To Rule, or Not to Rule? The ‘Happy Philosopher’ Crux of Plato’s Republic

Abstract In what is a novel approach to the crux, I show that the hypothetical ( εἰκός – ‘likely’ or ‘probable’: 519b7) refusal of philosophers to rule Kallipolis is presented as an error of judgement on their part. By acting proactively to alert philosophers to the error he says they are likely to make, Socrates ensures they will remain committed to their role as honest rulers, who because they spend most of their time in study could never be ‘lovers of rule’. Because they will rule voluntarily in the knowledge that their true happiness depends on ruling, philosophers cannot be said to be disadvantaged in choosing their own happiness. The crux is thus avoided and the original plan for the ideal polis reaffirmed. I argue that the surprising refusal of philosophers to rule that gives rise to the crux was introduced by Plato in order to support the theory of reluctant governance.