Plato’s Political Philosophy: Justice, Education, and the Ideal State
Plato’s Comparative Political Philosophy
Some interpret Plato’s dialogues as primarily concerned with politics, focusing on the meaning and validity of justice. While Plato’s ultimate purpose might have been the education of citizens in moral and epistemological principles, placing understanding above sensitivity, the importance of politics in his philosophical system cannot be denied. This dialogue demonstrates that politics requires specific, extensive, and costly training.
This training enables the philosopher-king to acquire supreme knowledge, essential for understanding the good and justice necessary for effective governance. Throughout his work, Plato asserts the superiority of ‘men of gold’ – truly wise individuals with pure souls who understand justice – over other men (soldiers or ‘men in silver’ and workers or ‘men in bronze’).
Therefore, a close relationship exists between the aristocratic republic ruled by a philosopher-king, the government, and justice. Only those who know the good and justice can govern effectively. Plato’s political stance is clearly idealistic. Political thought is considered ‘idealistic’ because it prioritizes guiding principles over the circumstances of action. Idealists believe that principles and consequences determine the value of political action.
For an idealist, good theory leads to good politics. Idealists tend to believe that good policy stems from a wise ruler, a philosopher-king, capable of synthesizing knowledge and power. This thesis can be compared with those of Aristotle and Machiavelli.
Aristotle vs. Plato: Unity and Prosperity
Aristotle recognized that Plato’s political idealism was flawed because a city can only be happy if it is united and prosperous. Dividing society into three social classes (rulers, defenders, and workers), each pursuing its own advantage, undermines unity. Plato’s ideal city becomes three distinct entities.
Machiavelli vs. Plato: Political Realism
Machiavelli inaugurated ‘political realism,’ arguing that a government, to be effective, must learn to be ‘not good’ when necessary. Adapting to circumstances to achieve desired outcomes might involve lying or being unfair. Machiavelli, unlike Plato, separates moral good from political good, believing that every man is inherently flawed and that we cannot rely on good intentions.