I  Introduction

In The Republic, Plato states, “philosophers, or kings who study

philosophy are best suited to lead the people” (Rep. V, 473d). This is a

broad claim that should be questioned by anyone interested in

the study of philosophy or political science.

In this paper, I will discuss the merits and deficiencies of Plato’s

definition of a philosopher and philosopher-king. I will also discuss

the reign of King Solomon and his experiences as a philosopher-king.

According to Plato, “the true philosopher lives a life of thought in the

purest possible sense” (Phil. 55a). He also states that philosophers

are “those capable of apprehending that which is eternal and

unchanging” (Rep. VI, 484b), and those who are, “enamored of the

kind of knowledge which reveals to them something of the essence

which is eternal, and is not wandering between the poles of generation

and decay” (Rep. VI, 485b). These criteria standout as important

qualities since the definition of the word, philosopher changes

throughout the dialogues. Therefore, it is necessary to have a

consistent definition of philosopher that accurately describes Plato’s

intended meaning.

According to Gerald M. Mara, “it is undoubtedly true that Socrates

changes the meaning of the term, philosopher, as the dialogue

progresses. But by book five it becomes explicit that the philosopher is

not the person who loves competition or honor, but the one who loves

the timeless objects of knowledge, the Forms and The Idea of the

Good” (83). Plato describes the philosopher as one who has purity of

thought, comprehension of the eternal, love of wisdom, understanding

of truth, appreciation of everything he loves, ability to act with

temperance, no ambition for wealth, desire for integrity, need for

wholeness, knowledge of the just, a gentle persona, a good memory

a mind endowed with measure and grace and a native disposition that

easily guides him to the ideal reality in all things (Rep. VI, 485c-486e).

In this paper, my discussion of the philosopher and philosopher-king will concentrate on the first two criteria as stated above:

1) a philosophers’ purity of thought and;

2)  a philosophers’ comprehension of the eternal.

     II  Identifying the Philosopher by Purity of Thought

We must be able to distinguish who is a true philosopher and who is

not. Very few people have the necessary background to qualify for

such a position (Rep. VI, 491a-b). According to Thom Brooks, “the true

philosopher is a completely non-political entity and does not live a

life centered on creating specific public policies” (06). A philosopher

who has no political leanings, who is a potential philosopher-

king, would have no experience in governing or as a politician. If a

Plato is saying that a philosopher-king does not need political

knowledge to govern and rule the people, then Plato’s definition has

merit. However, if the philosopher-king does require political

knowledge, Plato’s definition is deficient on this point.    

Another criterion for identifying a philosopher, is determining a life

based on purity of thought. Plato doesn’t offer any type of test to

measure purity of thought, so there isn’t a quantifiable method that

would establish the validity of this criterion.

Plato does, however, offer additional criteria for identifying the

philosopher by, “nature of courage, grandeur of soul, aptness to

learn.” (Rep. VI, 490c.) Plato also considers the effects on the soul for

those who possess the qualities of a philosopher: “the gifts of nature

that we praise tends to corrupt the soul of its possessor and divert it

from philosophy. I am speaking of bravery, sobriety, and the entire

list.” (Rep. VI, 491b). Here Plato is listing the positive attributes

necessary to be a philosopher and the negative effects of becoming

one. He tells us, that living the life of a philosopher will cause his soul

to suffer. Why would anybody want to be a philosopher if they knew in

advance that their souls’ would suffer?

The identification of a true philosopher becomes even more difficult when Plato introduces the subject of philosophical-pretenders. “The greatest and chief disparagement of philosophy is brought upon by the pretenders to that way of life” (Rep. VI,489d).

Identifying a philosopher by judging his lifestyle would have required others to make risky assumptions about his purity of thinking. His supporters could have only identified him as a philosopher-king by trying to judge his purity of thought in advance of his taking power. “For Plato, judgments based upon right or wrong opinions do not have authority and those acting from right opinion are akin to lucky guesswork.” (Brooks 06). If a philosopher’s supporters had been duped into believing that their chosen philosopher-king was a philosopher-pretender, these supporters would have put themselves, and the public, at the mercy of a non-philosopher-king. This situation points out a deficiency in Plato’s definition of the  philosopher/philosopher-king. If others are making assumptions about the levels of pure thinking in a philosopher’s mind, there is no way of knowing if he is a philosopher-king or philosopher-pretender until he begins making decisions after taking office. Assuming to know a ruler’s purity of thought in advance of his rise to power is a huge gamble.

