Alright, finished this. Someone give me some insight. This is

>>7691451
Yes Socrates believes that philosophers are the only proper guardians because of their predisposition to use logic and reason with regards to any sort of conflict.

Its been a while since I've read The Republic but iirc his idea was that justice was that which is "good" or "beneficial" to mankind, and injustice was anything that impeded upon the autonomy of another human being.

Glaucon is pronounced "gl-oww-con"

There are tons of great passages in the book, such as the cave allegory and the myth of err.
I would honestly recommend reading over it 2 or 3 more times to try and fully absorb the messages contained within.

Plato's belief that the Philosopher-King would be an ideal guardian of the state arises from two political observation's Plato made after studying history. The first is that power tends to attract those most unqualified to govern. You'll recall the ideal Philosopher-King is a reluctant ruler. Secondly, Plato readily admits that most people don't have knowledge of what is truly good, that is, they are running on instinct not knowledge. Moreover, Plato also realizes that not everyone can devote time to fostering a knowledge of the good, the city needs craftspeople, soldiers, etc. The purpose of the Philosopher-King who is intimately aware of what is good will allow society to prosper under their guidance. The good in them will be inculcated into the masses.

>>7691451
>Socrates' idea about the philosopher being the ideal "guardian" of the state, is that because the philosopher's wisdom lets him see the vainness and injustice of ignorance, slavery, tyranny, etc?
That's related, but it has more to do with the nature of wisdom and what it entails, which is necessarily a knowledge not had by those without wisdom of political things. Mind, this is also qualified by the suggestion that the philosophers of the "city-in-speech" wouldn't want to rule, but would either have to be persuaded somehow, or compelled by force.

>What exactly is socrates' definition of justice? that didn't come clearly to me.
There are two, sort of, and they both come within close proximity of each other. If I'm recalling rightly, Socrates formally defines justice in the city as "minding one's own business and not being a busybody." This is qualified in the slightly later definition by adding "well" to it, which subtly changes Justice. Roughly, we have justice as it manifests for the city, and justice as it manifests for the philosopher, where it amounts to the ordering of the philosopher's soul.

>How the fuck do you pronounce "glaucon"
Glow-con, more or less.