In the conclusion of Plato’s Statesman, the Visitor from Elea describes the role of time and the ruler who understands the consequences of time’s causes and effects (as both one and many) to maintain the harmony of the social fabric. But should such an ideal leader, whose role is to orchestrate but not participate in the administration of the state, be constrained by laws established in an earlier time? And how should such a ruler, whose mission is to harmonize both courage and temperance among the office-holders, be chosen?

Members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups met on May 22, 2022 to consider these and other questions, in the third of three dialogues on The Statesman. We began by listening to a re-enactment of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and discussed the conditions of the civil war era during which the emancipator’s words were spoken. Given their times, was Lincoln in some ways a tyrant, and was Henry VIII foremost a tyrant? These and other questions were raised as we pursued the proposition that constitutions should not be fixed in time. Several current constitutional issues were brought into the discussion, and one participant suggested that we might consider the advantages of welcoming the Visitor’s ideal ruler, constrained by laws, under judges elected by the citizens. Could this be a better form of democracy? And what does democracy mean, when it is so widely and variably applied?

Perhaps then the key is to find the common ground in the mean of extremes, as we discussed in our previous episode, and to ensure the continuing harmony of the mean in its own derivative. Is this what the Visitor from Elea was trying to tell us, in so many words?