Talk:Philosopher king

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pic[edit]

This article could use a picture. Even if it may be transwikied to wikitionary, a picture would really be inspirational. It does not hinder but rather enhances the objectivity of the article. Enerjen 3 Feb 2006 (UTC) In its current form this article sucks (13 April 2012) It contains no description of the Platonic philosopherr king, his extensive training, and the role he plays in the governance of Kallipolis; No reference to the influden of the phiilosopher kings except some crtitigues in the 20ths century. Less than useless.... PJK

Other Candidates[edit]

Here are some other famous rulers/statesmen that could possibly be seen as a philosopher king:

I'm not sure about a few of these other possible candidates, Cicero might be kind of a stretch since he was only a consul and senior statesman in Rome and was not in total control as some of the other philosopher kings were, also Augustus didn't really practice philosopher or adhere to a philosophical school like Marcus Aurelius adhered to Stoicism for example, if anything Augustus only twisted the philosophies of Cicero to his advantage, Nerva didn't seem to really do all that much so idk that he'd be a philosopher king, Trajan wasn't a philosopher, he was a conqueror in the tradition of Julius Caesar, as for Hadrian thats possible as is Antoninus Pius, Pericles could also I supppose, granted I think that Themistocles might also fall into that category if Pericles is to be considered a philosopher king. Julian is a possibility too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.7.193 (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On MSNBC tonight, an Islamic scholar and ambassador called Obama a philosopher king after his recent speech to the Muslim world. This seems apt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.203.126.65 (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enlightened Absolutists[edit]

Jefferson?[edit]

Under what context would Thomas Jefferson be considered a "philosopher king"? True, he was a great idealistic founding father, but why wouldn't Madison, Hamilton, or Washington be considered one? Especially when compared to Benjamin Franklin whom, at least in my opinion, was one of the most philosophical out of all of them.

Whom?
Careless misuse of grammar 24630 02:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dick Cheney? You've got to be joking. Is there some sort of obsession to put an American politician on the list or something of that sort? --124.170.82.115 10:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, none of them are kings. They didn't rule anything; they may have led, legislated, or governed, but they're not kings (or queens).
Sorry, that was FZ (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well if looked at from the stand point that he governed according to the philosophical principles of the enlightenment and wrote some political philosophy then he does fall into the category as Plato only said that leaders must be philosophers and philosophers leaders, true he was not a king in the monarchial sense, but he led America according to enlightenment principles and the basis of his education was philosophical, so it stands to reason that he fulfilled the basic requirements of the philosopher king that Plato described —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.7.193 (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is in the tradition of philosophic antiquity, which called every one-man-rulership a "monarchy", or a "tyrannis" if bad, and any element of such a rule in a "mixed constitution" was called the "monarchical element". A mixed constitution was widely held the best of constitutions, and needed to have a monarchical, an aristocratical and a democratical element. The Framers of the U. S. Constitution were educated men and knew this quite well; they constructed a Constitution with a monarchical element (the President), an aristocratic element (the Senate, in intention, especially when it was still not directly voted for) and some sort of democratic element (the House of Representatives, at least the voting for it; antiquity never thought that a representative democracy was a democracy). As Jefferson obviously was some sort of philosopher, also, he well fits as "philosopher king" (and that is independent of how we like his philosophy or his presidency).--131.159.76.234 (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Joke[edit]

I removed:

The citation request was not properly inserted. Also, what was said on the show, just as the text added here. Is a joke which distracts from the scholarly nature of this page, and bears no academic relevance to the concept of the "philosopher king". It's pop culture, not philosophy.

Edit: Also important is that the concept of "historical", under which the removed portion was listed by nature suggests someone who is not currently in a position to be described as a philosopher king.

Theocracy[edit]

It seems that much of the political basis for historical theocracies is taken from Plato's description of the philosopher-king. In medieval kingdoms, the actual ruler was a monarch, while the virtual ruler was a philosopher-king in the person of Jesus Christ. There are similar examples in the ancient Middle East, where every city was a kind of religious association ruled by an urban deity, often depicted as a philosopher-king. Other traditional cultures in the Far East, such as Buddhists and Hindus, tend to regard their deities as philosopher-kings. ADM (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

This section seems weak and in violation of NPOV. Making a connection between the idea of the Philosopher King and totalitarian regimes does not undermine the idea itself. It's not a legitimate criticism, as the regimes of those rulers, and those rulers themselves, did not reflect Plato's ideals. Furthermore, it is POV to equate those rulers with "bad" without justification. I mean, now, I'm not seriously going to argue that Hitler wasn't a first-class shithead, so I'm really only talking about the weakness of the connection. —GodhevalT C H 20:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the fundamental difference between a "philosopher king" and a "tyrant with an ideological agenda"? 130.233.200.180 (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Kings[edit]

Any chance we can work to take this out of list form? Perhaps turn each into paragraphs sorted by period, with a synopsis of what ideals they held? It looks sloppy Strombollii (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it in its current form either. I removed it from the article and placed it below.
Any possible reworking should include citations. -Pollinosisss (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several figures in history have been cited as exhibiting key attributes of the Platonic ideal, including:

I'm beginning to assess these according to reliable sources and add them in (save ones already present).

