But you still cannot explain what was happening to your intellect then...until you stumble upon them again in late life and in some sense experience your own epiphany. This was exactly the case with me as I was drawn, in the beginning of the year, to re-read and dwell upon Plato’s book, the “Republic,” in the circumstances of our country’s impending 2024 general elections. (The “Republic” is Plato’s greatest and most famous work and it is written as a Socratic dialogue, an ancient precursor of what we would now call podcasting by geniuses, if we could have it.)
In his book, “Lectures on Literature,” Vladimir Nabokov wrote that, “a good reader, a major reader, an active and creative reader is a re-reader.” To him, when you re-read, you “notice and fondle” the particularities of the world that the author has rendered in words. I would consequently encourage a re-reading of any book.
In the “Republic,” Plato (circa 427-347 BC) makes the most eloquent suggestion why certain people ought to rule while the rest should not. As he lamented the misfortune of intellectuals (academics and scholars), Plato made the point that, “the greatest punishment for being unwilling to rule (as intellectuals are likely to be) is being ruled by someone worse than oneself.” In other words, the price for intellectuals not ruling others is for those intellectuals to be ruled by those less mentally gifted than them. But that price is not exacted on them alone, which may be tolerable: it is also exacted on the rest of the society, which is intolerable.
All political leaders, notwithstanding their ideologies or stripes, always claim to be motivated by higher ideals and seeking political power for nothing else other than to advance the common good. Some voters, being naive, believe this, while some, being cynical, don’t. Because of who he was and written in that unique style, Plato offered a contrarian explanation of who was best to rule others. In doing so, he subverted conventional reasoning and upended ordinary thinking about rulership. In the “Republic,” he posited that only one uninterested in power is the best ruler. That individual would never seek power for his or her self aggrandizement. Once in power, that individual would never be seduced or corrupted by power and that individual would never seek to remain in power indefinitely. In these senses, that individual would be different from all other individuals in society. Unsurprisingly, that individual would be a Philosopher. Whether in the context of political power as desired by politicians or in intellectual power as practiced by the likes of Socrates (who died at the hands of misguided and insecure rulers), that individual would be interested in only one thing: the pursuit and transmission of knowledge. This pursuit is intrinsically for the common good since knowledge for everybody in that society is good for everyone. (The inverse of this is living an unexamined life. In other words, living an incurious life which is worthless to both the individual and their society.)
Unlike others, a philosopher knows that the pursuit of knowledge is a necessary part of ruling others. Reflecting the heart of selflessness, a philosopher also knows that to rule others requires the philosopher to enable (or facilitate!) others to live a good life. A good life may appear to be a loaded and unbending term. But it isn't. It means an enablement of certainty, stability and fulfillment for everybody so that each individual in a society can live the best lives they can consistent with their different abilities: an athlete living an athlete’s life; a parent living a parent’s life; a professional living a professional’s life, etc - all living different lives but all also living a good life.
A work of imagination and observation such as that of Plato can hold an abundance of timeless truth. It is not until you wonder why few must rule others while the rest ought to accept it, that important matters get the attention they deserve. Lives and characters and conduct are at stake on the path to a good life. As Plato and his student, Aristotle (384-322 BC) show, a good life does not just require our leaders to do things for us. In equal measure, it also requires us to do things for others and for ourselves. When all these things are attained, there is a reward for everyone. That reward is personal happiness, on which our country is ranked lowly and which for the most part, mistakenly, we tend to look to others for. While our rulers are required to provide for the enablement of a good life, as a supplement to it, both Plato and Aristotle expected us to attain the moral standards, that is, obligations we owe others. These would include civic responsibility (among others participating in elections and other public affairs), acting as an exemplary neighbor, being fair to others and acting honorably. They also expected us to attain the ethical standards, that is, obligations we owe ourselves. These would include living right by rejecting selfishness, bigotry and ignorance, and embracing beauty and making friends.
Anyhow one considers it, the “Republic” is canonical in that it is authoritative for all times, for all cultures and for all societies. It is its mode of originality and its oddity, both of which push you around and change you, that make it authoritative. In it, Plato makes us experience an uncanny startlement and edification instead of a fulfillment of our expectations. We are startled and humbled to realize that many of us ought not to be rulers. We are edified that our few (qualifying) would-be rulers owe us no more than an enablement; and that to be happy, we owe others and ourselves. This realization constitutes a personal and perpetual challenge to every one of us. In direct terms, it asks us this basic question: are we equal to the task of seeking a good life for ourselves? To answer the question requires that we look no further than each one of us.
*Radipati is a regular Mmegi contributor
