# data[].attributes.body
In response to Shukrona's opinion, I would like mention that I agree with your interpretation on the quote "some cities are ruled by a despot, some by the people, and other by aristocracy". It really depends on the cities by which kind of people, which kind of personality, and which kind of background, they came. In terms of ruling the cities, these are very significant. If people are coming from a great background, they have positive influence on the cities as well. If cities control by the despot or by the one who rule in a cruel way, this can obsoletely harm people. Aristocracy or the noble class people can rule better than those who are from the lower class. Since they know a lot, they grown better with many facilities in terms of education and others. Thus, cities controls by the people with different people with different background, and personality.

# data[].attributes.body
"some cities are ruled by a despot, others by the people, and others again by the aristocracy" ( Plato, page 29)
"I assume that the phrase "some cities are ruled by a despot, others by the people, and others again by the aristocracy" suggests a recognition of diverse forms of governance across different cities. It acknowledges that various cities can have different power structures and systems of rule.

Moreover, this statement highlights the plurality and variability of political systems. Societies can differ in terms of who holds power, whether it's a single oppressive leader (despot), the general population (people), or a select group of privileged individuals (aristocracy).

From a metacognition perspective, we can recognize that the statement implies an awareness of the range of political possibilities and the influence that different systems can have on how a city operates. It prompts us to consider the distribution of power, decision-making processes, and potential impacts on society and its members.

# data[].attributes.body
I strongly agree with your point of view on his "idealism". The idea of being "perfect" and "righteous" humanbeing in order to be a ruler is naive. We can never say  and predict how permanent are ambitions of a future leader. It is difficult to choose a ruler when people are divided into classes and the voices of poorly educated people remain unheard.

# data[].attributes.body
I share your conviction that common sense is essential to the development and stability of the State.  However, it is important to bear in mind that sometimes the adoption of an apparently unreasonable strategy can have pleasant surprises.
Think about Plato’s proposal to exclude people with disabilities in an ideal world, even if they are seen as weaker or less able to contribute. Indeed, persons with disabilities often contribute to society beyond traditional notions of productivity by offering special views, talents, and ingenuity. Like Aristotle’s view of equal rights for women, which reflected the dominant ideologies of his period, changed over time. We now acknowledge that women significantly contribute to society and that gender equality not only promotes justice but also advances society.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that the idea of an undeniable "good" can be illusory and difficult to achieve. In my view, however, it is essential for a ruler or governing body to put the interests of that majority first, when the vast majority of people have the same understanding of what is "good" or useful.
It is also essential to make judgements and implement policies that take into account the interests of the minority while taking into account their needs and concerns. Good governance is based on achieving a harmonious balance and taking into account the interests of the majority and the minority. When this happens, a sound and inclusive decision-making process can help to bridge differences by ensuring that both the majority and the minority are heard and included in the development of laws that promote the interests of the whole society.

# data[].attributes.body
Socrates: … We must test them [rulers and guardians] like gold in the fire, only more so. Does this one stand out in every situation as immune to magic and endower with grace? <...> Is he the kind of person who would be the greatest use to himself and the city? From our children, from our young and grown men, the one who under constant testing emerges as pure is the one who should be appointed a ruler and guardian of our city.

CRITIQUE: The idea of conducting a ‘test’ in order to single out the best candidate for a governing position may seem compelling for many people. At the end of the day, we would feel more confident trusting someone capable with our well-being and interests. However, this method may only serve a limited number of purposes. For once, it is difficult to create such a test that would accurately measure how reliable a person is to be appointed a ruler. The scope of the problems that the ruler would have to deal with cannot be predicted, nor it is easy to measure how consistent will the ruler be once they get the position (e.g. psychological and social factors, such as emotional pressure, greed or susceptibility to coercion may deprive the ruler of the personal qualities that led them to be chosen as a ruler in the first place). Another problem lies in determining who will be the one to ‘assess’ how well the potential candidates are dealing with the test. Should it be a small group of the selected ‘wisest’? Or should the entire collective take part in the ‘testing’ process by voting?

