I interpret it to mean that, those not philosophically inclined consent to the confines of societal constructs and control.

Am I and Unhappy Hiram the only two souls who consider this ridiculous? So philosophers grasp the eternal and unchangeable and the rest of us who wander in the regions of the variable and the plethora of ideas aren't capable of being thought philosophers? Well, whoever the pedantic boob was who professed this needs psychiatric help. First of all, nothing is eternal, except perhaps the quest for truth, and all things change for those whose minds are capable of grasping new ideas. The so called philosophers who grasp the eternal and unchangeable are mentally petrified. Their complacency, with its implied superiority, denigrates the essence and the meaning of philosophy, which is a love of learning. It's much harder to learn anything when you think you already know it all. If you ask me to choose between your "philosophers" and those of us who wander in the regions of the variable and infinite, I'll stay where I am and continue to ask why, to try to understand, to fathom the unfathomable, and, for as long as this heart of mine keeps beating, never stop trying!

It means Plato was a rubbish thinker. Philosophy belongs in no such cage.

If whoever wrote that really wanted us to understand it, they should have written it clearer.

(or maybe given examples) I don't know who are the many and the variable. But I would

guess the rulers of the state should be (not the philosophers) if they write legislation in

a similar manner as that.

The philosopher does not have the wisdom sought, while the sage, on the other hand, does not love or seek wisdom, for it is already possessed. Socrates in the Symposium examines two categories of persons who do not partake in philosophy:

Gods and sages, because they are wise;

Senseless people, because they think they are wise.

The position of the philosopher is between these two groups. The philosopher is not wise, but possesses the self-awareness of lacking wisdom, and thus pursues it.

The learned philosopher or sage is fit to rule, while the senseless people ruled by emotion are not.

Plato's "theory of Mind" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy_of_the_divid... ) includes this point: the "greater" is able to comprehend the "lesser;" e.g., a "true philosopher" understands "the street" by understanding the Eternals, whereas an "eikasia"-, "pistis"-, or even a "dianoia"-type awareness understands at those respective levels. Thus the notion that "philosophers are only able to grasp" is a counter-argument, but one that Plato did not find--per his own personal awareness--to be true.

"Plato" is the nickname of the gentleman born to Ariston and Perictione, both of whom were of Athenian nobility. "Plato" is from the Greek platys (like duck-billed "platypus," broad-footed), and referred to his broad shoulders (he was a good wrestler). Plato is a type of person who is Realized (like Nietzsche's "overcomer," two of N's examples being Goethe and da Vinci https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_o... ) and understood that "the best" or "noble" (the latter being a kind of pro forma way of discerning or assigning merit or realization/ability) would be best able to handle decisions (justice, planning, and legislating--the tripartite functions of governing) for all. It may be worth noting in the history of ideas that as civilizations develop to support "thinking" as an "academic pursuit," that the caricature of an "impractical thinker" comes to the fore. In Athens, this caricature was addressed by Plato, who simply knew better.

Related; "The Slightest Philosophy," "A Philosophy of Universality," "The Answer You're Looking for Is inside You." (It may be worthwhile to note the philosophic pun in the book title "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar" :-)

p.s. If you're in a philosophy course, a good help, despite its title, is Professor Tom Morris' "Philosophy for Dummies."

Plato in the voice of Socrates is saying that there are two classes of people - philosophers and average people. Philosophers know about the deeper, more eternal truths which are unchanging. The common people who "wander in the region of the many" are not philosophers. He asks the question "From which class of people - Philosophers or common people - should rulers come from? His answer was that the ideal ruler should be a Philosopher/King, someone who had the wisdom of a philosopher.

Yes.

I can definitely send that SOMEONE to render maximum help to you. He will explain. He is a philosopher and he can easily grasp ...... everything unknown to us. That "someone" will solve everything without any clash of interests.