NationStates Jolt Archive

In The Republic, Plato describes a kind of leader that is wise, just, ascetic, strong and humble. I'd like to know who you folks think was the greatest philosopher king in the history of mankind. I've listed rather recent examples, and limited it to actual political leaders, as there would be too broad a range to choose from, the philosopher kings were actually the heads of state.

Here (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/plato-republic-philosopherking.html)'s a website for the uninitiated; it has Plato's discourse on the matter.

In the narrow sense none. In a broad sense (as you intended ;)), very few leaders fit the description of "wise, just, ascetic, strong and humble". His Holiness the 14th the Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso (http://www.tibet.com/DL/) is the only current one that comes to mind at the moment.

Damn! I completely forgot Buddha!

Well, considering very few of them were "kings"...Still, going along, and to add some controversy, I'll say George W. Bush. His philosophy and view of the world is powerful and resolute. He is very much a "Big Picture" kind of guy.

Well, considering very few of them were "kings"...Still, going along, and to add some controversy, I'll say George W. Bush. His philosophy and view of the world is powerful and resolute. He is very much a "Big Picture" kind of guy.

He's not really ascetic though!

Well, considering very few of them were "kings"...Still, going along, and to add some controversy, I'll say George W. Bush. His philosophy and view of the world is powerful and resolute. He is very much a "Big Picture" kind of guy.He's not really ascetic though!

wise - highly debatable
just - again, highly debatable
ascetic - not at all
strong - yes?
humble - nope

Nope: 1 maybe out of 5 doesn't cut it.

Those kind of virtues are somewhat relative. What does being just constitute? Plato had a hard time defining what exactly justice was, after all. What does being strong constitute? Gandhi was certainly strong, but he was a pacifist. What does it mean to be wise? Asceticism and humilitary are more identifiable, I'll admit.

I voted for Marcus Aurelius, by the by. He was a ruler and leader who was also a philosopher; he sought to make the ideals of philosophy bend to the nature of reality, to make it so that he could remain a stoic philosopher as well as the Emperor.

Though he isn't the quintessential Stoic, I sometimes read his Meditations when I am feeling down. They help me cope; I can tell I'm reading the words of a man who has to live with his philosophy and try to make it work in his daily life, not a philosopher who spends his time in the clouds.

I also tossed my vote in for Marcus Aurelius, he certainly did come closest to the idea of the philosopher king so far as I could tell. It is a shame he chose his son to succeed in instead of keeping up the tradition of picking the best qualified person for the job, and a shame Commodus was nothing like his father. If Rome had kept people like Marcus Aurelius in charge we would be posting on this forum in Latin.

I just love Frederick II. It's amazing how different he was from his father.

Between the listed choices, I liked Frederick and Napoleon. They were both emperors and they both knew a little something about democracy and the people. Although neither one of them managed to successfully maintain a Holy Roman Empire, they both liberated many underprivileged people and did introduce systems of initiative.

Toss Marcus Aurelius. He's overrated from that Gladiator movie.

I can't think of the name of the guy that lead the Jacobits to revolt against the English, but he should definitely be on that list.

I'm going to go ahead and post a guy that no one is going to agree with but who cares.

Otto Von Bismark- Chancillor of Germany in the latter part of the 19th century

wise: circumvented socialist movements by giving rights to workers while still keeping the upper classes happy

just: as above gave rights to workers, such as universal sufferage. without unfairly punishing the wealthy for simply having money

ascetic: ehh, he was rather religous and definatly self-disciplined, but nothing remarkable in this categor but hey you put Napolean on the list so i guess you don't care about his to much

strong: united Germany in a war with Austria, reclaimed German lands from France in the Franco-Prussian war

humble: preffered that people think that the Kaiser was in charge, not one for glory or admiration

How many HUMBLE men do you know that call themselves "The Great"? Just curious. Everyone listed in the polls had to aggrandize themselves to attain power. None of them is particularly humble.

Some on the list commited fierce injustices on the world. Many simply created their own ideas of Justice as they went along.

Perhaps...George Washington? He wasn't a king; but perhaps that tells us something important about Plato's ideals.

I would agree w/ George Washington. Or also perhaps Thomas Jefferson. Both great presidents, didn't over step the bounds of the office. Both have books full of wise quotations, especially the later. Were just (except the slavery thing, but that was almost universal at that time), etc etc.

I'm going to go ahead and post a guy that no one is going to agree with but who cares. Otto Von Bismark...

You'd lose that bet, because I agree with you. :D

You actually also forgot the fact that he was willing to "lose face" if it meant a better outcome for his people - toward the turn of the century, he was very much for appeasement of the French animosity towards the newly-forged German nation, which, in theory, could have helped forestall the divided nature of Europe which helped usher in WWI. The fact that Wilhelm II ousted him and overruled a number of his more "passive" reforms doesn't change Bismark's contributions.

Of course, I tend to like him more for how deftly he played the political game, keeping any one faction or group from feeling slighted even as he ruthlessly pursued his own goals.

Charlemagne

Cyrus the Great of Persia.

I'd vote, but unfortunatly, I utterly despise Greek philosophy.

I'd vote, but unfortunatly, I utterly despise Greek philosophy.

That's odd. You must have trouble living in a Western democracy, then.

While I think both Alexander and Washington were close to the principle of Plato's Philospher King, I think the absolute closest was Claudius (who took the Empire of Rome after Caligula's assasination). He was the one who created the Roman aquiducts, and initiated a relatively free state of religion in the Roman Empire. He had many similarities to Washington, not actuall wanting power or might, but having it thrust upon him by external forces. (Which proves the age old principle, that the most qualified leader, is the one least likely to actuall want the job in the first place)... Claudius ascended after the Roman army assasinated Caligula (who was a nut-job)... The army draged Claudius to the throne room for his instilation by the Senate.

Benito Juárez. The laws of Reform, the Constitution of 1857, ascetic and humble, and survived a French Invasion. I think he comes very close to the Platonic ideal.

Where's King Solomon? :)

Where's King Solomon? :)

He is in the bible. Where he belongs.

That's odd. You must have trouble living in a Western democracy, then.

Well, perhaps western democracy is somewhat similar to Greek democracy, but it isn't really based on Greek philosophy, at least, not Plato's. It's supposed to be more on the terms of Aristotle, relativistic. Plato's advocacy of discrete truth (that is to say, absolute truth) over relative point of view (as testified by his disgust for the sophists) is more in line with an authoritarian government (which decides for the people what is 'right' and 'wrong'--as a philosopher-king would "philosophize" for them) than a democracy in which all are free to their opinions.

Since western democracy is determined by less of who has 'absolutely' these better qualities (if such a measurement were to exist) and more of who portrays himself or herself as having these better qualities, it doesn't live up to Plato's standard that there are those who are "truly" good (and that a philosopher, or group of philosopher can figure out who that is) who should rule.

That's GOT to be Ashoka, third monarch of the Mauryan dynasty of India, who ruled most of India around 273 BCE.

The ONLY emperor who *renounced* war AFTER winning a war.

His conquest of Kalinga (modern day state of Orissa, in India) was so bloody that he renounced war and became a budhist and sent envoys to Srilanka and SE asia etc, which led to those areas become Budhist.

The British historian H.G. Wells writes: "Amidst the tens of thousands of names of monarchs that crowd the columns of history ... the name of Asoka shines, and shines almost alone, a star."

The Mauryan age is generally considered as golden age of India.

map of Asoka's empire
http://www.india-history.com/ancient-india/ashoka-empire.html