“useless,”because we do not recognize their value for political systems: instead of disregarding
them, we should be begging such men who strive to learn“what is”to rule over us. Socrates’story
ends here, but his“image”allows the reader to fill in what would happen to such sailors who are
ruled by a pilot mainly interested in drinking and feasting. It is inevitable, is it not, that such a ship is
doomed to run afoul of weather or treacherous rocks with all, including the poor“stargazer,”going
down to a watery grave.
For the most part, Socrates is correct that the analogyof the true pilot easilyrelates to political rule
and to why philosophers are considered“useless.”The analogy explains the reason why Socrates
considers the philosopher-king a paradox, because even though such men should rule, the sug-
gestion is met with laughter (473a). The philosopher is the city’s“stargazer,”who strives to
understand what is truly necessary to rule or guide a city. For Socrates, although changing those
who rule is a minor change (unlike female guardians or eliminating private families which are great
disruptions), it is laughable because our political systems really do resemble the ship: no one
possesses or believes that such knowledge of ruling exists.
In addition, the“image”or story of the pilot underscores the reason for the discussion of the city
in speech in the first place: to see justice more clearly. The origin of communities was found in the
need we have for each other and justice was contributing the function that best suited our natures
and not being a“busybody”(polupragmonein). Thus, Socrates reveals injustice on the ship: the
sailors’claim to rule when they know nothing of the art of piloting. They were busybodies or
involved in a function of piloting. The sailors similarly rule not for the good of the ship (or even for
their own good), but for the sake of the pleasures of drinking and feasting. The true pilot, as we
learned in Book One, ruled not only because he had true knowledge of his function, but also because
he ruled in the interest of the sailors.
Like all analogies, the analogy of the ship to the city is neither perfect nor exact. The ship
analogy focuses on the third wave of the philosopher-king, but unlike cities, the sailors do not
confront the issues raised by the other two waves: whether there are gender-specific functions or
families should be eliminated from the city. Furthermore, although the sailors know nothing
about the art of piloting, such as knowledge of winds and the stars, they also claim that no such
knowledge exists. It is on this last point that careful students, such as Cowboy Plato, raise a
challenge: at the end of Book Five, Glaucon readily agreed that philosopher-kings should guard
the community’s laws, because they seek the fair and justice itself, and not the many instances of
the fair and just; yet, it is uncertain whether philosophical knowledge is akin to the pilot’s
knowledge of seasons, winds, and stars. If, for example, the true pilot needs knowledge of both
the particulars (i.e., these rocks to avoid along that bend) and the universals (i.e., stargazing), how
does the philosopher learn the particulars of ruling a city? Is the philosopher’s seeking of“what
is”sufficient for ruling our political communities which exist, like ships, in the world of coming
into being and passing away?
There are, ofcourse, manymore lines ofinquiry raised by Socrates’analogy of theship of state.
Importantly, the way in which analogies do not hold reveal the utility of this comparison for
exposition and understanding. Like all metaphors, analogies are used to reveal both the meaning
of hidden similarities and differences.^36 Yet, Socrates’story of the doomed voyage of this foolish
shipowner and his crew is a vivid and relatable“image”which reflects his definition of justice in
the city of speech and rule of the philosopher-king. The image also brings to the forefront
assumptions at the heart of the dialog and allows readers to think more seriously about the sig-
nificance of these assumptions. With the analogy of the sailors, Socrates presents an example of
how such storytelling and literacy devices are essential to dialectical questioning. Most
obviously, the analogy allows Socrates to further the discussion with Adeimantus who initially
rejects the philosopher as“useless.”For many readers, however, the“image”of the sailors
focuses on unanswered and potentially unanswerable questions, such as is philosophy a
necessary and sufficient education for this art of guiding the city? Hence, if we are looking for a
Poetic Questions in the Socratic Method 15