Socrates begins his reply to the brothers of Plato by attempting to elucidate the argument, and he again employs an analogy. Thus far in the argument, he explains, we seem to have been rather philosophically nearsighted, attempting to find justice in the individual man, rather than seeking it at large in the ideal state. Let us try to read the larger lettering: Let us attempt the construction of the ideal just state.
People unite to form a community because of mutual needs: food, dwelling, the growing of food, and so on. And since it is a given that people are born with various talents, or abilities, it follows that they should be assigned various levels of employment in order to ensure the common good and to perfect the stability of the state: Some should be farmers, some carpenters, tailors, shoemakers, toolmakers, weavers, blacksmiths, manual laborers, and so on. Thus Socrates proposes a division of labor. And we shall require merchants and traders, wholesalers, retailers, salesmen, etc. Thus Socrates proposes a rude balance of trade. Thus the state should be productive and should proceed busily and happily. But where is the justice or virtue of such a state?
Glaucon objects and says that this is merely a well-fed state, fit only for pigs. Reality shows us, he argues, that people seem to require more than necessities; they require certain luxuries, forms of recreation, refinements to life. These refinements are obviously characteristics of a “civilized” state as we know it.
Socrates agrees and provides for these amenities in his discussion. But he notes that by now the small state will have grown and, in the course of its growth, it will begin to encroach upon its neighbors. Such an encroachment historically leads to hostilities: war.
Given this eventuality, we shall require Guardians of the state. History shows us that, no matter how patriotic a given citizenry might be, in arms they are no match for trained soldiers. (Our agreement on a division of labor shows that the various levels of occupation are mutually exclusive). We need real soldiers, professionals, a standing army. We require Guardians of the state.
These soldiers of the state will require careful training. Of course they will have to be more than competent at their tasks, good at what they do, warlike. But in their aggressive and bellicose behaviors, they must know whom to attack; they must never turn against the state. They must be taught to discriminate between enemy and friend, and this involves thinking; thinking leads to knowledge and the appreciation of knowledge, perhaps the love of knowledge. These soldiers must be educated so as to display a certain degree of philosophical attainment. The soldiery must be trained to make intellectual distinctions, must learn to think their way through things.
