What is the Political Role of Philosopher in a State?

Introduction

Nowadays, especially in Hong Kong, the image of philosophers is always scholars in ivory tower, doing nothing related to the reality. However, just like what the German Philosopher, Martin Heidegger said, ‘Philosophy as rationalistic constructs cut off from life is without power…’[1] which implied philosophers can never just stay in the ivory tower and do the academic works without responding to life. As a result, the question in the aspect of Political Philosophy that I struggle the most , as a Philosophy major student, is not the common questions like ‘Who should rule?’, ‘How should the property be distributed?’ etc, but a question closely related to the life of a Philosopher, ‘What is the political role of a philosopher in a state?’ One of the possible roles pop into our mind would probably be the ‘Philosopher King’ mentioned in Plato’s Republic (Πολιτεία) or Sage King in Chinese Philosophy. However, I am going to argue against this role and argue for another, ‘Secret Consultant’ mentioned in Kant’s Toward Perpetual Peace (Zum ewigen Frieden).

In this article, I would (1) elaborate the argument for Plato’s Philosopher King; (2) argue against Plato’s ‘Philosopher King’(3) argue for Kant’s ‘Secret Consultant’; (4) propose and defend possible counter-argument against (3); and (4)make a conclusion that philosophers should insist on the use of their reasoning and keep check on the justice of the state.

What is Plato’s Philosopher King?

In Republic, Plato tries to argue that, the guardian of the state should have the crafts of ruling the state, while philosophical training is one of the necessary criteria for the guardian of the state. This makes the possible choice of the guardian narrow down into the only one, philosophers, who are well trained for that necessary qualification. In addition to this, Plato also claims the taking of the guardian role as a necessary duty for philosopher to prevent being ruled by others who do not acquire the skill of ruling by the philosophical training. In other words, the role, a necessary role, for philosopher in the state must be being the guardian, ‘philosopher king’. [2]

Why not Plato’s Philosopher King?

To start with, I would like to claim that the existence of a ‘Philosopher King’ in a state is spoiling the human dignity of citizens, who are the autonomous of human beings, i.e. the only owner of him/her should only be himself/herself. ‘Philosopher King’ is indifferent to a dictator of a state, and he/she owns the state, or even the citizens. However, a state is not a belonging, such that no one should own this state or own the citizens. “It is a society of human beings that no one other than itself can command or dispose of.” [3] Due to the respect to each autonomous human being, that is why “Rule for the people must be rule by the people” [4], thus, ‘philosopher king’, a dictator are not justified.

Someone may say the above argue against dictatorship as a whole but not only ‘philosopher king’. What if the ‘philosopher king’ being elected by the people among a group of philosophers? My answer is still negative, as the ruling of a state should be by a group of professionals in different aspect.

Plato points out that philosophical training is one of the necessary criteria for the guardian of the state. He is right that it is just ‘one of’, but not ‘all of’. From Plato’s proposal of the education for the ‘philosopher king’, we can see Plato also agree the needs of other criteria, like skills of literacy, musical, mathematical, military and physical education. In Plato’s eyes, philosopher is an idea[5] of human being. He is able to learn all sorts of thing, not only philosophy, well. However, this is just a utopian thought. In reality, what we can find are different professionals, (i.e. philosopher is only one of the many), but not one with all professions. So what makes a better sense is a cooperation between different professionals, and philosopher is one of them, but the philosopher should holding no power (will be discussed in the latter part of this article).

Plato also claims philosopher plays a role of ‘philosopher king’ is a necessary duty, so as to prevent a worse life. However, for a state cooperated by different professionals, when the professionals cooperate well and they are conscientious about their responsibilities, I cannot envisage that a state ruled by only philosopher king(s), who never be proficient in all aspect, would be better than the cooperation of diversify professionals. Thus, the necessary duty for philosopher to take up the role of ‘philosopher king’ for a better life does not sound.

Why a ‘Secret Consultant’?

