The Best Form of Governance - Essay Example

Topic: Lecturer: Presentation: Introduction The discipline of philosophy is concerned with how people gain knowledge and how this knowledge can be used to solve problems of life such as governance and about issues of rightness and wrongness, goodness and evilness as well as justice and injustice. Philosophers often seem to differ on what is meant by justice as each has his/her own world view. Since issues of justice and injustice are connected to governance, philosophers also differ on the best form of governance and about the governors themselves. For example, Plato believes that a city should be ruled by philosopher-kings and the best form of government is monarchy. The aim of this essay is to explain why it is best for human beings to be governed rationally and explore the consequences of such a claim by looking into the works of three philosophers: Plato, Rene Descartes and Albert Camus. Plato in The Republic argues that it is best to be ruled by a “divine and wise ruler” or what he calls the philosopher-king (Plato, 1966 p.171). These philosopher-kings do not just emerge from nowhere like in a democracy where any person can be elected to represent the interests of the people, rather he is carefully chosen from amongst the brightest, most stable and courageous children and nurtured from an early age. This prepares him to acquire the necessary virtues such as justice required of a ruler and also knowledge through rigorous learning. Plato believes that it is only the philosopher-king who has the true knowledge acquired through reasoning and as such, he can distinguish true and false beliefs, has love for knowledge and is motivated by common good. Moreover, he must leave all wealth behind hence he can neither own property nor wives and children (417a-b). He also believes that such a ruler possesses such virtues as justice, friendship, wisdom, courage and moderation and therefore, cannot bring the people into ruin but into economic prosperity by enhancing cooperation among the citizens. Besides, his leadership is legitimate since he has the consent of the governed. Such a ruler takes the interests of all citizens at heart and not just the happiness of the greatest number. However, a good society according to Plato needs to be linked to God who is the true measure of all things. This is based on the belief that God is perfect (Plato, 1966, 525b-e). Human being thus need to be pure and virtuous like God to be able to lead others justly since justice is the foundation of a good political order and God its ultimate measure. Human life is best when it is rationally governed because according to Plato, reason roots out all the unnecessary pleasures and desires that hinder men from respecting any law (1966, p. 161). A king using reason would thus ensure the happiness of all citizens as he is not self-interested. He would ensure a harmonious existence and unity in society by balancing all conflicting interests in society thus allowing all members of society to flourish. He believes that everyone has this part of the souls that is beastlike or violent, full of higher desires that make humans to commit the worst of crimes without caring about anything and it is only reason that can root out such desires. This is based on the belief that a soul has three sides: the beastlike part (lover of profit), spirited part (lover of honor) and reasoning part (lover of wisdom) (P. 162). It is only the reasoning or philosophical side that can judge the others since it is more experienced than the others. It guides and reconciles the other two parts of the soul hence harmony and cooperation and eventually happiness for all. Plato views a man who thinks that it profits a man to be unjust as lacking true knowledge and concludes that only when a man is too feeble to control the beast that he would better be a slave to some other man, in whom a godlike wisdom rules (1966, p. 171). A wise and divine man takes the responsibility of protecting the feeble men. He is thus given the consent to govern other men through same sort of government. All become equal and friends as they are guided by the same pilot or laws and civil strife is eliminated. Descartes would agree with Plato that it is best for reason to rule. Unlike Plato who tries to knowledge and understanding through platonic dialogues, Descartes tries to find true knowledge through doubts. In his first meditation, he asserts that most of the things we know to be true are not actually true as they are a result of our sensibility rather than the mind itself. The only certain thing for Descartes is his existence “I think, therefore I am” (Descartes 1984, p. 12-15). He agrees with Plato that God is a perfect being thus whatever comes from Him is true as God is not a deceiver. In this case, if a ruler is ordained by God, then Descartes would have no problem of accepting his rule as the best. Whatever is not in line with God’s teachings is imperfect and thus not good for society. A divine ruler would thus take care of the interests of other society members as God directs his mind to reason and do so in the sense that God is the giver of ideas. In the first place, Descartes believes he is a thinking thing hence rationality forms the basis of his knowledge (P. 16-23). He believes that all clear and distinct perceptions leading to true knowledge come by means of intellect alone and not senses or imagination. As such, a wise man who thinks rationally is best suited to rule as he can discern truth from falsehoods and make good judgments for the benefit of the whole society. He also believes that humans can only be sure of such distinct and clear perceptions if God exists. Though sometimes the will makes men go astray by making judgments on matters it does not fully understand, this can be corrected by refraining from making judgments (P. 37-43). The will has the responsibility of affirming or denying perceptions from the intellect which understands, thinks, senses and imagines. To come to a good judgment, the intellect must reason well so as not to mislead the will in affirming matters that are not fully understood. Albert Camus on the other hand, would not agree with Plato that it is best for reason to rule because he does not even believe in rationality to begin with. He believes that the word is irrational and as such cannot be understood through reason (Camus, 1955 p. 21). Furthermore, the world in itself is not reasonable but full of contradictions or absurdities and all man can do is to accept his absurd situation and in the fact that he is destined to die. Men according to Camus should live in the present hence enjoy life while it lasts and not be cheated by reason of hope for the future (P.59). Reason in this case is not helpful to anyone and wisdom for Camus does not lie with religion but certainty of death without hope hence there is no superhuman happiness. Reason cannot make people happy but brings consciousness and consequently misery. Philosophers are constantly engaged in searching for the meaning of life and some like Plato and Descartes have come to believe that true knowledge can only be acquired through reasoning or rationality. As such, the only legitimate authority is that which reason knows for certain. However, Camus disagrees with this principle as he believes the only certain thing is death and rational people often refuse to accept this fate and go on to give hope to others of a better future. Religious leaders often tell their clergy that there is life after death hence the need for reason to rule. But for Camus, since death is certain and there is no hope in afterlife, it means that life is meaningless and the only thing that matters is finding a way of living so as to make life worth living despite its meaninglessness (Camus, 1955, p. 25). Camus believes there is no way of knowing the world despite peoples despair for true knowledge. Such efforts to understand life thus lead nowhere. He thinks hope is disastrous as it leads men to forfeit the value of this life for life beyond. In this sense, hope is also evil as it lets men to be tormented. Without reasoning, people lead happy lives without torment. He gives an example of Sisyphus who was condemned by the gods to live a life of misery by rolling a rock up the mountain and letting it roll down on its own repeatedly. When he reaches the mountain, he feels happy but as he is moving down to start again he is engaged in thoughts and becomes conscious of his wretched life. For Camus, this is where tragedy begins. The only fundamental question philosophy should ask is “should I kill myself?” (Camus, 1955, p. 3). It is to determine if life is worth living and absurdity is trying to understand the world as the attempt to gain rational knowledge is futile. References Camus, Albert (1955) The Myth of Sisyphus and other Essays. Trans. Justin O’Brien.New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Descartes, Rene (1984). The Philosophical Writings of Descartes Vol, II. Trans. J. Cottingham., R. Stoothoff and D. Murdoch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Plato (1966). Plato’s Republic, Vol. III. Trans. I.A.Richards. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More