THE ONLY PEOPLE FIT TO RULE A JUST CITY ARE THOSE WHO ARE EXPERTS IN RULING. DISCUSS

THE ONLY PEOPLE FIT TO RULE A JUST CITY ARE THOSE WHO ARE EXPERTS IN RULING. DISCUSS

This statement is the main claim of Plato in his book 'The Republic', as according to Plato, in the perfect or 'just' state, philosophers must be rulers, as they are 'experts' in ruling.

Plato argued that from birth, different people are disposed to perform different tasks. Guardians are those born with courage. Plato believes that the city's leaders, taken from the guardians, need to be intelligent and know what is good for the state as a whole. So they will be educated as philosophers, so they will have knowledge of the good. However, this is important, as it follows that, knowledge of the good must be known in order to organise a state, and that, as the forms never change, neither will the perfect state. But these conclusions are supported by the idea that knowledge of the forms can exist. If we can pick holes in the theory of the forms, then surely this statement will be massively undermined?

In reference to the forms and the particulars, Plato speaks of 'two worlds': the world of the forms and the world of the particulars. But if particulars and forms are so different, how can particulars 'share' or 'participate' in the forms at all? It seems impossible.
Plato's answer to this would be that the properties particulars have are 'copies' of the Forms. The beauty of a flower is a copy of the Form of Beauty. So it seems the statement still stands.

Can we argue that philosophers are perhaps not fit to rule a city? Plato's argument that knowledge of the good will help make philosophers virtuous is very vague. How is it that knowledge of the good can transform someone in the way Plato suggests? Suppose you knew of the good: would it follow that you became a moral being?
Plato would respond by saying that knowledge of the good would allow the philosopher to implement harmony in his soul, but this doesn't let us know how this is possible. If we turn from knowing what is good to wanting to be good, we can face more problems. Why should knowledge of the good create the motive to be good, or create a 'just city'?
Plato doesn't actually have an answer to that, in fact, he agrees. He was highly sensitive to the idea that philosophers could become corrupt: perhaps philosophers are not experts in ruling? He did however argue that it was the fault of society that philosopher rulers became corrupt. This doesn't mean that there can be no philosopher rulers: but, seeing the situation of society: 'they will live quietly and keep to themselves'. Plato held this statement, claiming: 'a necessary consequence of what we have said (about the divided line, the form of the good, the simile of the cave) is that society will never be properly governed..by the uneducated, who have no knowledge of the truth'. Only those who have knowledge of the good can be rulers as only they can know what is useful, valuable and good.

An argument in support of this idea is that, the nature of a true philosopher is that they love every kind of learning. Because of this, they will love the learning of ethical matters etc, so the love of learning produces virtue. Therefore, since only philosophers love every kind of learning, only philosophers can be virtuous and expert rulers. A modern objection is that, if a philosopher supposedly has knowledge of the good, (while many are sceptical over whether the Good exists), does this give them the practical knowledge to rule? Politics isn't just about doing what is right, and requires a great deal of practical knowledge, of maths and how the economy works, on public relations etc. Plato seemingly has no answer for this, but to say that 'knowledge never loses its power'.

A further objection, actually pointed out by Plato himself, is that, because philosophers love learning, they will not want to govern, they will want to spend their time engaged in philosophy. Doing philosophy and ruing are two separate tasks, and therefore should surely be completed by two separate people?

But, in ultimate defence of this statement, could we say someone who is not an expert in ruling could rule a just city? Whether or not it is practical for a ruler to have practical politician skills, can we truly agree with this new statement? This doesn't defend the first statement however, it only suggests, that quite depressingly, there can be no just city.