When examining the Gorgias, by Plato, and Beyond Good and Evil, by Nietzsche, both author’s give their opinion of truth. Plato believes that truth can be used to defeat rhetoric, and even more importantly, that a philosopher king could use it to lead the masses. This claim is based on the notion that absolute truths exist, the masses aren’t fit to rule, and the philosopher king would have unopposed power. As for Nietzsche, he believes that “every truth is a partial truth or perspectival fiction” (Nietzsche xxiii). This is because everyone, including philosophers, hold a specific position on an issue and cannot possibly know everyone’s position, leading to a biased truth. However, he too believes that not everyone is equal, but he doesn’t think that philosophers are an exemption. In fact, he believes that philosophers are among the worst at claiming that their biases/prejudices are the truth. As such, I argue that Nietzsche’s conclusion prevails because Plato fails to recognize that he has a bias in favor of the philosopher’s ability to discover truth and remove their own prejudices. However, let’s begin by constructing their arguments and seeing where their opinions come from. First, looking at the evidence Plato provides for why he believes the philosopher king is most likely to find truth. He uses a debate between his teacher, Socrates, and Gorgias, who brags about his orator abilities. Socrates begins to question Gorgias and his student Polus over what they should be