Could Napoleon be considered a philosopher king seeing as he reduced the study of humanities in the lycee system?

I added Suleiman the Magnificent and Abu Yaqub Yusuf and will add in Fredrick the Great.

I thought the academic consensus was that Solomon never existed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.60.253.171 (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, recent academic research suggests Solomon did exist but mostly focuses on his mercantile skills not what Plato would consider "wisdom" (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/apr/25/was-king-solomon-the-ancient-worlds-first-shipping-magnate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.60.253.171 (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear writing / Needs rewriting[edit]

"Plato defined a philosopher firstly as its eponymous occupation – wisdom-lover."

What is its referring to here?

"He then distinguishes between one who loves true knowledge as opposed to simple sights or education by saying that the philosopher is the only person who has access to Forms – the archetypal entities that exist behind all representations of the form (such as Beauty itself as opposed to any one particular instance of beauty)."

Between what two elements is Plato distinguishing?

"It is next and in support of the idea that philosophers are the best rulers that Plato fashions the ship of state metaphor, one of his most often cited ideas (along with his allegory of the cave)."

What does It is next even mean?

"Karl Popper blamed Plato for the rise of totalitarianism in the 20th century, seeing Plato's philosopher kings, with their dreams of 'social engineering' and 'idealism', as leading directly to Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler (via Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Karl Marx).[1] ^ Popper, Karl. The Poverty of Historicism. Routledge, 2002."

This citation is weak. Where specifically in the book did Popper say this? In The Poverty of Historicism article, the mention of Plato is cited as K Popper, The Poverty of Historicism, section 33.

Unclear/Misleading

"In addition, Ayatollah Khomeini is said to have been inspired by the Platonic vision of the philosopher king while in Qum in the 1920s when he became interested in Islamic mysticism and Plato's Republic."

This is what the original source says, "In the 1920's, Ayatollah Khomeini followed his tutor to Qum, where he completed his studies, worked as a teacher and became interested in Islamic mysticism and Plato's Republic, which may have helped shape his vision of an Islamic state led by a philosopher-king."

It didn't say he was inspired by the Platonic vision of the philosopher king. It says it may have helped shaped his vision of an Islamic state led by a philosopher king.

Possible repetition/unclear sentence

"As such, it has been speculated that he was inspired by Plato's philosopher king, and subsequently based elements of his Islamic Republic on it.[2]"

Seems unnecessary to repeat what was just said in the previous sentence and I found nothing on Khomeini basing elements of the Islamic Republic in this article.

But in this article, "It was during these years that Ruhollah [Khomeini] embraced mysticism, studying Man, which is the conceptual foundation of mysticism, and a kind of Islamic existentialism taught by the scholar Mohsin Faiz. He also became fascinated with Aristotle and Plato, whose Republic provided the model for Khomeini’s concept of the Islamic republic, with the philosopher-king replaced by the Islamic theologian." (IRAN: The Unknown Ayatullah Khomeini; http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,920508-3,00.html)

Which is also debatable, "Any totalitarian system has elements of The Republic. To say that Khomeini was specifically influenced by The Republic is a different matter." (http://benatlas.com/2009/06/khomeinis-veleyat-e-faqih-iran-as-platos-republic/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealspell (talk • contribs) 20:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible issue with the criticism attributed to Karl Popper ?[edit]

This sentence seems strange in linking Adolf Hitler with Friedrich Hegel considering what is stated about Political views of Adolf Hitler.

Karl Popper blamed Plato for the rise of totalitarianism in the 20th century, seeing Plato's philosopher kings, with their dreams of 'social engineering' and 'idealism', as leading directly to Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler (via Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Karl Marx).

Could someone check this? Karl Popper's book may have said this and this is what page about The Open Society and Its Enemies says:

Nevertheless, Hook argues that Popper "reads Plato too literally when it serves his purposes and is too cocksure about what Plato's 'real' meaning is when the texts are ambiguous", and calls Popper's treatment of Hegel "downright abusive" and "demonstrably false", noting that "there is not a single reference to Hegel in Hitler's Mein Kampf".

