A Comparison of the True Philosopher Kings

Political Philosophy 349 | Exam 1 | A comparison of the true Philosopher kings | | Joseph Roszhart | California State University at Northridge |
11/10/2012

|

So many way and myriad of themes to compare Plato’s Republic and Hobbes Leviathan; one of the most striking points to be made is that the share philosophical similarities once you get passed their differences. Most of us can agree that they share the same thought of that a government is essential and that humans can be destructive; but these philosophers differ on how the perceives humans, their roles in society and they have dramatic different views on human nature all together. Plato and Hobbes fundamental disagreements on human nature and its impacts of society and there for every aspect of life, these to have their opposing views. Both agree that the state is necessary, but the manner and their reasoning’s for its setup and equality are different. Plato has a positive outlook on human nature and Hobbes has a more cynical view of the laws of human nature.
Both of them realize that without some sort of hierarchy that society would fall and the citizens would give into their desires. Plato’s division of labor will fall and destroy his ideal state and his idea of justice, moral and political guidance system for the “Classes;” The leaders, “the philosopher kings,” the military “guardian class” and bronze the working class. Plato states that each individual plays a role in society and has a job best suited for them which helps give the citizens the best possible quietly if products. The guardian classes, according to Plato, have certain traits that make them politically, morally and more just the others. The guardian class represents truth and justice, Plato thinks this is necessary because humans will fall to their desires. The ladders, “philosopher kings,” are dealt with the task of determining true justice and law. With their training in politics they would be the sovereign of the state. In Plato’s design there is no class that has complete possession of “truth” and as a result the political system is different, that the role of the state is a necessary entity. Without a government to rule society, humans beings would have no way of regulating the treaties they formed with one another and mass chaos would spread.
Hobbes and his pessimistic view of mankind thinks that humans live in a “continual fear and danger of violent death , and the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” this is why Hobbes believes that a state is required. Although both Hobbes and Plato agree that there needs to be a state the both have opposing views on how to create and maintain a sovereign state. First both of them have different views on the nature of human beings, Plato states the humans want what is intrinsically good, whereas Hobbes states that humans desires what best protects them and that the state if nature us living in a state of chaos because of human desires. Unlike Hobbes, Plato thinks that humans want what is best and would listen to the “philosopher kings” and there higher calling. Hobbes does not believe that humans can have possession of any truth and thus does not see the state as being an entity that is qualified to pass down moral judgment. In fact, he doesn’t seem to believe morality should even be in a hierarchy; that the role of a governing body is to simply enforce the rights of its people and avoid bodily harm to keep society at a peaceful state. The driving difference between these two are that Hobbes believes that man are constantly at war with each other because no man is ever happy with what they own; whereas Plato thinks that man want what is called a just life.
Another main issue that these two differentiate on is equality. Plato states that man can be divided into three categories as I mentioned above; Gold (philosopher kings), Silver (guardian class) and Bronze (working class). Plato’s political system supports a government to pass down ideas of justice, morality and over course keep human desires in line. Hobbes on the other hand believes that no one can have ultimate truth and that there is no difference in the strongest and the weakest; we are all equally strong and weak in different areas. Hobbes believes the main role of the state is law enforcement; in the view of to keep people from hurting each other.
On a contemporary of Hobbes, Lock has always advocated a more democratic system of government where people are more active with the political process. Lock believes that the political process involves a higher order or reason and requires more freedoms; speech and tolerance of different beliefs. Lock took Hobbes state of nature and created the theory “Natural Rights” one of the major differences that Lock perceives is the being in a state of equilibrium; having stability. Lock states, in so many words, that a strong state is capable of being tyrannical because a government does not guarantee the absence of conflict. Although Lock mention that a state can become tyrannical he also believes, un-like Hobbes but more like Plato, is that property is a “natural right.” Plato’s design is that we all sure and therefore everyone has property where as Hobbes thinks humans protect themselves at all cost.
Lock also would disagree with Plato on the thought that humans want what is good or a just life; which Plato leads us to assume that these are innate knowledge. Lock believes that humans come to this world as a “Tabula-rasa;” a blank tablet and that humans gather information through or senses and experience. Plato thinks that humans have innate knowledge and that is part of the process he uses to come up with his division of humans; some people have a higher innate knowledge “philosopher kings and guardians” that is how a bronze class citizen can give birth to a gold class child.
Lock, Hobbes and Plato all agree that there is need of a sovereign body. They all have their own views and processes to come up with the creation and maintenance of this idea of government. The big ideas are this Plato’s think that humans have innate knowledge and want a just life, Hobbes believes everyone is brutish and only want to protect themselves and Lock believes in “natural rights,” property and that the government duty is to protect those rights. In the end they all piggy backed each other’s thoughts and improved on them, in my personal thought they are all right but I have to look at the time line of these great philosopher kings and implement the increasing knowledge and experiences these people went through; that changed their views and processes and that is how they came up with their theories.

