Briefly Socrates

    Socrates, one of the most influential philosophers in Western history, had a unique vision of the ideal State, which is outlined in Plato's works, especially in The Republic. Socrates believed that the ideal state would be one ruled by a philosopher king. This country is characterized by wisdom, virtue and justice, and that philosophers, not democracies, were best suited to lead the country.
   
   “Now ... we must, I think, define ... whom we mean by these lovers of wisdom who, we have dared to assert, ought to be our rulers” (The Republic 3). In the Republic, Socrates had raised the idea of the philosopher King in a discussion with Galucon on political topics. He believed that society should have these intelligent and rational people who could see the nature of the country as leaders. In a later topic, he tells the famous Allegory of the Cave on this point of view. In his Allegory of the cave, Socrates describes how people were born bound in a dark cave, and all they were forced to see was the shadow reflected by the fire. One day a person comes out of the cave and faces the real world exposed to the sunlight and realizes that what they have seen before is only a projection of the real. And those who get out of the cave are what Socrates calls the philosopher Kings. This reality in the sun and the shadow illuminated by the fire is essentially a metaphor for the Theory of form, that is, everything in the world exists in a more perfect form, and what people often see is only an imperfect representation of this perfect form. Plato writes in the Republic: “The meaning of the parable is clear: the philosophers who ascend to the higher world of Forms possess true knowledge; everyone else possesses mere opinions, deceptive beliefs, and illusions. The philosophers have a duty to guide the ignorant” (The Republic 5). Therefore, what Socrates is trying to illustrate in a parable is his political idea that society needs these more skilled people to lead it, to lead people to understand the truth behind this projection, and let the society get more progress.
      
The reason and rationality for promoting this view come from Socrates' dissatisfaction with the democratic system and his personal views. In the Republic, Socrates says: “And when the poor win, the result is a democracy. They kill some of the opposite party, banish others, and grant the rest an equal share in civil rights and government, officials being usually appointed by lot” (The Republic 7). In his view, the fairness and freedom that democracy seems to bring do not always play well, and the will of the people that democracy aims to promote often leads to the will of the majority in the end. Neither Socrates nor Plato believed that majorities do not always make wise or just decisions. In a democracy, people can be swayed by emotions and prejudices, leading to unjust outcomes. This can also be seen in the trial of Socrates, and it can be said that Socrates' end is also very dramatically corresponding to his own point of view. It is worth mentioning that in "The Apology", he also elaborated on the criticism of democracy and praise for himself as a philosopher. He suggests that his actions were a service to the state: "I go around doing nothing but persuading both young and old among you not to care for your body or your wealth in preference to or as strongly as for the best possible state of your soul, as I say to you: 'Wealth does not bring about excellence, but excellence makes wealth and everything else good for men, both individually and collectively.'" At his own trial, he continued to articulate his views, effectively questioning the people's lack of intelligence and the flaws of democracy by stressing that he understand he knew nothing and that the people were ignorant and thought they knew everything.
      
I don't think Socrates' argument is fully persuasive at the moment, after all, the idea of the philosopher king is in any way similar to a monarchy or a class system, even if the quality of the philosophical king he emphasizes basically prevents them from becoming tyrants. But even if his thoughts and methods are not perfect, he can still be regarded as a model of philosophers, thanks to the essence of his thought core, that is, his questioning and criticism of things. The Socratic method, which is to ask and answer questions to stimulate critical thinking. This seemingly annoying behavior can actually be very effective even now. It encourages active thought engagement and fosters intellectual curiosity, both in the classroom and in psychotherapy. At the same time, Socrates' views on knowledge and virtue, the glorification of beauty, goodness and love, and the humility and critical thinking that should be displayed in the face of knowledge. All these provide a solid foundation and discussion environment for the development of philosophy and thought in later generations, so that philosophical views and political forms can constantly innovate and change in line with the development of human civilization. A useful example is the contrast between his views and those of the first modern philosophies. Take Nietzsche as an example. Before deeply understanding the philosophical core of Socrates, the comparison between Socrates and Nietzsche that I could create was purely from Nietzsche's criticism of Socrates' questioning of reality, believing that the view of the real world behind such reality weakened people's integrity of reality and self. But in fact, there are many similarities between the two ideas. Although Socrates' view of the King of Philosophers is based on the hypothesis of "reality and projection" of the Theory of form and Allegory of the cave, the core behind it is the same as the core of Nietzsche's will to power, that is, critical thinking. The criticism of many things creates the philosopher king in Socrates' view and the Superman in Nietzsche's view. The difference is that the former criticizes reality and the latter criticizes inherent morality. At the same time, the ideal society of the philosopher king described by Socrates is similar to the ideal society of the few supermen described by Nietzsche, which is also led by capable men and also hindered by others. In Nietzsche it's the flies in the marketplace, in Socrates it's the man tied up in a cave who doesn't want to believe the truth.
     
​  It can be seen from this that although Socrates' views were criticized and overthrown by philosophers in later generations, the core of his thought was constantly changing with the changes of time and society. But what remains unchanged is his attitude towards knowledge and his critical thinking. These elements have become the cornerstone of philosophy, the basis for people to think and create ideas, and have imperceptibly affected the pattern of human thinking and the extension of philosophical and political views in later generations.