The Philosopher

The Philosopher is an anomaly. He is caught between the vulgar masses that demand that his conformity to conventions; and his pursuit of the truth that is from nature, of nature and is nature. As part of society, the philosopher faces the stress of abiding by the conventions that society places upon him. Contemplation is not a luxury that is accorded to him by his contemporaries because only contemplation requires leisure. To be free to contemplate means that he is not a useful member of society because he does not contribute in any tangible manner. He is deemed to be from society but not of society. Furthermore, as someone who has access to the truth, he is obliged to let people know the truth, to help them escape from the metaphorical cave. But like the sun, the truth burns the eyes of people who are used to seeing the shadows dance on the walls. The truth hurts. Literally. And as creatures of convention are wont to do, they fear change - even if it's for the better - and persecute relentlessly all who fail to conform. The philosopher is no exception. He will be hunted down and no amount of apology (απολογεια) will suffice.

Is there no solution to bridge the gap between philosopher and philistine? Is the "imagined Republic" the only method to achieve this? For only in the Republic does convention and truth coincide. And even then it takes a monumental effort for this coincidence to come about. The political must shape the nature of people to be open to the truth in order that it will not hurt. Only a city with the Philosopher-King in charge is able to elicit such a change in the natures of people.

Liberal Democracies might be tempted to think that they have the answer - toleration - to this dilemma. In order to be consistent, they will have to tolerate the philosopher and his contemplation. This is because in having freedom of choice, what immediately follows is freedom of thought. Without freedom of thought there can be no genuine choice; only choice as prescribed by the elites. They have to tolerate his professions of what is the truth when he is ready to share and liberate. But is this really true in reality? The Philisopher is a lover of truth. His eros runs so deep that it is virtually unshakeable. He knows that he knows and that everybody else must know. But to let everyone know would result in a fundamental change in how society is ordered and functions at present. It is clearly a political problem. Under the guise of tolerance, the philosopher is exiled to the University and ordered to keep his contemplations within the boundaries (in every sense of the word) of the institution. He is not to allowed to fufil his duty of liberating one and all from the cave. In my opinion, Liberal Democracies have only solved half of the problem - the persecution of the philosopher. In the University, not only is the philosopher allowed to indulge his eros of learning safely, he is encouraged to; so long as it remains within the University itself. He is safe insofar as he remains there for outside of it, tyranny of the majority still reigns supreme and it has the backing of the body politic. Such are the dangers of the philosphic life.