal social contracts anyway, and even the US, which i've heard described as a very litigious country as a few of these, FDR's continual running for president, Washington stepping down from power after his terms, etc, while there's something noble in the idea of a maintaining factor "above" politics, i believe that that's basically just fantasy, if it's regulating government, it fundamentally is government, and subject to political machinations anyway, and at that point, what purpose does a constitution serve other than a mutually adhered to codification of guidelines? I believe the distinguishing factor between modern democracy and Athenian democracy isn't found in the presence of a constitution, but rather the differences in material conditions and classes in those two societies.
>>13322321What the fuck is 7/7
>>13322333https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombingsGoogle is your friend, but basically a shitload of people got killed and injured in a suicide bombing on the tube (basically London's equivalent of the new york subway)
>>13322349>not even a hundred deadAnd you consider this worth mentioning in the same breath as 9/11?Weak
>>13322374>a terrorist attack on British soil had more impact on British law than an a terrorist attack on American soil??? What the fuck????
>>13322376To be honest, 9/11 still had a bigger impact
>>13320627>And so the better option to this is just to have the liars win?sure, as long as they are in unmitigable danger of being ousted. this evidently does not impact philosopher-kings.
>>13322416How do they run state if they’re more worried about staying in office?
>>13319808The Jews will just slander him through mass media.>voters aren't retardsThey absolutely are, retard. They are stupid, ignorant, arrogant, lazy. What can possibly go wrong?
>>13322446Why wouldn’t the Philosopher King be unable to beat the Jews? Do you believe them to be so great that not even the Philosopher King could stop them?
>>13322451Yes, given power, he will fix the problem.
>>13322445what motivation would they have otherwise to act in the interests of the population?
>>13319900You adopt one under the age of 18 within your first year of ruling
>>13319808Plato doesn't know what Goodneds is anyway
>>13319900The only "true" philosopher king we could get would be an immortal AI and wouldn't need a successor.However, said AI is likely to go insane over time.
>>13319808From all the attacks you could've put out you choose one that's meaningless. Honestly embarassing.
>>13319808why waste their potential dealing with populace, that's retarded
>>13322962>The human organism always worships. First it was the gods, then it was fame (the observation and judgment of others), next it will be the self-aware systems you have built to realize truly omnipresent observation and judgment. The need to be observed and understood was once satisfied by God. Now we can implement the same functionality with data-mining algorithms. The individual desires judgment. Without that desire, the cohesion of groups is impossible, and so is civilization.>The human being created civilization not because of a willingness but because of a need to be assimilated into higher orders of structure and meaning. God was a dream of good government. You will soon have your God, and you will make it with your own hands.
>>13322834What motivation would anyone have to take such a volatile job?
>>13322976Which attacks do you think are better?
>>13324427an opportunity for embezzlementif funds, getting back at enemies or just preventing the Wrong Sort from getting into power ... lots of unsavory motives could be invoked, that's why ousting and replacement should be easy, not a matter of overthrowing a literal king.
The Philosopher King concept is a metaphor about making reason and logic your dominate functions. It’s not literally about putting philosophers in power you literal fucks
>>13323118Why doesn’t this apply to me or most 4channers?
>>13322930> groomingVery greek-like
>>13325038too embarrassing that plato would come up with such an inane concept? you sound like the christards bleating "it's metaphorical" whenever the silliness of what they'd have to defend overwhelms them.
>>13325572Because whoever said it was trying to be profound but in reality was just talking out of their ass
>>13319808I guarantee you that somewhere out there, some janitor has written a book on why the jannies should rule the state.
>>13319808>"Hey everyone, we need to shake things up and this will mean things will be uncomfortable for a short while after you vote for me which might mean less money in your pocket so you can't afford your two litres of soda a day"People don't vote for the overall good nigga
>>13325884I trust most janitors more than I just EVERY politician
>>13325856If you read the book you’d understand
>>13319808you are dumb
>>13326979he is probably some variant of leftoid. he has not the sensitivity required to actually understand what plato is saying, so takes the opinion that there really is nothing there
>>13327078Smarter than you
>>13321396OK Leo Strauss.
>>13319808Because there is a difference between being "politically savvy" to get elected and being politically savvy to rule are tow very different things. Hence why democracy is inferior to monarchy.
>>13319808People don't vote the most politically savy individual, they vote for the guy who has charisma and makes them nice promises.
>>13328526Those are the same thing
>>13319808The state must have the monopoly in violence. Period!
>>13328526Imagine that, people will vote for the leader that implements policies that make things better instead of the one who tells them to eat shit and die. Truly the people cannot be trusted with power!Authoritarians are always so transparent "Wahh!! Why don't the people want to immiserate themselves to fellate me and my rich buddies egos!"
>>13319808Idpol demagogues ruin it otherwise.
>>13330136Unless you cut off everyone's hands and legs, you'll never have a monopoly
>>13330149Plato's point is that they will vote for good rhetoricians (liars). They will be convinced of supporting things that are morally evil. They will favor bread and circus over the good of the city.Keeping in mind that it was the people who voted for Socrates to die.
>>13331532Again, why is the Philosopher King so shitty at rhetoric that he’s beaten in an election by non-PKs?
The goal isn’t to have a Philosopher King in charge of your state, the goal is for you yourself to be the Philosopher King of your own life
>>13327086>he is probably some variant of leftoid. leftists are the greatest advocates of philosopher kings. every communist head of state was hailed as one. we just lived through a couple of years of leftists laying the groundwork for philosopher kings taking over our lives. what the fuck are you talking about? charge others with what you are doing?>he has not the sensitivity required to actually understand what plato is saying, so takes the opinion that there really is nothing thereyes, yes, it all came to you in a dream. delusion is the correct term for this kind of conceit.
