¶ … successfully does Thrasymachus contend that rulers cannot make mistakes? Thrasymachus and the case made for leaders not making mistakes is mixed at best. His argument seems to come from the concept that the power bestowed on the leader in and of itself gives a level of infallibility in terms of the decisions made and how just they are. He makes no exception as he is specifically mentioning the different leadership styles that exist including democracy, aristocracy, despots and so forth. He then makes the point that the ruling class and group in the country is the strongest. He then talks about how these groups, regardless of what type of rulers they are (including dictators) make laws after their own interests and what they think is best. The gist of his point is that what is "just" or "right" is of no import but rather what the stronger party wants. He outright proclaims that rulers can make mistakes. He also asserts that people can absolutely be subject to laws that are not in their best interests. However, they might or might not resist or rise up against the laws depending on their power base and how motivated they are.

A tangent that is taken later in the work is in respect to when someone is called a ruler and when they are not. Indeed, a doctor is still a doctor even if the make a medical miscue and it ends up hurting or killing the patient. At the same time, rulers can make drastic mistakes yet they can still be rulers despite this so long as they retain their power. This point builds to the assertion that a ruler is not mistaken or wrong so long as they are still in power. He asserts that the ruler does not make any mistakes and he concurrently engages in what is best for himself. However, the document reviewed for this answer also points to the fact that he has shifted his position during the course of his words. He initially speaks only of strength but then points to knowledge and prowess later on. In short, he is not firm in his position and his point is weak at best.

2. Why does Glaucon tell the story of Gyges, and what, briefly, is the story?

The main assertion that Glaucon is making is that people that are "just" and that behave properly are only doing so under compulsion and/or out of fear of what will happen to them if they happen to be caught. The story itself is a fairly simple one. There is a talisman that is found by Gyges. There is the story of a storm, an earthquake and a chasm that is formed. After falling into the chasm, he sees a wooden horse with a dead man inside. The body was completely devoid of any apparel or other items save for one ring. Gyges took the ring and went about his business. This business later included a meeting with the shepherds. The purpose of the meeting was to make an accounting for the King in terms of what was going on and so forth. As Gyges came upon the group, he realized that if he turned the ring a certain way, he became invisible. If he turned it back, he would revert back to his normal status. Things go south in a hurry from there as he uses the ring to seduce the Queen and murder the Queen. This eventually led to Gyges taking the throne that was held by the King prior to the plot and assassination.

It is at this point that the story's supposed lesson is told. Glaucon follows up the story with a hypothetical. He poses what would happen if two such rings existed. Specifically, he asks what would happen if one went to a noble man and one went to a bad person. Glaucon puts in his own two cents on this subject when he asserts that both men would fall prey to temptation and the power that the ring would allow for. He asserts that even the noblest of men would be too tempted by the ring's power and this is because the person was only being noble because the forces of laws and consequences were the only thing preventing the person from running afoul of morality, the law or societal norms of the day. He further explains that a just man versus an unjust man comes down largely to appearances and perceptions rather than reality. Indeed, he notes that even unjust men can be perceived to be noble and vice versa.

Why does Socrates favor supervision of all arts and crafts, including architecture?
In a nutshell, Socrates is saying that he says supervision is a good thing because the focus of the supervisor is on the benefit and helping of the subjects and subordinates rather than himself or herself. Socrates uses a number of prescient examples. Just one example is the crew of the ship. Of course, there is a hierarchy when it comes to the ship. There are the regular seamen and there is the captain. Socrates takes great care to separate the two before he makes his point. He notes that while the regular crew can be called seamen, the captain himself is not a seaman as he is the leader of the group. Concurrent to that, he is leading the men in a way that benefits them. Whether it be the training they receive, the assurance of their safety via the proper decisions of the captain or the pay they receive, the primary motive behind the captain should be to benefit the interests of the crew. Another example given is that of a doctor. The doctor's main focus is an improvement of the art of medicine and for good outcomes of the patient. Obviously, the doctor receives compensation and benefits for what he does but that is not the main reason the doctor does it.

Put another way, the author of this report feels that people with subordinates or patients are always just trying to help the people that they treat or mentor. Indeed, this is how learning and development occur. Generally speaking, a manager or boss is not going to learn nearly as much from a subordinate than the other way around and this is as it should be. It is in the interest of the manager to foster and develop the person being mentored or the customer/patient because this leads to an improvement of their outcomes and benefits. Self-interest is obviously always a factor as well but Socrates is asserting that this is not usually the case, nor should it be. Even if it is not required by the situation, it stands to reason that Socrates would assert that people should always latch onto others that know more about the subject so as to improve their own outcomes.

4. How does Socrates think that physical training can benefit one's mind or soul?

He makes this assertion on the grounds that having soundness of mind and peace in one's soul can easily be correlated to the physical health of a person. The relevant portion just pointed to is on page 319. It comes within the broader discussion as to whether or not justice is profitable. Socrates asserts that the punishment and castigation of those that are unjust will cure and resolve the problesm within a man. This will cause his better parts and feelings to emerge and be let loose. This in terun will lead to a gain in righteousness and good that knowledge and wisdom are apt to bring. It is then that Socrates morphs his argument into one that includes physical health. He notes that strength and beauty bring health to the body. This is remain in proportion as the soul surpasses the body itself in terms of what is worth in the grand scheme of things.

He then asserts that men will bend his powers through life and will thus prize those studies that will improve his soul. He says that the traits of health, strength and beauty will be valued only in a way that brings soundness of mind and this will lead to a man that is keeping with his body and frame. There is talk of tuning and calibration between the body and the mind as he speaks about this. He then speaks about how acquiring wealth in life will be affixed with this same pattern and sort of harmony. He asserts that happiness that is vulgar and impure will be dismissed in favor of more noble forms of happiness and pleasure. He notes that over-abundance and other issues will be avoided. This will lay the foundation for a path and journey to the heavens. Socrates notes that going the wrong way can lead to never-ending troubles and problems and the noble man that has his mind and body in sync knows this implicitly. Men that have redeemed themselves from poorer morals would know this better than others. However, lessons about what…