The Philosopher King

While Socrates makes a decent argument for the idea of the ruling philosopher king, a man with the utmost character, desire for knowledge, and a "soul with memory" (486d), Ademantis' counterpoint, that "those who linger in [the study of philosophy] for a long time...become quite queer, not to say completely vicious...[and] they become useless to the cities" (487d), begins to dissolve the argument of Socrates.

For this reason, in the ideal situation the philosopher would make the greatest, most capable ruler due to his love of learning and truth. It's true that we all at some point have wanted this type of ruler: one that has the higher knowledge, wisdom, and makes sure that we, his people, benefit and flourish in to the greatest degree; however, it seems partially impractical to have this level of knowledge tied to only a minuscule group.

The philosopher, those who explore the nature of the soul, the realms of knowledge as few dare to, and strive to tackle the perennial questions, should be, much like the ship's "true navigator" in Socrates' imagery (488d), not seen as the true ruler. I only say this because it seems that to be a true philosopher one must center themselves around these questions that are left to be discerned and debated over. To do this, however, doesn't leave the time or the capacity to look after an entire city, especially one like the city in speech that requires that the philosopher glean the knowledge to separate each person into their task.

The role of the philosopher, unless, as aforementioned, the ideal world/situation arises, lies within their search for knowledge not on the throne. Throughout history and the world, those on the intellectual level of philosophers have often served as advisers to rulers and have had the precious time to develop their incredible philosophies. Those like Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates don't rule, they search and never stop asking questions.