Common Prejudice Against Philosophy Plato\'s Navigator Analogy

Prejudice Against Philosophy

Plato (427-347 BCE) is often termed as the greatest Western philosopher. Historians like A.N. Whitehead like to quote: "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." [Bloom, 1991]. In defense of philosophers one can refer to Plato's definition of what a philosopher is and how useful he is to society.

Plato's magnum opus "Republic" is considered as one of the masterpieces of western civilization. The central questions of the Republic are "What is Justice" and whether it is better to live justly or unjustly. To answer these questions, Plato first constructs a perfectly Just City State. A Just City, according to the 'Republic', is one in which there is the perfect arrangement. Plato in his treatise describes a three-part division of the human soul, which he co-relates with three major classes in the Just City society. According to Plato we all have rational through, wisdom, spirit, honor, love and an appetite (desire for money, food, sex, etc.) As the individual human soul consists of three major parts, society, in Plato's reckoning, consists of three major classes, the tradesman/craftsman/labor class, the army and the leaders [Bramann, 2000].

The common class contains everyone who is involved in manufacturing, commerce, banking, or any other aspect of material production, exchange, and consumption. They are always motivated by material gain for which Plato calls them summarily "lovers of money." [Bramann, 2000].The much smaller class above these materialistically motivated citizens are the armed forces and anyone who is involved in the security and maintenance of order in the community. They are willing to risk their lives for the welfare of the community. Plato calls them "lovers of honor." The smallest class, located at the top of the utopian society described in the Republic, consists of those men and women who dedicate their lives to the pursuit of knowledge [Bramann, 2000]. They pursue knowledge not to be more efficient professionals or sophisticated moneymakers, but because they consider knowledge and insight to be the highest goal for human beings. They are dedicated to the existence of analysis and contemplation and to life of the mind. Plato calls them "lovers of wisdom." [Parry, 1996].

The Just City is the city in which the wisest citizen(s) is (are) in charge." The wisest citizens are those who understand justice: how both the city and citizen ought to be arranged. Justice (for the person) means correct arrangement of parts of a person's soul (harmony, proportion, symmetry). In the just soul, as in the Just City, everything is where it should be, including the ruler. The just soul like the Just City is an organized whole and is governed by reason. Like the notes in a symphony, the parts of a just soul or a Just City work together harmoniously [Bramann, 2000].

Plato explains why people think philosophers are useless by the use of a metaphor. He describes a ship where there is no leadership every soldier fights to navigate the ship and be the captain all the time. Regardless of how good a navigator someone might be, his getting the job is not based on navigational ability but rather on the ability to trick or convince his fellow sailors to allow him to navigate. Then the other soldiers might say that he is a good navigator, despite the fact that he has no skill, for he has these other skills, which gets him the position he desires. The sad thing is that there are a few soldiers who know navigation well, but they are stuck on the sidelines, "useless" because they lack the "other skills." These men are the philosophers who are tagged useless; they are the men who should be ruling, but because they do not have the political skills to assume leadership, they do not know how to fight for the position.

Plato then goes on to argue that the just person is not only just but because he is a philosopher as well, who knows the 'Forms' the ideal of things. He explains this by first arguing that because the philosopher is ruled by his rationality he is the one who understands truth. Then because he knows the truth he understands the pleasure of a hedonist (a person ruled by appetite) and an honor-lover (a person ruled by his spirit); whereas both hedonists and honor lovers only know their own pleasures. Thus, the philosopher has credibility in judging what way of life is best.