In order to proceed to the following discussion, I assume the state is cooperated by a group of diverse professionals who are elected by the people to represent the people. By that, I am going to argue that for the political role of philosophers should be a ‘secret consultant’, mentioned in Kant’s Toward Perpetual Peace (1975), in the political realm by speaking on behalf of reason and what I meant ‘secret’ is the independence from the authority.

“A state would therefore invite their instruction tacitly, and this is tantamount to saying that it would allow them to speak freely and publicly about universal maxims…This does not mean, however, that a state must give the principles of philosopher precedence over the findings of lawyers (representatives of the power of the state), but only that they be given a hearing.” [6] Toward perpetual peace - Kant

To have a better understanding to the role of philosopher as a ‘secret consultant’, by the inspiration of Prof Stephen R. Palmquist’s article, "The Philosopher as a “Secret Agent” for Peace: Taking Seriously Kant’s Revival of the “Old Question”" [7], I am going to project the situation in the university to the state and demonstrate the role of philosopher as a ‘secret consultant’ by the role of faculty of philosophy demonstrated in Kant’s The Conflict of the Faculties (1978).

During lately 18^th century, Prussian university is composited by four faculties, Philosophy, Theology, Law and Medicine, a four-fold structure. Among these four faculties, Theology, Law and Medicine were classified as ‘higher faculties’ as they were each responsible for direct training of a specific public servant[8].[9] Philosophy, on the other hand, was classified as ‘lower faculty’, because it does nothing in the professional training of public servants. [10]

In Kant’s The conflict of the faculties, the faculty of philosophy’s only concern is the truth, thus, it is impossible for her to obey any authority, except rationality. So the faculty’s authority can be said that ground in reason[11] alone. [12] And this crucially allows the faculty of philosophy, though under the titled of ‘lower’ faculty or even ‘handmaiden’ of theology (and likewise of the other two faculties), instead served as a critical tool or provided a ‘checks and balances’ [13] to help keep the three ‘higher’ faculties in line, [14] and to keep a check on[15] the three ‘higher faculties’. [16]

In a political context, we can look into the differences between the ways of the faculty of law and the faculty of philosophy dealing with legal issues as an example for the ‘use’ of faculty of philosophy. The former would have the sole task of teaching and interpreting the given body of law, as handed by whatever authority holds sovereign power in the state[17]; while the later would investigate whether such laws themselves need to be improved or not by the rationality. When there is any detail to be improved, the later would have the mission of voicing out that on behalf on the use of reason.

From the above, we can see that a philosopher should be persisting to truth and obeying only the rationality. And from the free and open conflict in a university-based setting to the faculty of law, Kant obviously intended to suggest that philosopher’s role is to provide a universal, rational standpoint for assessing and improving our actual empirical legislation[18] (or even other knowledge like theology, science, etc.) and “bears the torch before her ‘mistress’ or carries the train behind”. [19]

Propose and Defend Possible Counter-argument

Someone may then argue that, “Why the philosopher has to be ‘secret’?” In this part, I would like to defend this argument from the internal factor (i.e. factor of philosophers themselves) to external factor (i.e. factor of the government or authority).

By starting with the internal factor, Plato claims that the designed philosophical education makes a person resistant to temptation of breaking the laws. [20] Once again, that is another utopian thought or assumption of Plato by ignoring the reality of selfishness and evil in human nature necessitates. Just like the concept, Yinian sanqian[21], of Tiantai[22] (i.e. one of the important schools of Buddhism in China), as human beings are born to be free and can travel to any of the ‘world of sanqian’ [23] including both good and evil. Even one who reaches the world of Buddha, he/she can immediately fall into the world of Evil in his or her next ‘thought’. [24] “Power rotten one’s mind” and “the possession of power unavoidably corrupts the free judgment of reason.” [25], so philosopher should not be a power holder.

