Well, I’m generally not in favor of the totalitarian rule of philosopher-kings, so there’s that. Although it’s noticeable that Plato shifted his ideas on politics where he didn’t on other philosophical topics – the Laws, for example, recognized that the philospher-king state was not compatible with human nature, argued that lawgivers should persuade rather than dictate, that education was what separated law from coercion, and called for a far more democratic form of government, as rule by a single magistrate risked the abuse of power.
More importantly, I’ve always thought that it’s vital to understand the historical and political background of the individual, rather than treating philosophers as as sui generis. Plato was an aristocrat in a democratic city, he was related to some of the Thirty Tyrants who had overthrown democratic rule at the end of the Peloponnesian War, and given his relationship with Socrates, was probably rather embittered against Athenian politics.
So when in the Republic or the Statesman, he argues against democracy and for the rule of “the best” who have been properly educated by philosophers (to agree with Plato), I’m less inclined to take it as pure philosophy and irrefutable logic and more inclined to see class bias, self-interest, and the settling of old scores.
RFTIT Tumblr Backup 