Question number 3
The relationship between a hopeless romantic and an idealist seems a little far-fetched but the similarities between Rousseau and Plato are not that far off. Plato goes above and beyond plain emotions to a higher rationality, he envisions an aristocratic state and has great virtue which requires discipline among his citizens, Rousseau puts his emotions before reason and wants a democratic state with lavish freedom. Both Rousseau and Plato have abandoned the traditional way of education and created a unique and at that time almost cynical way of educating the youth; they both think that passing on the responsibility of educating the youth from families to a selected person Paragon/s, to captures the youths imagination, censor certain stories and propaganda, and hard supervision. Plato teaches “what is justice” he implements in such a way that it serves the republic and creates a program needed to achieve certain virtues. Many of Plato’s educational structure are adopted by most democracies, education is mostly free to all to both males and females, has attendance requirements, and follows a age development. Although Plato’s curriculum is completely different then modern schools; he focused on the classics and in athletic skills such as archery and military training. As mentioned above Plato’s plan serves the state in almost every aspect. Plato’s emphasis on athletics and military insures to make compliant and healthy citizen; the healthier the more merchandise production. He also insures to keep traditions the same by regulating games children play and also offers no assistance to handicapped children. Like most democracies today Plato used a system broken down by age groups such as 20 year olds study mathematics and at age 30 they studied philosophy and so on.
For the Guardian class, Plato makes an even tighter and more regulated training program; takes away all emotional relationships, family and intimate. The guardians must devote themselves to the virtue of justice and interest of the state. He also implements a censorship the goes beyond the class. He states the children are not allowed to create or listen to anything the conflicts with his view of being just, the forms, courage discipline or what is determined to be the best interest for the state.
Like Plato, Rousseau seeks almost complete control of education. Rousseau seeks for a more democratic state and a more natural suffused education. In the works of Emile, Rousseau lays out his plan for creating an education system that aims to bringing out the best qualities in molding a child’s character. Since Rousseau believes that man is naturally good his program is made to protect the children from all things that are not good. A tutor teaches the children and remains in control of the child the parents have little to no role. Rousseau, unlike Plato bands all form of formal instruction.
Rousseau does not except the role of education and women, infect he views women and education in a negative and totally inconceivable. He views is that women are limited to the roles of wife and mother. Emile was drastic and for Sophie was not drastic at all. Rousseau plan had a reversion to primitive thoughts on the education of women, which offered minimal training while insisting on woman’s inability to reason. A Rousseau states freedom of movement and physical action of women asserts to the weak bodies and creates weak minds. At the same time he discourages Sophie from too much physical activity and uses her weakness as another proof of her inferiority. He thinks woman cannot reason, so they cannot maintain a state of morality, and must be watched throughout life; in my views Rousseau is confused and does not understand female hormones. Rousseau proposes that Sophie (women in general) must be made to love, although he makes the strong statement that women will never understand rationality.
Rousseau assumes a man's marriage with women is a form shame. He believes on the important roles of women is motherhood and having the role of “mothershoodship.”According Rousseau in book I, he acknowledges their primacy in the education of youth; denying women the ability to reason he denies them the ability to raise children.
Wollstonecraft sees Rousseau’s view of women as weaker and more passive than men due to their physical inferiority, a woman ought to sacrifice every bodily comfort to render herself agreeable to a man, and she should be completely inferior mentally and educational wise.
As Wollstonecraft explains, Rousseau is stating, that women are quite incapable of understanding what is told to them, and they care only about their behavior; personally I think he is referring to mood swings and hormonal changes. Wollstonecraft understand Rousseau writing as that women must be taught their societal roles early; to be thought as attractive, almost sexually, they are under constant and severe restraint by men in their physically and mentally. Rousseau argues that women should have as little natural rights as possible because they will take advantage to what is given to them. Wollstonecraft disagrees with Rousseau; she writes that men have “superior strength of body; but were it not for mistaken notions of beauty, women would acquire sufficient to enable them to earn their subsistence, the true definition of independence; and to bear those bodily inconveniences and exertions that are requisite to strengthen the mind.” Wollstonecraft does not understand why, even though a woman should be beautiful and innocent, her understanding should be sacrificed as well. She does not see a beneficial marriage state for an insipid, frivolous woman and a shallow man.