The simile deals with all the aspects of Plato’s philosophical beliefs, one belief held by Plato is that the philosophers are the only members of society fit to rule, because they are the highest educated. They are able to use the Form of the Good for perception and are better qualified than the rest of the people in the state. In the Simile of the cave these philosophers represent the freed prisoner accessing the form of good, the visibility of the sun. Because of the philosopher’s ability to access the intelligible realm they should lead the state through politics, combining it with philosophy. They have also seen the truth; therefore their judgement is not clouded by things that are not knowledge in the physical realm. Plato's idea is that knowledge is that of truth. Those who do not have knowledge are not fit to rule a state, as they do not know about things that are good. Knowledge should enable someone to guide the followers to the truth, just as the simile of the cave represents a free person who can see the light, rather than the shadows should guide those in the cave to seeing light too, and being able to distinguish what is good or bad for the state.
In the latter stages of “The cave”, on return of the freed prisoner, Plato states how the freed prisoner has no interest in the shadows, for he has seen the truth. Therefore the person who has accessed true understanding of the form of good will be unwilling to involve himself in everyday life and those members of society who have not understood truth. Yet these are the people Plato sees fit to rule. In order to rule the philosopher rulers must take part in everyday life. There seems to be a problem with the willingness of the philosophers for the lack of it may mean they are unfit after all. However Plato says these individuals are obliged to do so, even though, as part of their character trait they would love philosophy and wish to persue it above the ruling of the society, the philosophers will be educated to know this his duty. Relating to this point Plato emphasises the need for the philosophers above any other members of society to rule, for he suggests that if ruling is assigned to those who want to rule, then this will not be a success and bad government will be the result, power and position will become the objective and not the good of the society. Therefore Plato says that the philosophers’ unwillingness will be an advantage to the governing of the society, as the good of the society will be the only objective for which they are concerned within this job role as rulers.
Plato’s idea on the acquisition of knowledge is very much dependent on his theory of forms. If this theory falls apart, then does the status of his philosophers as the governors of society. For the philosopher ruler is able to understand the forms through the intellect and therefore he gains knowledge of them, because of their knowledge of the forms the philosopher rulers are of higher status in society. However Plato’s theory of forms has many flaws. Plato does not discuss the forms in great depth and hence this theory in itself has aroused many critics. He does not discuss the extent to which the divisions of forms is applied, for example he does not distinguish between the form of “dog” or the many individual breeds of dog as having a form each. We do not know whether through knowledge of the forms the philosopher rulers are able to solve all problems that arise within a society, confirmation cannot be provided because of the many faults in the theory of forms. Because of this the role of the philosopher rulers can be questioned. Are they as successful as Plato suggests? Critics claim the status of the philosopher rulers as desirable leaders is groundless.
Critics of Plato’s ideal state indicate that this form of tyranny could create social diversion, the attitude that society should be governed by a specialist group of individuals can be criticised, for the grouping of people, and stick regulating of society by the philosopher rulers, particularly the allocating of job roles amongst the labelled groupings of people may result in competitiveness or rivalry, thus not creating a desirable state after all.
As the philosopher rulers have true knowledge, Plato, as discussed already sees them as ideal governors. These philosopher rulers have a great understanding of morality, however due to the majority of society being incapable of knowing truths they will have a poor sense of morality, due to this lack of understanding the society would be dangerously lacking in security or stability, the majority will be left with a sense of uneasiness concerning the actions of the philosopher rulers.
When analysing the simile of the cave in terms of Plato’s ideal state, it seems that aspects of it when transferred to everyday society would not work in favour for Plato. He illustrates how the other prisoners ridicule the freed prisoner and do not understand his reasons for leaving in the first place, nor his behaviour on return, they ignore his propositions and continue in their way of life regardless. They do not believe the claims of his findings. When extended to society the majority will not believe the philosopher rulers to be truth tellers, instead they would believe them to be in error, this surely does not make for a desirable society, the outcomes could be that of conflict. Throughout the republic Plato considers the philosopher rulers to be social hierarchy, however given the previous discussion, it would appear not to be the case in reality, for usually we would consider someone’s social ranking dependent on the view of the majority.
When analysing Plato’s the republic, particularly his ideal state, the immense difficulties in creating a flawlessly run society come to light, for it is not easily done. His simile of the cave attracts a great deal of critics because of its problems when applied to society, but because it is an analogy of the way in which Plato views society it does not appear to work well. Plato does not take account of human nature, One cannot ignore this; in order for the philosopher rulers to govern as Plato wished, the people of the society must be the equivalent of robotic. In reality, people, particularly in the 21st century are extremely individualistic, opinionated, and possessive by nature, it is human nature to label. It is implausible to believe that strict early education can change this. However that is not to say that philosophers would not make good rulers, perhaps the knowledge philosophers have can help politics, even in the 21st century.