>>13332198Plato did not believe most people had the making of Golds in their soul, so I'm not sure where you were pulling that from
the philosopher king is defined primarily by his reluctance to rulehis time would be better spent on philosophical pursuits, but finally he accepts responsibility the lesson is power best belongs with those who would sooner give it upnobody ITT grasps this most basic of concept because YOU NEVER ACTUALLY READ THE DIALOGUES
>>13331250Is everyone maimed where you live?It's that why you're still able to post to 4chan?
>>13319937>politicians have never had jobsYou can say a lot of things about politicians, but this is fucking dumb. How do you think a person becomes a "professional politician"? They need money and they need a background (business owner, logger, lawyer, teacher etc.). They need to cultivate professional connections to opportunity and funding. And best of all, most elected offices barely pay shit, and thus you usually HAVE to have a job even while you're in office if you haven't already established some independent wealth (say, with a job).And then you have that limited set of people whose dad is/was Somebody. And people like you who bemoan the whole political class as coddled good-for-nothings, just for the wrong reasons, you go and vote for them because they tell such pretty lies. And because the other person worked in healthcare or food service or a nonprofit or some other "fake" job lol
>>13319912The media picks all these people. The only choice you have is between people actually on the ballot and have a shot at winning.
>>13321892You’re talking about a written constitution. If Britain had no constitution then Coke, Selden etc would never have opposed Charles I on constitutional grounds. Ofc a plutocracy has been usurping power in Britain for the past 300 years so the old precedents no longer have any importance
>>13333924Yeah, that was my point, like obviously Britain has a form of legal history and precedent that creates an expectation of how political offices are supposed to function, but again, there's no formal constitution, the original point I was contending was that the difference between athenian democracy and modern democracy was the existence of constitutional (that is, a directly written and codified constitution) government.If Athenian democracy was held together by mutual understanding of the power of offices, the reach of laws, etc, then we cannot deny that British democracy holds a similar position, i'm no legal historian though.
>>13319918No, that the *founders* would be lying and the elites (the golds and silvers), chosen because of their memory, will believe the lies while the lower classes forget them. The point of the lies is to keep the elites and the ambitious from preying on everyone else, which is also why the rulers are communistic but the lower classes are moneymakers.
>philosopher kings should rule society>why yes, I am a philosopher, why do you ask?
>>13336104Socrates didn’t call himself a philosopher, other people did
>>13334799So what does an Elite do when they come across the fact they they’re believing in a lie?
>>13331836Plato thought that lying was morally evil and had a low opinion of rhetoric, mostly because he thought that a philosopher should always seek the truth, above everything else. Same reason why he disliked poetry, he saw it as an imperfect representation of an already imperfect world that is merely a shadow of the true world of ideas.
>>13337155And yet his entire Republic is founded on lies and lying
>>13337173You've gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelet.
>>13334799Silvers are not included in the "Elites"
>>13332309you're actually just too stupid >leftists are the greatest advocates of philosopher kings. every communist head of state was hailed as one.you don't seem to know what a pking is.."any guy who claims to know best and tells society how to live">yes yes it all came...you're stupid and unpleasant to deal with
>>13319808>”My lord, inflation has ruined the economy, what should we do?”>”Economics? Eh, errr… you see my major was in Philosophy, so I’m not quite sure…”
>>13338210King has a minister of finance for that.
>>13337102Presumably they go one of two ways: they're either like the philosopher in the cave who suddenly realizes something is up, and inevitably try (with risk to life) to turn their fellow citizens to see the truth, or they end up like the young man who learns dialectic at a ypung age who risks becoming a tyrant.>>13337913If your take on "elites" is strictly limited to ruling, then sure, but I take it the golds are just a variation on the relatively larger silvers. In any case, they're both chosen for having a better capacity for memory, so they're practically singled out as targets of the noble lies.
>>13338339How does the King know his monster of finance knows his stuff?
>>13338399>variation Not really, not when Plato believes there is a strict line between the two. Silvers can never be Golds and for Golds to be place in the role of a Silver would be a great injustice against both that individual and against the Republic as a whole who has just lost one of their Golds
>>13339094I was taking the variation to be in the fact that they both share the same three arts unlike the bronze souls, and since the golds always start out as silvers. I'm not saying they're the same tout court, obviously that's not true, but they make it past the bronze class because they both display better capacity for memory. At least compared to the bronze souls, the silver souls have much more in common with the gold souls, whereas both silver and gold are set off from the bronze in a significant way. Does that make sense?
>>133255724channers worship the (You)
>>13338529simple, ask him pertinent questions in the form of a Socratic dialogue to test his knowledgeas the philosopher king can detect rhetorical deflections, he will deduce his competency from the answers
>>13339593And so you fall right into my trap
>>13338210Didn't Economics originate from Philosophy? Philosophy overlaps into a lot of fields we know today as math and science -ology. I recalled Plato asking how wealth should be handled in private or public hands as well. I'd fire that "philosopher" if they didn't understood how part of the economy works to curb inflation.
>>13340913All academic fields originate from philosophy
>>13319808That's stupid, and you're stupid. I'm not even going to argue with you. Fuck you.
>>13341788Thanks for the free win, fucktard
>>13341793With a life like yours I guess you take the wins you can get.
>>13341829The wins I get from having your dad suck me off through my panties is enough for me, pal
>>13340669How do you know the answers he gives you aren’t bullshit?
>>13342767That's the entire point of Socrates asking people annoying questions, to detect their bullshit.Just read the dialogues already it's explained there.
>>13342898But if Socrates doesn’t even understand the topic at hand, how does he detect when he’s being bullshat?