Philosophers should be kings. The polity is the perfect city-state because it governs for the good of the people. A teacher, a pupil, both geniuses at philosophy and a range of other subjects, yet neither can agree on how people should live. In the next few pages, I will deconstruct Plato and Aristotle’s views on the perfect city-state and eventually agree with the latter’s polity city-state.
The structural arrangements of both Plato and Aristotle’s views need to be deconstructed to see which is best. So what is necessary to maintain a philosopher-king city-state? Citizens may not be happy in their job as a farmer if they dream of being a guardian. Plato says that education of citizens from the childhood will teach them where their place is in the city-state. Knowing one’s place through this education and indoctrination will keep citizens happy and maintain the city-state. This doesn’t seem fair to Aristotle who believes that the masses should have some say in how they are governed and what jobs/duties they are to have within their city-state. A balanced mixture of democracy and oligarchy is what Aristotle has in mind for the citizens of his perfect city-state. The masses will be able to vote, their votes will matter, but an educated group of aristocrats will govern the masses. This seems fair, both classes get what they want, and minorities are not left out in an otherwise “mob rule” state.
It is also important that only the guardian class rules in a philosopher-king state or the system will fail. If the “brass” or “iron” classes come into power, the system will be corrupted. Only guardians are taught virtues, the other classes don’t know how to rule and that is why they mustn’t. Aristotle believes that man is a political animal and that all men are only happy when they participate in the political community of their city-state. People are more often thought of as relationships instead of medals and he says that a city-state should be ruled like a husband-wife relationship. This would entail more equality than Plato’s city-state which is likened to a monarchy.
Moving right along to the advantages of the philosopher-king and polity city-states, Plato is up first. His ideal state is what many would call a utopia. His three classes of citizens are the guardians (gold), warriors (silver), and the farmers/tradesmen (bronze). These represent the three parts of the psyche: the rational, the spirit and the appetites. Citizens are normally born into these class systems and each has specific rules about what they can and cannot do. For example, guardians are not allowed any possessions or a romantic relationship. They are only allowed to have sex once a year at a festival whose purpose is to make more guardians. The warriors may sometimes transcend to the guardian class, but a guardian may never become a warrior. A farmer would not be likely to become a guardian, but could perhaps if virtuous traits were seen in him at an early age. The advantages of this strict class system could be a well run city-state where corruptness would not exist. Everyone would be “happy” because they knew their place, and would not question it since it was passed along from generation to generation. Plato also believed in the censoring of warriors from tragedy in poems, plays, etc. This could be useful to all classes in order to keep an optimistic attitude about one’s city-state and defending it.
Aristotle’s polity city-state is advantageous because it works to preserve life and cultivate the moral and intellectual lives of citizens. The polity is the best city-state because it is that which governs for the good of the people versus the tyranny or oligarchy in which rulers pursue their own self-interests. Aristotle also believes that the city-state consists of “parts” that help make it exist as a whole. These parts are relationships which exist between master and slave, husband and wife, and parent and child. One can take these relationships and apply them to how citizens should be governed. Aristotle says that the master-slave relationship applies to “natural slaves” only. Those captured by Athenian warriors in battle are not “natural slaves” and should not be kept captive in a polity. The husband-wife relationship is how a city-state should be governed because it assumes that the ruler and the ruled are equal. A deviant government would be a parent-child relationship, and could be a tyranny-where one person has the rule over those who are not equal to him. Aristotle, like Plato, compares these three relationships to parts of the soul and body. The master (brain) commands and the slave (limbs) carries out menial duties. Putting it this way, the slave in the polity does seem natural. Aristotle also says that a ruler must have virtue to rule, this is very good since one would not think a tyrant would be virtuous. Aristotle believes that relationships start at home, and that one should be close to his/her family before he/she can be close to one’s village, ergo the village can be close enough to another village to form a city-state.
This brings me to the disadvantages of Plato’s philosopher-king state. In a city-state where guardians can only have relationships once a year, there are no close ties to family. This presents a problem in establishing a close tie to one’s community and a need to defend it. If all property, women and children are shared, then less attention and care will be given to these citizens and possessions.
Censoring education can seem to many a shallow way of living and the caste system that he proposes compares to those of garbage collectors in India who cannot advance in generations to a better life. Some of the drawbacks related to this are faults in human nature, such as greed (of property), curiosity (of another class), envy (of another class), status quo propensity, homogeneity (class-oriented society), lack of satisfaction (with one’s class), self-reliance, impatience, and intemperance. Effects on the state could be economic imbalances and a lack of population control.
Disadvantages of Aristotle’s polity include he bases what a good ruler is on the parts of the soul. He assumes that a perfect ruler’s soul’s rational part will control its irrational part. He says that the pursuit of wealth, status, and pleasure do not bring happiness. This is a good ideal but it is not realistic in today’s world where people take over countries because of the wealth they will gain (for example, the U.S.’s current war in Iraq). Aristotle also says that the citizens of his polity will be virtuous by practicing virtues (choosing the middle ground between excess and moderation). The fault in this is that there are some actions which are always bad. There is no middle ground in committing murder or stealing money. Having slaves, even “natural” ones, in a polity is considered wrong in this day and time.
So, at the conclusion of this examination of two of the greatest political scientists of all time, one asks “Which is right?” or better “Which is more right?” since both have good points. Plato creates a utopia with his ideal philosopher being king of a city-state since “all kings should be philosophers and all philosophers should be kings” but is it realistic? Aristotle’s polity is more common in today’s world. Most people feel that a polity, not a democracy, is what the U.S. is currently governed as. The masses, the poor, vote and get their votes counted, but we have a checks and balances system where the Electoral College also makes a decision on who we elect as ruler. The small group who does rule is usually aristocratic, but they make sure that the minorities are not left out. This type of government seems to work best. There are less upraises, contrary to Cuba (a tyranny), or authoritarian confrontations like between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland (a monarchy), and this country would certainly not still be standing if it was an oligarchy (because the majority are poor). The United States is the world’s superpower, and if its government is a polity and it works, then perhaps it is the best of the two city-state models. Can you imagine living in the U.S. with no free will ruled by a philosopher-king?