# data[].attributes.body
Socrates: …you do also find the whole range and variety of desires, pleasures and pains. Particularly in children, women, slaves, and among so-called free men, in the majority of ordinary people. <...> Whereas simple, moderate desires, which are guided by rational calculation, using intelligence and correct belief, are things you come across only among a few people, those with the best endowment and the best education. <...> Well, do you see the same qualities in your city? And are the desires of the ordinary majority controlled by the desires and wisdom of the discerning minority?

Glaucon: Yes, they are.

Socrates: So if any city can be called <...> the master of itself, this one can.

METACOGNITIVE INTERVENTIONS: It is well known that Plato detested the idea of democracy, saying that it is unreasonable to let the general public determine its own fate, given that most people are poorly aware of what’s truly best for the society. In the abstract above, Plato goes on to explain that rationality is innate to education, which not many individuals in the society tend to have; by that logic, only those who are ‘educated’ and, thus, rational are able to guarantee the society’s well-being. For some people, this idea may seem logical: since there are people who know best, they should be given greater power and influence over those who know less than them. For others, it may pose an inquiry: should the single fact of having the privilege of better education determine whether the person can have power above others? This inquiry may also cause some disillusionment in Plato’s opinion on democracy, since not only rationality is required to rule people’s societies in a way that guarantees the greatest happiness. This idea may also be viewed from the utilitarian perspective: if, at the end of the day, an ‘irrational’ approach leads to the best [possible] outcome for the greatest number of people, how can it be considered inferior to the more ‘rational’ alternative?

# data[].attributes.body
Socrates: … there is no one in any rule, who, in so far as he is a ruler, considers or enjoys what is for his own interest, but always what is for the interest of his subject <...>; to that he looks, and that alone he considers in everything which he says or does.

AGREE/DISAGREE: I would agree with the fact that the ruler should not pursue their own personal interests or the interests of the people affiliated with him closely. It is often the case, as history shows us, that an appointed governor ends up being a nominal figure, unable to represent and protect the interests of their subjects, but still endowed with a great amount of power. Therefore, the idea that if the ruler was simply following the best interests of people “under” them, the well-being of the public would be prioritized and, thus, guaranteed, seems attractive. However, this idea is quite impractical, and quite blatantly so. The reason for that is that the interests of members of the society, although ‘overlap’ at times, greatly differ on a larger scale. Say, if a society is dealing with an issue, and people of the society are divided evenly on what would be the best solution for it, it would be pretty simple to decide which solution to employ (the ‘ruler’ would just have to choose the most rational one). However, when the number of issues in a society grows, and people take on different opinions on each of these issues, it becomes (mathematically) impossible to come up with a strategy to satisfy the interests of the entire population. Therefore, even if the ruler intends on being selfless and serving the ‘good of the people’, absolute ‘good’ may never be achieved, as long as the society is dealing with more than 1 issue at a time.

# data[].attributes.headline
Socrates: … there is no one in any rule, who, in so far as he is a ruler, considers or enjoys what is for his own interest, but always what is for the interest of his subject <...>; to that he looks, and that alone he considers in everything which he says or does. -Nazima

# data[].attributes.subject
Socrates: … there is no one in any rule, who, in so far as he is a ruler, considers or enjoys what is for his own interest, but always what is for the interest of his subject <...>; to that he looks, and that alone he considers in everything which he says or does. -Nazima

# data[].attributes.body
Disagree: While Socrates may have believed that rulers primarily consider the interests of their subjects, I think that there should be considered the complexity of human nature and leadership. In reality, rulers often make decisions influenced by their own desires and selfish motives. History is replete with instances where leaders have pursued personal gain, power, or prestige at the expense of their subjects. Socrates' idealistic view of rulers might not fully align with the practical realities of governance, where self-interest can, unfortunately, play a significant role in decision-making.