Response to "Collectivism V. Individualism"

Joshua posted this question in his blog: "What does the world need for it to better itself a philosopher-king or a sage?"

My answer is neither. This whole "ideal" person as a ruler thing probably wouldn't work in our world. I think that sages are too moral to function well in politics and philosopher-kings would probably just look down on everyone. Some would say that if we made reforms in politics so that it was less manipulative then we could have a sage as a leader. I say that while this seems like a great idea, it's probably a bit too Utopian to actually work. I think the only way to better ourselves is to realize that we're all human, and that by definition we are all imperfect beings. We don't need someone who has already transcended their own humanity to lead us. I think that we need a leader very much aware of their own flaws that it willing to work toward being better with the people of society. Working together is the only way that we're ever going to make any progress. If you take the head of society out of that equation it makes it more difficult to foster national or global connectivity, thus eventually pitting us against one another and undermining the process entirely. Perhaps once we reach moral perfection or supreme intelligence as a whole we can have a sage or a philosopher king as a ruler, but then being a sage or a philosopher-king would be pointless because everyone would be. Essentially, I believe that the best way to be governed is by someone who is at least somewhat our equal.