Describe the philosopher-king and the tyrant as complete opposites, the former being the best sort of human being while the latter exemplifies the worst of humanity.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR REQUEST

1. Do not consult secondary sources. You must only leverage your understanding of Plato’s Republic only. I have attached a copy of the book for easy reference.

2. You should support your argument with relevant quotations and through the use of paraphrase. Whatever position you take in your essay, you must explain why you think as you do.

3. Your explanation must point to those passages in the text that support your conclusion.

4. Please develop your ideas and explain them thoroughly do not only provide a single sentence in support of any given stance. Please provide ample evidence from the text in order to support your position.

5. All quotations and references to specific passages must be cited in APA Format. Citations may appear in the form of standard foot- or endnotes or in the body of your paper using the author-date system.

6. You must append a bibliography giving the complete reference.

ESSAY QUESTION – At the conclusion of the Republic, Plato has Socrates describe the philosopher-king and the tyrant as complete opposites, the former being the best sort of human being while the latter exemplifies the worst of humanity. Still, they have in common that both are absolute rulers. Their power over their subjects is unlimited. What, then, distinguishes the philosopher-king and the tyrant as rulers? On your reading of the dialogue, does Plato make a compelling case for regarding the philosopher-king, in his political role, as the opposite of the tyrant?