An example of such an assumption was the policy of appeasement by European leaders in the 1930’s, when they assumed to know the thoughts of Hitler. In this case, there was literary proof that Hitler lacked purity of thought and the ability to comprehend the ‘eternal’. His manifesto, Mein Kampf, provides evidence of his hatreds and atheism. Therefore, in a republic as envisioned by Plato, Hitler would have been disqualified as a philosopher or philosopher-king.

                     III  Solomon as Philosopher-king

Solomon is an example of a king who began his reign with confused

thoughts, but had an opportunity to receive the pure thoughts

of wisdom. In a dream, God asked Solomon for one wish he wanted

granted. Solomon, being inexperienced in political leadership, asked

God for the gift of wisdom:

Please grant me a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong. (1 Kings 3:9, JPS 99).

While asking for wisdom, Solomon was requesting two attributes

from God, “leadership skills and right ethical attitude (Czovek, 02’). As

a novice king, Solomon realized that he needed those qualities to

follow in the footsteps of his father King David. God is sympathetic to

Solomon’s situation and grants his wish:

I grant you a wise and discerning mind; there has never been anyone like you before, nor will anyone like you arise again. And I also grant what you did not ask for – both riches and glory all your life – the like of which no king has ever had. And I will further grant you long life, if you will walk in My ways and observe My laws and commandments. (1 Kings 3.12, JPS 99).

God and Solomon made a deal. God gave Solomon purity of thought

and in return, Solomon promised to obey God’s laws. All went well

until Solomon fell in love with Sheba and desired to please her in every

way. Solomon built monuments and statues in the image of Sheba’s

gods and they were placed inside The First Temple. Solomon failed

to abide by the terms of his agreement with God. The purity of

Solomon’s thoughts became tainted by his love for Sheba by his  

worship of foreign gods. Therefore, Solomon disobeyed God and

broke his promises to walk in his ways and follow his commandments.

When Solomon worshipped false gods made of stone, he disobeyed

The First and Second Commandments (Ex. 21:1, JPS 99).

First Commandment:

You shall have no other gods before me. (Ex. 21:3, JPS 99)

Second Commandment:

You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image, or any likeness of what is in the heavens above, or on the earth below, or in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow down to them and serve them. (Ex. 21:4, JPS 99)

Solomon made the decision not to walk in the ways of God and failed

to observe his laws and commandments. Solomon’s purity of thought

turned to impurity when he to worshipped Sheba’s gods from Moab.

God became angry with Solomon when he broke his promises and

condemned him for his impure thinking.  

The Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the Lord [and] commanded him not to follow other gods; but Solomon did not obey what the Lord commanded. “Because you are guilty of this – you have not kept my covenant and the laws which I enjoined upon you – I will tear the kingdom away from you.” (1 Kings 11:9, JPS 99).

                           IV   Solomon’s Writings

Before Solomon received wisdom, he had confused thoughts about

ruling the people. When he receives purity of wisdom, he

qualifies as a Platonic philosopher who was capable of ruling  the

people. Using this wisdom, Solomon wrote brilliant works of religious

philosophy such as: Proverbs and Song of Songs. When Solomon

broke his agreements with God, he no longer qualified as a Platonic

philosopher. He lost his ability to comprehend the ‘eternal’ and no

longer possessed purity of thought.

              V  Solomon and Plato on Purity of Thought

The evidence for Solomon’s purity of thought is found in two out of

three Biblical Books. In Proverbs, Solomon writes about his love of

wisdom:

Happy is the man who finds wisdom

The man who attains understanding

Her value is better than silver

Her yield greater than gold

She is more precious than rubies

All of your goods cannot equal her

In her right hand is the length of days,

In her left, riches and honor.  

Her ways are pleasant ways,

And all her paths peaceful.

She is the tree of life to those who grasp her,

And whoever holds onto her is happy. (Prov. 13-17, JPS 99)

In Symposium, Plato speaks of his love of wisdom in a similar manner:

For wisdom is concerned with the loveliest of things, and Love is a lover of wisdom, and, being such he is placed between wisdom and ignorance-

(Symp., 204b).

And turning his eyes toward the vast sea of beauty, he will create many fair and noble thoughts and notions in boundless love of wisdom; until on that shore he grows and waxes strong, and at last the vision is revealed to him of a single form of knowledge, which is the knowledge of beauty everywhere. (Symp., 210a).

In Song of Songs, Solomon writes about his vision of love:

Let me be a seal upon your heart,

Like the seal upon your hand.

For love is fierce as death,

Passion is mighty as Sheol;

Its darts are darts of fire,

A blazing flame.

Vast floods cannot quench love,

Nor rivers drown it.

