Plato and Aristotle, two giants who arguably laid the foundations for the western philosophical tradition, contributed fairly different ideal political prescriptions. Plato argued in favour of his famous philosopher king who would have absolute knowledge of the Form of the Good. Through this enlightenment, the philosopher king would be able to use his good judgement to distinguish good policy making from bad, and orient the society best towards maintaining justice and harmony. Aristotle's ideal ruler, on the other hand, would have practical knowledge on how to govern. By studying history, philosophy, economics, and everything else that encompasses political science, Aristotle argued that rulers could govern effectively. For Plato, power to govern would be concentrated solely in his philosopher king, while Aristotle argued that, practically speaking, a mixed constitution would be best, with power to govern somewhat distributed between an oligarchic elite and the democratic masses.
Plato's ambitious attempt to articulate the connection between moral truths and political prescriptions turns out to be both his greatest strength and weakness. While developing a rich account of ethics and wisdom, and why it should be preferred to mere power and persuasion, Plato overlooks the messiness of human nature and political realities in favour of ideal prescriptions. Aristotle, on the other hand, learns from Plato’s flaws. Yet he is still held back by the biases of his time to see that the human flourishing he believes is the central goal for political communities would be stifled by his rigid and exclusive political structure. Despite these faults, both philosophers teach us that political leaders need both upstanding moral character as well as practical expertise about politics in order to govern effectively. For these reasons, both have remained relevant for over 2 millennia.
Let’s examine Plato’s political philosophy to begin this evaluation of both Greek philosophers’ political thought. In his classic dialogue The Republic, through the character of Socrates, Plato argues that philosopher kings should rule. He begins his inquiry about what the ideal polis (city state) would look like by examining the differences between power/persuasion and wisdom/knowledge. These concepts are central throughout The Republic, with Plato arguing in favour of wisdom and knowledge being a better foundation for political decision making than mere power and persuasion. Through wisdom, Plato argues that justice can be achieved. Justice, he says is the beautiful harmony that occurs when every feature of one’s soul, or in the city state, each feature of the polis, are working in union with the other elements, while all staying true to their nature. (Plato, 433a-b) Plato argues that wisdom can be cultivated through rational reflection. Through proper philosophical education, the few in a society who have innate potential to cultivate wisdom can achieve rational insight about the nature of reality. The philosopher kings are selected from these rare few. Oriented by the love of wisdom (philosophia), and having attained insight about the form of the Good, Plato’s philosopher kings are afforded good judgement (wisdom) to make political decisions that would be righteous and just.
As we can see, the type of knowledge Plato thinks is required for ruling is ethical in nature; philosopher kings have complete insight into the Form of the Good which affords them wisdom. Plato explains through his famous allegory of the cave how this ascent to transcendent and absolute knowledge occurs. (Plato, 514a-521b) He first explains that we inherently find ourselves in the world of appearances. Relying on our senses and imagination, we create opinions about the world we inhabit. However, it is only through rational reflection that we can begin to ascend towards true knowledge. It’s as if we are in a cave facing away from the light, only seeing the shadows of objects on the cave wall. We think that we have knowledge, but having only taken things on face value, we are deceived and instead only hold beliefs and opinions about what is real. By doing the difficult work of turning around and slowly climbing up out of the cave, we begin to adjust to the light, seeing things more clearly as we go. First, we see imitations of objects that were reflected on the cave wall (like toy horses); then after exiting the cave, we see the objects themselves (real horses, the Form of a Horse), and finally we come to perceive the source of intelligibility itself, the Sun (the Good). (Plato, 517b-c)
The allegory of the cave corresponds to the ascent from ignorance to Enlightenment described in his divided line epistemology. (Plato, 509d-511e) He says that first we are full of mere opinions and imaginations about what is real, then through rigorous thought and dialectic, trained by the study of mathematics, we come to refine our rational capacities to attain true knowledge. Through rational training, we finally begin to understand the Forms of things themselves, their structural functional organisation. The Forms are ideal metaphysical categories of ordinary objects and ideas we encounter in life; for example, coming out of the cave and having witnessed a real horse we begin to understand the essential idea of what a horse is; its Form. Finally, through further dialectical, rational reflection, and dialogue we come to understand the Form of the Good itself. We ascend to absolute knowledge, apprehending the source of intelligibility and evaluative capacities. With this capacity, the philosopher kings are able to discern good from bad, right from wrong. They acquire good judgement: wisdom. Using this wisdom, philosopher kings can rule over the republic in line with what is just. The polis, being ideally organised and governed by wisdom, attains a just and harmonious existence.
