In this post, we argue that the films The Godfather and The Godfather Part II are a study in the impossibility of the philosopher-king.
The protagonist in the films, Michael Corleone, is essentially a philosopher who realizes that he has a natural talent for understanding how Nature's power works, and that this natural talent could also be used for taking the place of his ill father as the new Godfather, which is a kingly position.
Michael's father is a family man of serious disposition who prioritizes his family over solitude, and his death is portrayed as a playful act with his grandson, as if even a small amount of frivolity is fatal for him.
Michael, on the other hand, is a man of solitude who, unlike his father, prioritizes solitude over time with his family, and unlike his father, doesn't believe in forgiving the members of his family if they are even slightly disloyal.
Michael uses all his means to ruthlessly pursue power as an individual, whereas his father ruthlessly pursued power as the head of the family.
These differences make Michael and his father differently placed on the philosopher-king spectrum. Michael is very much on the philosopher side and his father very much on the king side of the spectrum. Both are very serious men, but one is more of an individualist, and the other more of a family-oriented man.
Michael, the philosopher, when he becomes a king, proves fatal for the family, and his father, the king of a philosophical disposition has members of the family that prove fatal for him.
Both of them show that one cannot be both a philosopher and a king. We have mentioned in a previous post about why Buddha was predicted to be a great king or a great religious philosopher, which is related to this post.
Thus, in this post, we argue how The Godfather 1 and 2 study the philosopher-king spectrum.