Someone may then say, “This is the human nature of all human beings, why should we distinguish philosophers from the others?” Philosopher plays a role of providing a universal, rational standpoint for assessing and improving our state, and for the one providing ‘checks and balances’, we have to ensure the judgment claimed by them purely on the ground of reason, without being polluted by any bias.

For the government, as it never protects one because of truth, but protects only because advantages may accrue to the government if it does so, [26] government would then regulate what to do to protect the advantages. On the other hand, philosopher, in the public use of his reason, should enjoy an unrestricted freedom to make use of his own reason and to speak in his own person. [27] Thus, philosophers, who are taking the roles as ‘secret consultants’, should always stand at a point outside the authority and only obey their own rationality.

Conclusion

Due to human dignity, philosophers are never expected to be the king but just to be a ‘secret consultants’ in a state and never be a philosopher in an ivory tower playing conceptual games. The Greek female philosopher, Hypatia, is the model of being a ‘secret consultant’. At her time, the state she lived, Alexandria, Egypt, is full of religious turmoil. She pointed out to the prefect of Alexandria that the Christians do not query what they believe. A statement attributed to Hypatia reads, “To teach superstitions as truth is a most terrible thing.” [28]Finally, the Bishop blamed her public speaking and words. And this leads to her destiny, violent death by a gang of Christian mobs.

Philosophers should insist on the use of their reasoning and keep check on the justice of the state. Once there is any injustice, they should not be mean with giving criticisms on the ground of reason, even the authority is trying to spoiling the use of rationality, like by religion, or even threaten them with death; they should not submit themselves to the authority.

Footnote

1. 黃文宏，〈海德格事實生命的現象學與根本學的理念: 以《戰時緊迫學期講稿》為例〉，《國立政治大學哲學學報》第十四期 (2005)，107-168: Martin Heidegger, ‘Philosophie als vom Leben abgelöstes, rationalistisches Gebilde ist machtlos,..’(GA 1: 410)

2. Jonathan Wolff, An introduction to Political Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 66-69

3. Immauel Kant, “Toward Perpetual Peace”, in Practical Philosophy, trans. & ed. Mary J. Gregor (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 318 (8:344)

4. Jonathan Wolff, An introduction to Political Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 71

5. [EL] εἶδος

6. Immauel Kant, “Toward Perpetual Peace”, in Practical Philosophy, trans. & ed. Mary J. Gregor (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 337 (8:869)

7. Stephen R. Palmquist, "The Philosopher as a “Secret Agent” for Peace: Taking Seriously Kant’s Revival of the “Old Question”", in Valerio Rohden, Ricardo R. Terra and Guido A. de Almeida (eds.), Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants, vol. 4 of Akten des X. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 601-612.

8. priests, lawyers, and doctors who assist the public in solving problems relating to spiritual well-being, their property and their health, respectively

9. Stephen R. Palmquist, "The Philosopher as a “Secret Agent” for Peace: Taking Seriously Kant’s Revival of the “Old Question”", in Valerio Rohden, Ricardo R. Terra and Guido A. de Almeida (eds.), Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants, vol. 4 of Akten des X. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 601&604.

10. Someone may question the relevance of the university structure which is neither nowadays’ nor Hong Kong’s in the discourse, however, the truth that there is actually no big difference between the university 200 years ago and that of nowadays all over the world. The university structure, especially in Hong Kong, though does not explicitly label ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ faculty, implicitly those which directly related to a kind of professional are always crowned.

11. In the following, the use of reason (i.e. Universal (morally legislative) human reason) would mostly refer to the public use of reason in Kant’s An answer to the question: What is enlightenment? (1784).

12. Stephen R. Palmquist, "The Philosopher as a “Secret Agent” for Peace: Taking Seriously Kant’s Revival of the “Old Question”", in Valerio Rohden, Ricardo R. Terra and Guido A. de Almeida (eds.), Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants, vol. 4 of Akten des X. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 605.