In contrast to Plato, Aristotle was far more concerned with the empirical world around him, rather than with notions of theoretical Forms and absolute knowledge. That’s not to say that Aristotle had no interest in metaphysical or theoretical matters, but he distinguished such ideas as distinctly different from political matters. Politics was a form of practical knowledge for Aristotle, distinct from contemplative knowledge (like metaphysics) which is concerned with truth of reality for its own sake, or productive knowledge like making useful or beautiful objects. (Miller, 2022) Practical knowledge is concerned with ethical questions about what is good and just, as well as questions regarding how best to live in the material world.
Aristotle similarly to Plato viewed politics as an extension of ethics. However, Aristotle did not think that rulers needed absolute metaphysical knowledge about the Form of the Good in order to rule effectively. Instead, he believed that political knowledge was a techne; a craft that could be learned through study and active practice. (Aristotle, IV. 1) Good governance was afforded through practical knowledge of studying history and participating in political matters, not deep contemplation as Plato suggested. Similar to physicians, rulers need to be able to diagnose the ills of the polis effectively, and then prescribe the correct policies to ameliorate the problems. Therefore, the ruler has to be adept at making laws and reforming or even creating institutions to help foster the health of the political community. (Aristotle, IV, 1)
Not only that, but a ruler should have their fingers on the pulse of the society, as it were, to insure political stability and furthermore, eudaimonia: virtue, happiness, and human flourishing. As such, rulers are in charge of setting the norms and customs in a society to ensure the cultivation of virtue amongst the citizenry to help achieve that eudaimonia. Politics for Aristotle is the crown jewel of the practical sciences; it encompasses military science, economics, education, morality, etc., all towards achieving the developmental end of human life — happiness, excellence, and flourishing. (Aristotle, I, 1) Thus, political knowledge has an extraordinarily important place in Aristotle’s work, but it is distinct from metaphysical knowledge. Its wisdom is grounded in the material and natural world rather than theoretical ideals.
Aristotle argues in his Politics that while political expertise is most desirable, due to the fallibility of human nature, rule by a king or the best few in society would inevitably fail due to their selfishness and greed. (Aristotle, IV, 11) Ideally, aristocratic rule would be best due to their innate superiority, as well as their wealth which means that they have leisure time to dedicate towards developing political techne and virtue through philosophical training. (Aristotle, I, 7) However, due to inherent human predispositions to selfishly look after oneself first, rule by the aristos (few best) in society would inevitably be unstable. Greed would create a division within the society between the aristocrats’ own interests versus the interests of the poor masses. With the poor masses disenfranchised from the governing apparatus, their needs would not be taken care of, leading to political instability. Aristotle argues that revolution and instability in political communities occurs primarily due to the tensions between the interests of the rich oligarchic classes and the poor democratic ones. (Aristotle, V, 1) This inevitably leads to the dissolution of the polis.
Remember, for Aristotle the purpose of the polis is to actualize the eudaimonia of the society. If a political community is prone to collapse due to inherent tensions between the rich and the poor, then setting up the polis with the priority of maintaining its stability is a foundational concern for Aristotle. He is not worried about creating a heavenly ideal polis on earth like Plato; rather he wants the most practical solution that would work in accordance with material reality.
Aristotle’s practical approach to politics leads him to hypothesise that the best form of rulership would be a type of mixed constitution. A mixed constitution would balance the interests of the many with the expertise found within the oligarchic class. What’s more, Aristotle does not believe that the masses are always ignorant or stupid. In fact, Aristotle argues that in many circumstances, the masses can have better political decision making due to what we would call ‘collective wisdom.’ (Aristotle, III, 11) Although the oligarchic elite should be given priority for determining public policy within the polis, he argues that the citizenry at large should be active participants within the society to ensure that the needs amongst everyone in the polis is taken into consideration. (Aristotle, III, 1&2) In a sense, everyone has a degree of political intuition that is useful to acknowledge within the polis, despite there still being distinct expertise in most situations.
As we can see from these overviews of both Plato and Aristotle’s view of political knowledge and rulership, Plato is concerned with ideal and absolute wisdom to enable good political decision making, while Aristotle is far more concerned with practical knowledge based on more grounded notions of reality and human nature.
Now let’s evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of both philosophers’ conception of political knowledge, beginning with Plato’s. First, we must acknowledge the scope and ambition of Plato’s masterpiece. The Republic gives a foundational account of politics: he lays out an in-depth epistemology and metaphysics through his theory of the Forms, which then supports his ethical claims about the Good, and then applies those claims to the political domain. He gives us an account of how one's soul (mind) can be refined so as to ascend to transcendent aspects of reality like Goodness, Beauty, and Truth. The Republic is a convincing account on how we should be oriented towards wisdom, and wary of Machiavellian power and persuasion. Plato’s remarkable insight into the transcendent aspects of existence, ethics, and the human mind are why his philosophy has remained influential after over 2 millennia.
