significance in Socrates conception and it is this conception, tracing a line between the truth and morality that will help demonstrate that the situation mentioned above does not represent a contradiction.
             It is clearly stated that the Rulers are just persons. It is a condition for them to be what they are. And, at the same time, they have achieved their status by being honest and just (they were meant to be like that since they have access to the absolute truth). It is interesting to notice how Plato does not imply that the power and the access to the pure truth do not make the Rulers corrupt. Therefore, their just condition implies that all their actions can not be different.
             Furthermore, it is implied that they Rulers know exactly what they are doing. They can not be accused of ignorance, since they are superior beings, having access to the supreme knowledge and to the understating of truth. They know how to make the distinction between right and wrong. But, the truth is that they are telling the people they rule a lie. They know it is a lie and still they use it. Under these circumstances, can it still be said that they are just?
             The masses are believed to be stupid, unable of deciding for themselves. Even more, they are not even able of understanding what the truth is and what are the good things for the society that they live in. they do not deserve to be the ones deciding the direction of the society's development. It is the superior people who have access to the truth that are entitled to rule over the others. And since they are superior, this may mean that they are allowed to do anything, since they know the best way for everything. And they can do this regardless of the morality principles. Even lie. But this annuls their just character and only leaves them their superiority. Is it indeed a contradiction in the perspective upon the correct superior leaders of the republic? Or is it a different perspective upon moralit...