If a man offered his wealth for love,

He would be laughed to scorn. (Songs of Songs 8:6-7, JPS 99)

Plato writes in a similar way about his archetype of love:

Whoever has been initiated in the mysteries of Love and has viewed all the aspects of the beautiful in succession, is at last drawing near the final revelation. It is an everlasting lovliness that neither comes nor goes, which neither flowers nor fades, for such beauty is the same on every hand, the same then as now, here as there, this way as that way. (Symp., 211a).

These verses from Proverbs and Songs of Songs become written

evidence for Solomon’s state-of-mind, and pure-thinking, during his

‘wise’ period. The similarities of Solomon’s and Plato’s pure thinking

offers evidence that both men fit the definition of philosopher at the time they wrote these books.

But, what happens when a philosopher-king flourishes for a time,

and then strays from the path of pure thought? Plato doesn’t offer

any commentary about the philosopher-king who changes into a

selfish, greedy, lustful and depressed non-philosopher. Solomon

experienced such a change in thinking as evidenced by his third book,

Ecclesiastes.

For what does a man get for all the toiling and worrying he does under the sun? All his days his thoughts are grief and heartache, and even at night his mind has no respite. That too is futile! (Ecc. 2:22, JPS 99). 

During this time, “Solomon is portrayed as the archetype of the errant

king in light of Deuteronomy’s laws” (Glatt-Gilad 97). It is ironic that

God granted wisdom to Solomon because he did not ask for riches

or honor, but later in life becomes obsessed with accumulating gold

and being glorified.

Trying to predict the length of time a philosopher-king could maintain

his purity of thought would have been impossible to predict. This is a problem for Plato. He doesn’t take into account the possibility that the philosopher-king could experience a change in his belief system to become immoral, vain, unjust and corrupt. This is why the criteria of pure thought as one of the requirements for a philosopher-king is not reliable. The evaluation of pure thought would require subjective opinions that were subject to false assumptions. There is no objective method proposed by Plato as to how to evaluate a philosopher’s purity of thought, so this criterion is not an effective means to determine who should be recognized as a philosopher/philosopher-king.

VI  Identifying The Philosopher by Knowledge of the Eternal

A second way to identify a philosopher is to verify that he can

comprehend ‘the eternal’ or ‘unchanging’. Even though “our soul is

immortal and never perishes” (Rep. X, 608d), it is not eternal (Laws,

904a). Therefore, Plato is not speaking about understanding the

nature of the soul, but rather the ability of the philosopher to

comprehend the eternal nature of wisdom.

According to Mara, “the philosopher’s knowledge of the soul

must be complex” (83). He must be able to look, “with eyes fixed

toward the nature of the soul (X, 618d). The philosopher’s soul

is important to Plato when speaking of the nature of wisdom, “when

the entire soul accepts the guidance of the wisdom-loving part and is

not filled with inner dissension, the result for each part is that it in all

other respects keeps to its own task and is just” (Rep. IX, 586e).

Therefore, if a philosopher wants to understand the eternal, he must

tap into his souls’, ‘wisdom-loving part’, so he can comprehend the

‘eternal’ and ‘unchanging’.

However, there is still the problem of identifying the philosopher, even

if his wisdom-loving part is able to comprehend the eternal. How is he

going to explain the eternal to others? Who is going to understand

what he is talking about? How would others know if he’s telling the

truth about the eternal, when they don’t know what it is? If this

criterion is essential for identifying the philosopher, then Plato should

have given us a precise definition of the eternal. If he is referring to

the philosophers’ self-knowledge of the eternal, Plato does give

us a few clues to follow. According to Avon, “there is a third form of

self-knowledge. This degree of self-knowledge stems from attention to

the element of life that is not discernable to other persons’ senses.

This part of a person’s being, which in the passage cited from Philebus

(48e) is termed the soul, can be known only to the person.” (95). If

the philosopher comprehends the eternal through the nature of his

soul, who else would be able to verify his claim? There is no objective

method in this case either that would prove to be reliable.

Over the last twenty years there have been many television

evangelists who have claimed to have spoken to the eternal God.

Many of these individuals insist they have a personal relationship with 

God. Since these religious leaders are trying to inspire others to 

phone-in money for their causes, there is a strong incentive for them

to deliver God’s word. When a religious leader says that he knows

God, understands God, and talks to God; many people believe he is

telling the truth. Unfortunately, there is no way to verify such remarks.

The evangelist may honestly believe he is tapping into the ‘wisdom-

loving part’ of his soul, and he may believe that he understands the

eternal and unchangeable nature of God, however, no one else can

prove or disprove his claims.   

Plato sets up the same problem with his definition of a philosopher.

The philosopher claiming to comprehend the eternal, would be just as

suspect as the television evangelist claiming to comprehend God.   

