Talk:Political philosophy

message: I am trying to determine the underlying causes for the re-emergence of ultra-conservative right-wing movements, especially across Europe following the Austerity decades of the early 20th century. This may perhaps also inform the political philosophy behind many other profoundly religious and dictatorial-military regimes. 
To that end I have started a  draft document user-page here > User:Timpo/Religious_reason_and_prohibitions_in_Right-wing_politics with a section concentrating on Religion as a successful survival strategy. 
Please feel free to add your comments and contributions to the talk page Regards, Timpo (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious reason and prohibitions in Right-wing politics 

message: Please don't be in love 2409:4071:E81:7D19:0:0:5A09:6808 (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love 

message: This section meant to talk about political philosophy after industrialization and before the end of WW2. But this section talks at length about left-anarchism and socialism and names multiple thinkers and even talks about the intellectual history which socialist movements based on (Hegel, Marx etc.). Liberalism and fascism two very big defining political philosophy at that time is only mentioned by name. Bandasaka (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political bias in the Industrialization and the modern era section 

message: This is my first discussion on wikipedia so I'm sorry if its not formatted well or doesn't do what it's meant to do. But I made this account because I wanted to argue my point for changing a word in this article. 
Under the section of Ancient Greece (1.1.3), monarchy is used to describe the Philosopher's Republic. I think that monarchy is a sort of loaded word for what Plato is advocating for. 
The typical reader would probably collate "monarchy" with oligarchy, wealth, power, etc. Which is fair, since the linked article for monarchy itself even says such:
"The succession of monarchs in many cases has been hereditical, often building dynastic periods. However, elective and self-proclaimed monarchies have also happened. Aristocrats, though not inherent to monarchies, often serve as the pool of persons to draw the monarch from and fill the constituting institutions (e.g. diet and court), giving many monarchies oligarchic elements."
They might also think of a male-dominated kingdom, which Plato says that the Republic would not be (specifically saying at one point that women would be allowed to be part of all parts of the Republic). While the titles of the Republic are not discussed, I am not sure there would be any outside of the customary philosopher king, which could hardly be considered a king as is typically thought. 
The only argument that I can think of for calling it a monarchy would be that the person at the top is called the "philosopher king", but outside of naming conventions I'm not sure we could reliably call it a monarchy. 
EDIT: In addition, I feel that the philosopher king ruling for life (which might not be totally correct, I cannot remember currently) may not be a great argument for it being a monarchy either. Individuals can lead countries for life without the nation being a monarchy, like with the title of "dictator" in Rome it would probably be used as a distinct title in the Republic (if being used as a title at all, which may be too much of an incentive similar to land and gold).   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdes11 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe aristocracy could be another working description of what he advocates for? It's what is used in the actual article of Plato's Republic. I am not sure of that either though. frank (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Monarchy" not a Good Description of Plato's Republic 

message: — Assignment last updated by Chorton2233 (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse