The Republic, The Politician and The Law are Plato's three works, among which the Republic is the most famous. The core of The Republic is justice, and the whole book revolves around justice. The rule of the king of philosophy is the key to realize Plato's ideal of justice. Without the rule of the king of philosophy, the realization of justice will become empty talk. Therefore, to realize the ideal of justice, we need the king of philosophy to rule. Similarly, the rule of the king of philosophy is legal, and its legitimacy lies not in people's consent, but in the natural legitimacy of the philosopher's rule based on wisdom, which does not need people's consent. Necessity and legitimacy do not mean possibility. Plato believes that philosopher rule is extremely difficult, though not impossible. It is more difficult to produce philosophers, and it is more difficult for philosophers to become rulers. Finally, Plato mentioned that if a philosopher is lucky enough to be a ruler, he should transform the realistic city-state according to the ideal model and establish a just country.
In the first volume and the first half of the second volume of The Republic, Plato criticized three views of justice in the name of Socrates. When critics asked Socrates to explain his view of justice, Socrates adopted the method of seeing the big from the small, discussing city-state justice first and then individual justice. To explain the justice of the polis, it is necessary to establish a complete polis. The second half of the second volume to the first half of the fourth volume is a complete city-state construction. Only after the city-state is completely constructed can justice be found in it. In the second half of the fourth volume, Plato expounded city-state justice and individual justice.
City-state justice is a specialized division of labor. "When businessmen, helpers and protectors do their own things in the country and do not interfere with each other, there will be justice, which will make the country a just country." [1] However, how can such a just country become possible?
The key to building such a just country is to have this knowledge. For Plato, true knowledge is a necessary condition for correct and proper behavior. The political field, like other fields, also needs professional knowledge. As Sabin said, both individuals and countries have a kind of goodness, and it is a matter of learning to know this kind of goodness, what it is, and what methods can make people willing to follow it. [2] This kind of knowledge is not the special skills of politicians in the city-state, but the knowledge about goodness.
However, people who live in a real city-state, whether under oligarchy or democracy, have very little understanding of the goodness of the country, because only a few people with excellent talents can obtain it after long-term hard study. Needless to say, the ignorance of the public, even those rulers lack real knowledge. All they have is the skill of pleasing others. These skills are not real knowledge, but correct opinions.
The advantage of knowledge over ideas lies in its understanding of ideas and its grasp of eternal things, so it is very reliable. An opinion is an understanding of everything that flows, so it is unreliable. The founders of a just country must have reliable knowledge, otherwise the just country they built is unstable. To this end, the founders of a just country must be those who understand the goodness of the country. These people are philosophers. Philosophers are gifted, persistent in pursuing truth and studying hard for a long time, so only they can master the knowledge of goodness. Therefore, only when philosophers become rulers can a just country be established. So Plato pointed out that unless a philosopher becomes a king, or a king becomes a philosopher and combines political power with wisdom, an ideal country cannot be established. [4] "Before the philosopher became the ruler of the city-state, neither the city-state nor individual citizens could stop evil, and the system we imagined with theory could not be realized." [⑤]
The rule of philosophers is not only necessary, but also legal. Its legitimacy lies in that it is the best rule. Plato believes that philosophers are actually representatives of God on earth, imitators of God, and people closest to God in the world. God's rule is better than man's. "If a * * * identical body is ruled not by God but by man, then its members can't get rid of evil and misfortune." [6] However, although God cares about our world, he does not rule us directly. Human affairs are also our own responsibilities. Although God's rule is better than human autonomy, it is only an unreachable dream for human beings. How to arrange human life ultimately depends on human beings themselves. Philosophers are closest to God. "His attention is always on eternal things ... He tries to imitate them and like them as much as possible." Therefore, "philosophers who are closely related to the sacred order will also make themselves orderly and sacred within the scope allowed by human beings." [7] God is good, and philosophers are closest to good. Therefore, the rule of philosophers is the best rule.
Plato also believes that the rule of the king of philosophy can not be separated from the consent of the people, but the consent of the people does not constitute the basis of the legitimacy of the rule of the king of philosophy, it is only an indispensable condition for the rule of the king of philosophy. Without the consent of the people, it is impossible for the king of philosophy to rule, but this cannot be used to deny the legitimacy of the king of philosophy. The legitimacy of a thing and its reality are two different things. The legitimacy of being in power is a question of legitimacy, and whether it can be in power is a realistic question. Never take the reality of a thing as the standard to evaluate its legitimacy, let alone deny its legitimacy because it is unrealistic. The rule of the king of philosophy is completely natural and legal, and people's approval is not needed. Whether people agree or not, it is legal.
But just having necessity and legitimacy does not mean that the rule of the philosophy king becomes a reality. Is it possible for the king of philosophy to rule?