to one’s nature (physis) and not being a“busybody”(polupragmonein) or interfering in the function
of others (433a). Socrates resists the pressure to elaborate on the details of the city, because the
details would unleash a“swarm”of troublesome arguments (450b) which are frightening and
laughable (451a).
Nevertheless, in Book Four, the interlocutors press him forward to describe the three waves
(kuma) of the city in speech: female guardians; community of women and children; and the
philosopher-king. These details reveal that justice is not only about performing a function which
contributes to the city, but also about not being a busybody by performing only that function and not
interfering in the function of others. Similarly, injustice in cities arises from private pleasures and
griefs, when individuals do not call the same things“my own,”but separate and keep apart one’s
own things (like wives, children, and property). Finally, Socrates leads the discussion to the
philosopher-king, who is that rare individual who loves that upon which knowledge depends and
can grasp“what is always the same in all respects”(484b). The philosopher-king’s function is to
lead cities, because they can best guard the community’s laws and practices. At this point, Socrates
distinguishes the philosopher’s knowledge from general opinion with complicated logical argu-
ment (from 475d–80b) that concludes that opinion stands in between knowledge and ignorance, or
being, and not-being; furthermore, lovers of opinion do not seek the fair or justice, but only the
many instances of justice. Thus, philosophers who seek“what is,”should rule over those who know
only instances and examples (or the particulars).
Students are often intrigued by Plato’s version of gender equality in the first wave, usually
alarmed by the second wave’s elimination of the family, and dismissive of the philosopher-king as a
blatant power-grab by the philosopher Socrates; yet, few students pay attention to or carefully work
through the complicated logic of theelenchusbetween Glaucon and Socrates justifying the
expertise or rationale for the philosopher-king as a distinction between knowledge and opinion. In
the dialog, however, Adeimantus has clearly been paying attention as he rejects Glaucon’s easy
acceptance of the philosopher-king by interjecting:“how is the philosopher-king possible since
philosophers are strange, vicious, or completely useless to cities”(487d). It is in this context, that
Socrates admits the answer to such a question requires an“image”(eikonon). Adeimantus pokes
fun, by pointing out that Socrates is unaccustomed to such image-making; but, Socrates admits he is
“greedy”for images and will, on behalf of the hardships of decent men, bring together a“mixture”
from many sources, similar to how painters make images of“goat-deer”(488a). Thus, begins his
analogy of the pilot of a ship, which was first introduced in Book I (341b–3) during Socrates’
exchange with Thrasymachus concerning who is a ruler in a precise sense. In that book, similar to
doctors’ruling patients for their own good, Socrates claims the pilot possesses the necessary skill
to rule over sailors for their own good.
In Book Four, Socrates tells us to see or have in one’s mind (noeson)thefollowing image of
events happening on a ship (488b–90a). Although the tallest and strongest, the shipowner is deaf,
nearsighted, and has no knowledge of how to pilot a ship. The sailors quarrel with each other, each
thinking he should be the pilot, even though none of them have ever learned this art. In fact, they
only agree on two things: there is no such art of piloting; and, even if piloting were an art, it is
unteachable. All the sailors fawn over the shipowner, trying to win his favor. Failing at persuasion,
violence erupts, and they kill each other and cast rivals overboard. The remaining sailors chain up
the shipowner and take over, spending their time drinking, and feasting. The man who is most
clever at figuring out how to persuade and subdue the shipowner is called“pilot”and they dismiss
anyone without these skills of persuasion and violence as“useless.”Yet, the sailors cannot
recognize the true pilot: the man who knows that piloting a ship safely and to the intended des-
tination requires careful attention to the seasons, the heavens, and the winds. Instead, the sailors
dismiss such knowledge and call the one who knows such things a useless“stargazer.”
It does not take much of a careful examination, Socrates further tells us, to see theresemblanceof
this situation to ruling in the city (489a–91d). Like our stargazer, philosophers are only considered
14 Marlene K. Sokolon