What Is Plato's Second Premise False?

Continuing off of those points, Plato has an argument that cities come to be certain ways because of the ways that the people are as I mentioned before and if that’s true then there must be as many kinds of people as there are kind of cities. Therefore, there are as many kinds of people as there are kinds of cities. This is where I have a problem with Plato’s argument. I believe that even if cities have their characteristics because of the type of people that live in them, the number of kinds of cities don’t add up to the number of kinds of people. Cities can have mixtures of people. With my argument, I make Plato’s second premise deemed false. My thought process for this is that there can be cities that have a variety of people, but it could

City A are filled with only nice people, City B is filled with bad people and City C is filled with bad and good people. This means that there are two kinds of people (bad and good), but only three cities. Therefore, Plato’s second premise would be false, making his conclusion false and his argument no longer valid. This argument would successful against Plato because the reasons above would be valid enough to prove that Plato’s second premise would be false. Again, because of the mixture in cities, they can have people who repeat the same qualities over and over again making the number of cities outnumber the kinds of people. The only way that Plato’s argument could be real is if each city had a unique aspect and did not repeat characteristics between people. Take the example I just used, if instead of City C having a mixture of bad and good people, it consists of average people then his theory would be correct, but in most cases, I believe that each city will always have a mixture of people because of characteristics that humans share with one

I answered and explained two of Plato’s main questions which were: What is justice? And what leads to democracy? I touched upon some features where Plato’s talks about how they help make the city just such as wives must be in common, children and all their education must be in common as well as that sex is only restricted by the rulers. When a mother is in childbearing years, the rulers can decide who can have sex with who and after they complete that, anything except incest would be allowed. Following the definition of a just city of man, Plato and Socrates listed five cities where he believed each of the cities had their own type of people which made the city how it was such as democratic, tyranny and oligarchic. Plato’s argument was as followed: Cities come to be certain ways because of the ways their individual people are. If that’s true, then there must be as many kinds of people as there are kinds of cities. So, there are as many kinds of people as there are kinds of cities. As I mentioned in my paper, I did not agree with his argument and came up with an objection to it and why it would succeed against Plato. My argument was: if you have three cities; City A, City B, and City C. City A are filled with only nice people, City B is filled with bad people and City C is filled with bad and good people. This means that there are two kinds of