Hailey Hickman Introduction to Philosophy September 28, 2010 Journal Entry #5 In book six of Platos Republic, we continue to see

the topic brought up regarding the importance of having a philosopher as the ruler. We look at the characteristics of a just philosopher and discover that corruption has no chance of ever ending unless we have that specific type of person rule. In class we talked about how rare it is to continue loving wisdom into adulthood. The question was brought up regarding the actual need for a philosopher to rule. I would like to dive further into this idea to determine if this argument is even worth having. The question of corruption is difficult but almost too easy at the same time. On one hand, I would like to take the easy way out and say, Corruption will never end regardless of the ruler. On the flip side, Socrates would probably question my integrity and say, what, so you would just give up and say oh well, were all doomed? I understand that neither are sufficient answers to this question. When pondering this question of corruption and rulers, I couldnt help but begin to think about the importance of a ruler. Obviously there is a need for order and that is how the power hierarchy began. Nonetheless, I do not believe a ruler is that important in regards to ending corruption. Because we already determined that very few people continue to love wisdom into adulthood, it is also rare that we find someone who is truly able to identify and rationalize this philosophical view of corruption. If most individuals of society are not at the point of realization and most likely will never get to this point, they will never be able to understand and erase the corruption from their souls. As long as individuals are corrupt, corruption will

continue to exist in society. It is up to each person to choose wisdom and balance their own souls. You cannot force this realization and path to happen. Therefore, I support two claims that have been brought to my attention. The first one is that corruption can indeed end. Once every single person balances their soul, there will be no corruption. This makes perfect sense. The second is that although I agree corruption can end, corruption will never actually end as long as we focus on the ruler. Referencing my question in the first paragraph, what is the need for a philosopher to rule? My response to this is: why are we focused on the ruler in the first place? It is not the rules set by society that drives the individual. By discussing the importance of a ruler we are enforcing the idea that power over others is more important than power over ones self. Ultimately it is not up to the ruler to make laws ending corruption; it is up to each individual to rule over oneself and provide peace and wisdom to ones soul. Until this happens, corruption will not end so why even worry about the ruler? There is no single person, philosopher or not, that can make the end of corruption possible because no one can force that self-realization on to others. If the individual is corrupt, a ruler can do little to change that. Once every single person is balanced due to their own awareness, there will be no need for a ruler because every single person will rule themselves.