--JamesPoulson (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

doesnt it make sense to merge this with Plato's political philosophy?Fhgnm (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're not wrong but the article doesn't seem to know that. — LlywelynII 15:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Solomon and Others[edit]

It appears at one point there was a "list" format that included Solomon (the example I know most about) and Napoleon Bonaparte. Would anyone oppose me adding Solomon or think he does not fit the criteria? Superdadsuper (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any archaeologists etcetera on Solomon as a Philosopher though I've found experts such as archaeologists and historians saying he existed, ruled a state and was wealthy.
I don't think the Bible would count as a source in this case. I don't know enough one way or the other about education practices for a Prince back then but maybe you have a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AverroesII (talk • contribs) 14:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sage king[edit]

Redirects here now instead of Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors. It needs to finally grow up and stop being a WP:BIASy mess focused solely on Plato and also get into Yao and Shun in Chinese conceptions of ideal rulership, Taoism's take, and whatever version India has, at minimum. — LlywelynII 15:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add Mao Zedong[edit]

If Thomas Jefferson gets to be on this list even though he wasn't a king, then I can't think of any modern day leader more befitting of the title "philosopher king" than Mao Zedong. His entire leadership doctrine was based on the dialectical fusion of philosophical theory and practical reality/activity. Lenin would also probably fit, although not to the same extent as Mao. FlamesThePhoenix (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The King of kings[edit]

   The intrinsic rational of Magna Carta (1297 is current enactment) has it that The King of kings presides over the Kingdom (now known as the United Kingdom); This is achieved by Part 2 of the Charter (aka the preamble), that Part creating a restrictive-covenant-running-with-the-land-for-ever, which applies TERMS:  i.e. by the grace of god) (Jesus), to the Honour of (Almighty God (Father and Creator of Man) for the salvation of (Souls living by the covenant).  Collectively, the terms are the premises, which the "wrapper" Folds.  The King of kings is the son of Man, therefore all Men (and women) are equal under the King: ALL human beings are Sons (and Daughters) of Almighty God: an understanding unique to Christians.

   i.e.  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/paragraph/p2

   The General Savings and Observances of these Liberties wrap (Fold) the Charter (solemn agreement/promise) establishing the Spiritual and Temporal Condition of (a) Person: plenipotentiary Rule of Law (Covenant terms) legitimising those dispense/exercise rule of law (liberties) according to the premises; and also identifies those not Spiritually and Temporally entitled - as procuring things contrary to the premises. The Charter is established by Letters Patents, and is FOR EVER.  Else there is no constitution and no law:  the Land is without Divine Authority - an essential ingredient to "divine-positive" Law.

   i.e. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/section/wrapper1

   In other words Magna Carta (all three i.e. 1215; 1225; 1297, agree the same) constructs the model Philosopher King constitution; with the Son of God - the greatest Philosopher of Spiritual and Temporal inquiry and example who ever lived, Appointed the model "philosopher King" of the land, with kings; queens; and all lawful Persons (Heirs/Successors/Government) who would exercise and or dispense Justice, by (his) example, below (him).

   No atheos et alias sectas (atheists and foreign suits (sects)) are allowed to Rule/Govern the Kingdom; such persons are contrary to the premises.

   i.e.  And other sheep I have that are not of this Fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one Fold and one shepherd  -
         Evangelium Secundum Ioannem (gospel of john) 10:16.  https://vulgate.org/nt/gospel/john_10.htm

   Without Referendum the United Kingdom of Parliament of the mid nineteenth century, for nefarious reasons, quietly eschewed the covenant described above, and Lawful Persons have paid a very dear price since, as the following condition(s) - whereby the Libties Lives Honour Estates Bloud and Posterity of the Subjects may bee lost and destroyed, apply.

   i.e.  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/7-8/3/introduction

   It may be noted that the previous Lord Chief Justice - Lord Burnett of Maldon (retired September 2023), did, as recently as 2022, while determining The Hidden Value of the Rule of Law, opine... "It has been a central feature of our constitutional arrangements since at least the end of the 1600's even if it was only first explicitly acknowledged as such in legislation in 2005 in the Constitutional Reform Act.". His latter reference to the 2005 Act is a red herring, being meaningless mush, as the 1297 Covenant and the General Savings and Observances ratifying (it) remain Founding Rule of Law: As they must and will for ever, unless Referendum or Defeat provide otherwise.

truth source: strongaingel FACT CHECKS WELCOME

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philosopher_king&oldid=1204092245"