However, Plato’s ambition is perhaps also his greatest flaw. While attempting to give an account of absolute knowledge and wisdom, his political philosophy does not adequately wrestle with the messy realities of human existence. The Republic, taken strictly as a political prescription, rather than an exploration of power and persuasion versus knowledge and wisdom, falls short of any kind of practical advice. Plato strongly argues for a very rigid hierarchical system, where innate potential is given priority for organising the structure of the society. (Plato, 414d-415c) He justifies this hierarchical society by arguing that every person is imbued with either a bronze, silver, or golden quality of soul. Plato’s society is overly rigid, which would produce a lack of adaptability to different circumstances and does not consider the development of character through education (bronze ascending to gold).
Also, Plato’s insistence of absolute knowledge of the Good being the primary qualifying characteristic for his philosopher king seems naive. While rulers should have wisdom, and be of good character to make just decisions for a society, they should also be knowledgeable about the practical craft of politics. They should have a basic understanding of history, economics, and military strategy, as well as ethics. Or at the very least, have special advisors to help inform them. But Plato makes no such assertions; he claims that knowledge of the Form of the Good itself is necessary and sufficient for good governance.
In contrast with Plato, Aristotle’s notion that the ruler should have practical knowledge of political techne is one of his best arguments. He identifies that a ruler should be like a craftsman, finely forming and shaping the society based on its needs. As with any type of craftsman, the ruler should have technical knowledge of their craft — of political science — which includes things like economics, military strategy, history, and moral philosophy. (Aristotle, IV, 1) With this practical knowledge, rulers will have the right set of skills to effectively govern the society. This view of expertise and political knowledge required for governing is already far more familiar to us than Plato’s prescription of esoteric ethical knowledge. It’s a kind of scientific approach, which studies empirically what has worked in the past, what is currently happening within the polis, and then prescribes solutions based on that evidence. It's an approach to politics that views it as not merely an issue of moral discernment and just decision making, but also includes an analysis of other technical matters like economics.
Not only that, but Aristotle acknowledges the messiness of human nature, arguing that due to greed and self-interest, rulers can sometimes only have their own needs in mind, rather than that of the polis at large. This could create political instability. So, to ameliorate this issue he concludes that a mixed constitution would be the best type of governing structure. (Aristotle, IV, 2) This is because, he argues, at times the majority of people who do not have technical training as politicians have better decision-making ability through the ‘collective wisdom’ held in popular opinion. (Aristotle, III, 11) Aristotle, in a sense, recognizes every person's innate potential of having some degree of good political judgement; specialised knowledge of the rulers can be fallible, and absolute knowledge of the Good is not necessary for wise political judgement. Aristotle's more grounded view of politics makes his political prescriptions much better than Plato’s idealistic ones, especially given how many societies in history have resembled Aristotle’s polis to some degree, while next to none have resembled Plato’s.
However, Aristotle’s view is not without its shortcomings either. Although practically speaking, his view of political knowledge and its resulting prescriptions are substantively better than Plato’s, Aristotle’s greatest flaws come from the biases of his time. By excluding women, and maintaining slavery as a natural feature of society, Aristotle ignores the common and collective wisdom held in the masses. The majority of society is not included in governance, which means that their concerns are not being met. This leads to the idea that humanity, as expressed in the whole society, is not achieving eudaimonia; instead, only the land-owning male citizenry are. I believe it can be argued via Aristotle’s own principle of ‘humans being political animals’ that by ignoring the majority of people, one would be neglecting an enormous amount of collective wisdom that would be useful for ensuring human flourishing. That’s not to mention the massive humane injustice of maintaining the oppression of women, and slavery.
In conclusion, Plato’s philosophy about political knowledge is profound. He highlights the need for our leaders to be of good character, and to be in line with the Good, rather than their own self-interest. Furthermore, Plato argues strongly against mere power politics, and instead in favour of progressive ideals regarding the role of ethics, justice, and wisdom in political decision making. We want leaders that are honest, with the best for society in mind, uncorrupted by power and self-interest. Aristotle, on the other hand, highlights the importance of the practical knowledge required for governance — political techne. The ruler should be knowledgeable about all related matters like economics, history, political philosophy, military strategy, etc. Rulers are political craftsmen, moulding and shaping the polis towards helping its population flourish. Both Aristotle and Plato, despite writing their works more than 2,000 years ago, still have much to inform us about our political development, and about what kind of knowledge is necessary to govern a society.
Works Cited
Aristotle. “Politics.” The Internet Classics Archive | Politics by Aristotle, 2009, classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html.
Miller, Fred. “Aristotle’s Political Theory.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 1 July 2022, plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/.
Plato. Plato: Complete Works. Edited by John Madison Cooper and D. S. Hutchinson, Hackett Publishing Company, 1997.
Comments