He addresses that “the city really belongs to them, yet they derive no good from it” (Plato 95 [IV. 419]). The guardians govern and guide their city and the rest of the city’s residents, but gain nothing that is tangible in return for their service. Adeimantus remains adamant about defending the guardians potential for unhappiness when continuing on to describe that “others own land, build fine big houses, acquire furnishings to go along with them, make their own private sacrifices to the gods, entertain guests, and also, of course, possess . . . gold and silver and all the things that are thought to belong to people who are blessedly happy” (Plato 95 [IV. 419]). In other words, people from a lower class can hold property, obtain riches and live in luxurious and independent houses, while the guardians are subjected to live together in mediocre community housing, owning nothing of their …show more content…
In regards to painting a statue, he explains, “you mustn’t expect us to paint the eyes so beautifully that they no longer appear to be eyes at all, and the same with other parts. Rather you must look to see whether by dealing with each part appropriately, we are making the whole statue beautiful” (Plato 95-96 [IV. 420d-e]). When he refers to painting the different features of the statue, he’s really describing the three classes. When he refers to the beauty of the statue as a whole, he’s describing the city, with all three classes working and living harmoniously. This analogy is meant to show that an artist will paint a statue in a way that complements the whole thing. The same goes for their hypothetical city. Socrates states that the city and its classifications aren’t meant to tailor the specific needs of one specific class. Instead, it’s meant to ensure the good of the city, in its