In a particular dialogue from Plato’s Republic, Socrates and Glaucon, Plato’s brother, discuss the nature of justice, as they travel from Athens to the port city of Piraeus. In order to determine what it is to be a just person, Socrates first considers what it is to be a just city. He decides upon what this city would contain and encompass. Glaucon questions if a completely just and faultless city is even possible. Socrates then makes the bold claim that, yes, the perfect city is possible, but only if philosophers are put in charge. The pair’s next task is to determine, what makes a person a philosopher and why should they rule? They claim that philosophers should rule because they know the truth and are virtuous, therefore their rule would promote a fair and healthy city. These next pages will present Plato’s premises to his argument that a city can be just only if philosophers rule. The following outlines Plato’s argument that asserts the importance of a philosopher’s rule of cities:
C. If the philosopher rules, then the ideal city is possible. (473d)
Argument for C:
1. P1. If someone rules who both knows the truth (of things) and is virtuous, then the ideal city is possible. (484d)
2. P2. The philosopher is someone who knows the truth. (475b-480a)
3. P3. …show more content…
In Plato’s argument, a philosopher is a virtuous and wise human that has extremely promising potential in ruling city, but there are so few of them because they can be corrupted by people with less philosophical natures. Philosopher’s intellectual natures often leave them vulnerable to corruption by more powerful and convincing voices. This leaves the options of rulers slim and easily altered. There would be no purpose in electing an official because of their knowledge and virtue if those qualities can so easily be taken from that