Towards the end of Book V of Plato's Republic, Socrates begins to discuss the "third wave" that would be necessary to bring about a "sea of ​​change" for the creation of an ideal society . The first wave was about the inclusion of women in the ruling class, while the interconnected second wave enunciated the radical idea of ​​the abolition of the private family unit in favor of community farming. As radical as these floods may be, it is the third that is “the greatest and most difficult” (472a4). So difficult and prone to ridicule, in fact, that it takes two full pages before Socrates, in 473d, can articulate it clearly and completely: “Philosophers rule like kings or those now called kings and leaders philosophize sincerely and adequately, and the political power and philosophy coincide in the same place." There are two major statements throughout the Republic that introduce skepticism regarding the realization of this idea. First, already in Book I, Socrates argues that in a just city we would find an aversion to ruling, unlike the propensity to rule that we encounter in prevailing social formations (347d). Secondly, in Book VII, it becomes clear that this aversion to rule on the part of the philosopher king is an integral part of the reason that places members of this class as ideal candidates for rule: they are interested only in the disinterested pursuit of knowledge and knowledge. goodness as an end in itself (519b-520b). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThe eternal conundrum caused by the third wave has been largely taken up by scholars in the following form: Why should philosophers voluntarily agree to rule, when a life spent pursuing divine knowledge of the Forms is far superior to them ? There are three possible answers, somewhat overlapping, which will in turn be explored in the first part of this essay. (1) The idea that philosophers govern motivated by altruism. (2) The idea that philosophers govern motivated by the Form of goodness. (3) And the idea that philosophers govern motivated by their aversion to being governed by inferiors. While the puzzle of the philosopher-king's motivation is one of the most persistent questions arising from Plato's Republic, its chiral opposite is often taken for granted. This is the question about the response of the governed, and the focus of the second part of this essay: what drives the citizens of Kallipolis to follow the philosopher king in order to avoid the emergence of factions in the city? Who is most likely and inclined to persuade the philosopher to rule? Since Plato inaugurates a fierce criticism of democracy, it is not an explicit consent on the part of the governed, but rather an implicit consent, that is, the acceptance of the rulers without demanding their overthrow. More importantly, it is the citizens who bear the burden of forcing the philosopher to rule, since, as Socrates says, "it is not natural for a pilot to beg sailors to be ruled by him" (489b). Together, these puzzles point to the fragility of the ideal city: rulers who respond only to an abstract form of responsibility, and citizens who may not be easily swayed by the superiority of the philosopher king. We know from the arguments advanced in Book I that philosophers are neither lovers of honor nor of money. Therefore, they cannot be forced to govern with “traditional methods”. In 347c, Socrates makes it clear that they will face a certain penalty if they refuse. However, since this sanction is neither material nor linked to social punishment, it remains somewhat abstract in nature. Therefore, philosophers must be the same.