13. Stephen R. Palmquist, "The Philosopher as a “Secret Agent” for Peace: Taking Seriously Kant’s Revival of the “Old Question”", in Valerio Rohden, Ricardo R. Terra and Guido A. de Almeida (eds.), Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants, vol. 4 of Akten des X. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 604.

14. Stephen R. Palmquist, "The Philosopher as a “Secret Agent” for Peace: Taking Seriously Kant’s Revival of the “Old Question”", in Valerio Rohden, Ricardo R. Terra and Guido A. de Almeida (eds.), Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants, vol. 4 of Akten des X. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 601.

15. [De] kontrollieren

16. 關子尹 (2009)，〈從康德《學院的爭議》談哲學教育〉，《修遠之路：香港中文大學哲學系六十周年系慶論文集‧同寅卷》，劉國英、張燦輝編（香港：中文大學出版社），32-33。

17. Stephen R. Palmquist, "The Philosopher as a “Secret Agent” for Peace: Taking Seriously Kant’s Revival of the “Old Question”", in Valerio Rohden, Ricardo R. Terra and Guido A. de Almeida (eds.), Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants, vol. 4 of Akten des X. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 605.

18. Stephen R. Palmquist, "The Philosopher as a “Secret Agent” for Peace: Taking Seriously Kant’s Revival of the “Old Question”", in Valerio Rohden, Ricardo R. Terra and Guido A. de Almeida (eds.), Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants, vol. 4 of Akten des X. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 605.

19. Immauel Kant, “Toward Perpetual Peace”, in Practical Philosophy, trans. & ed. Mary J. Gregor (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 338 (8:869)

20. Jonathan Wolff, An introduction to Political Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 69

21. [中] 一念三千

22. [中] 天台宗

23. [中] 三千世界

24. [中] 念

25. Immauel Kant, “Toward Perpetual Peace”, in Practical Philosophy, trans. & ed. Mary J. Gregor (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 338 (8:869)

26. Immauel Kant, “The Contest of Faculties”, in Kant: political writings, trans. H.B. Nisbet, ed. Hans Reiss (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 176.

27. Immauel Kant, “An answer to the question: What is enlightenment?”, in Practical Philosophy, trans. & ed. Mary J. Gregor (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 19 (8:38)

28. Simon Critchley, The Book of Dead Philosophers (London: Granta Books, 2008), 66-67

Bibliography

1. 關子尹 (2009)，〈從康德《學院的爭議》談哲學教育〉，《修遠之路：香港中文大學哲學系六十周年系慶論文集‧同寅卷》，劉國英、張燦輝編（香港：中文大學出版社），31-44。

2. 黃文宏 (2005)，〈海德格事實生命的現象學與根本學的理念: 以《戰時緊迫學期講稿》為例〉，《國立政治大學哲學學報》第十四期，107-168。

3. Critchley, Simon (2008), The Book of Dead Philosophers (London: Granta Books)

4. KANT, Immauel (1784), “An answer to the question: What is enlightenment?”, in Practical Philosophy, trans. & ed. Mary J. Gregor (New York: Cambridge University Press), 11-23.

5. KANT, Immauel (1795), “Toward Perpetual Peace”, in Practical Philosophy, trans. & ed. Mary J. Gregor (New York: Cambridge University Press), 317-351

6. KANT, Immauel (1798), “The Contest of Faculties”, in Kant: political writings, trans. H.B. Nisbet, ed. Hans Reiss (New York: Cambridge University Press), 176-190.

7. Palmquist, Stephen R. (2008), "The Philosopher as a “Secret Agent” for Peace: Taking Seriously Kant’s Revival of the “Old Question”", in Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants, vol. 4 of Akten des X. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses , eds. Valerio Rohden, Ricardo R. Terra and Guido A. de Almeida (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter), 601-612.

8. PLATO, “Republic”, trans. G.M.A. Grube, rev. C.D.C. Reeve, in Plato Complete works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company).

9. WOLFF, Jonathan (1996), An introduction to Political Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press).