Both the philosopher and the evangelist could be making false claims

as they prey on the public to acquire monetary gain, power and fame.

“Most of those who are apparently philosophers are bogus” (Mara, 83).

One man’s Buddha might be another man’s Rev. Jim Baker. Therefore,

Plato’s requirement for comprehension of ‘the eternal’ or ‘unchanging’,

is not an effective criteria for defining the philosopher. 

           VII  Plato’s Philosopher as Philosopher-king

Plato believes that monarchy is the best system of government. He

tells us that “his ideal city is to be ruled by philosopher-kings, and

he justifies this belief due to virtue among rulers who will ensure the

economic prosperity of the state” (Brooks 06). According to Socrates,

the only person who has these qualities is the philosopher, so

philosophers must rule as kings or kings rule as philosophers (Rep. V,

473c-d).

Plato’s definition of the philosopher-king includes his possessing the attributes of a philosopher, in addition to: a love for the state,

fixed faith under stress, facility in learning, a good memory, sagacity, quickness of comprehension, a youthful spirit, magnificence in soul, a disposition to live orderly, a quiet and stable life (Rep. VI, 503c). In Books VI-VIII of Republic, Plato describes these qualities as essential for a ruler to be recognized as a philosopher-king.

There is a problem, however, with Plato’s logic concerning who is the

best person to rule the state. He says that each person should choose

a craft that “is naturally suited for him” (Rep. VI, 423d). The

philosopher-king is not required to be skillful at the following crafts:

governing the state, solving economic issues, understanding military

strategies, building infrastructure, negotiating with neighbors, judging

political matters decisively, being an effective orator, possessing

leadership skills, having compassion for the poor and a sense of

equity under the law. Solomon had these qualities.

Solomon built the First Temple, re-built Jerusalem, was a natural

leader, diplomat and politician. He was the son of King David and

was groomed from childhood to be proficient in these crafts. According

to Gary N. Knoppers, “Solomon’s building activity in Kings seems to

correspond to the evidence provided by the material remains. The

same can be said for Solomon’s diplomatic relations and epigraphic

remains from this period.” (97). As for Solomon’s diplomatic skills, he

negotiated peace with his neighbors and married daughters of kings to

maintain the peace with other countries.

Some may argue that the story of Solomon is a myth and the events

in Kings never occurred, but according to J. A. Sogin:

“With the foundation of the united kingdom under David, the history of Israel leaves the realm of pre-history, of cultic and popular traditions, and enters the arena of history proper. The kingdom under David and Solomon constitutes a datum point from which the investigation of Israel can be safely begun.”  (Knoppers 97).

Solomon exhibits expertise in the craft of leadership that Plato

does not believe is a requirement for being a philosopher-king. In

Kings 1:57, Solomon displays his decisive political nature, “If he shows

himself to be a worthy man, not a hair on his head will fall to the

ground; but if evil is found in him, he will die.” (JPS 99). 

Before Solomon met Sheba, he fit the Platonic model of a

philosopher-king. According to Czovek: “The major achievement of

Solomon was peace, socio-political stability and economic growth.”

(02). Solomon used his ‘pure thought of wisdom’ to begin a new age of

prosperity in Israel. He also possessed the ability to comprehend the

eternal by experiencing his god-self and communicating with The

Eternal in his dreams.

              VIII  Charisma and the Philosopher-king

Another important characteristic on which Plato is silent is the

quality of charisma. Although charisma is not a craft it is the

hallmark of a natural leader. When Plato speaks of people choosing

careers naturally suited to them, the person possessing charisma, had

an advantage in the craft of kingship. Solomon had this special gift of

charisma that Plato does not mention as an essential characteristic of

a philosopher-king. According to G. Alhstrom, “the definition of

charisma, is the result issuing from grace or favor.” (68) Alhstrom

argues that God planned to give Solomon the gift of charisma before

he was born (68). In II Samuel 7:14, God promises King David that

his son will become the son of God, and God will be his Father. God

predetermines that he will bestow ‘grace and favor’ upon Solomon.

Therefore, Solomon was destined to possess charisma (JPS 99). “The

passage clearly shows the ideological relationship between the deity

and the king. As the anointed one, Solomon is a part of this carismatic

relationship.” (Ahlstrom 68).

Plato doesn’t offer a definition of charisma, nor does he mention it

as being an essential quality of a philosopher-king. In Republic,

he does speak of grace as an admirable quality in reference to the

musician’s disposition, “Good speech, then, good accord, and good

grace, and good rhythm wait upon a good disposition, but the truly

good are of fair disposition of character and mind.” (Rep. III, 399e).