Plato Vs Locke

In analyzing the works of Plato and John Locke I feel that Plato presents a more accurate idealism in how a society should be maintained. Plato puts ultimate power in those with the highest knowledge. I feel that this concept is necessary in order to have a successful regime, thus I support in my argument.

Plato's theory hand picks guardians to become Philosopher Kings. These kings are those with "Gold" Souls, and in fact do not wish to become such a hierarchal figure. Plato chooses Guardians who do not wish to earn the title of Philosopher Kings because without desire to rule, the only reasoning left is for the good of others, and not a selfish feat. It's an obligation to put one's high knowledge to good use. Locke puts the people in charge of choosing their government, and feel that government's main task is to protect property. Additionally, Locke feels that in the state of nature one is able to live, act and dispose of possessions however one feels necessary to themselves. With this in mind, is it even conceivable that one would choose a government without their complete personal interests in mind? Trying to construct a perfect society, when everyone has so many personal attachments to obtain to, then ideas would not be set in the focus of a whole society, but on the individual's well being. When following Plato's theory on the Philosopher Kings ruling for the good of others, would not the good of others include their safety in society? And thus protection against possessions? In an ideal regime whereby it is classified as Ð''utopia' things such as protection are not questioned, as there would be no wrongdoing for protection to need to come into play for.

Guardians have no possessions at all. They are separated from their children at birth to prevent family ties from overriding the loyalty to the state. This is to confirm that decisions made are in the best interest of others, without attachments to their own lives. Plato states that the soul has three parts, a rational, spirited, and an appetite. With these three parts, it is argued that acts of tyranny are the consequence of giving into our baser desires, and that a virtuous person always follows rational decisions, rather than the spirited or appetite. The rational part ensures the health of the whole. Plato states that we adopt what is valued the most in a society. Therefore to avoid unwanted traits, then you simply do not have them present in society. Who's to decide what wanted traits are? If the majority of a population finds drinking alcohol a wanted trait, then since more people favor that trait then not favor it, one might argue, should it be allowed? Arguably, you can say that sin is allowed as long as it does not harm anyone. With that said though, what good could alcohol bring in the structure of society? Does it just serve as a pleasure for the individual and not for the majority? How could it help a society to prosper, with it inflicting presumably more chaos than good? Intoxicated minds prove to be tyrannical, and thus, by never having tyranny present in society, you would not have to conceive such situations. Plato believes in purity, and although it may take away from people's expression, it serves to maximize the happiness of all, even if some people's feelings may need to be sacrificed along the way, so be it. One needs to grasp the fact that educated persons know what is better for you, than you do for yourself. Falling into a wanted trait, such as drinking alcohol, is following ones desires, which is not rational, and to be rational is the only way to be in order to think with other people's interests in mind. Locke firmly believes that all people have the ability to use reason to find the correct moral path. Under Plato, the philosopher Kings go through fifty years of intensive education in order to have the right amount of intellect when concerning themselves with the decision making on a whole society. Therefore, how possibly could uneducated citizens even be able to gain a percentage of the Philosopher King's knowledge? Being uneducated results in one making decisions on the wrong level, and following desires for things they think they understand, and simply ignoring everything else. So, it would make sense to place the most knowledgeable on the plank to make decisions?

Locke states that when government is not good that the people may overthrow them in majority and reform a new government. What is to say that the government is not good? Do you define this on the amount of money they put towards a society? Is not everything under Plato put solely towards society, so if there was lacking, it would simply be lacking in resources which would be inevitable with or without the government. Would you judge a bad government by the lack of listening to the people's concerns? Why would the government listen to the people's concerns when the people are not on the same intellectual level as the Philosopher Kings, therefore it would be like asking a child for advice in an adult world; their opinions, although important, are mostly irrelevant in criticism. One may argue that people are not educated because they were not granted that right, so the people are not listened to, from a reason that is not by their choice. If one does not have the potential to be chosen for education, then why would you waste the resources on them? You are fighting to say that they have a right, but when knowing that they do not have the capacity to think on the same wavelength as another citizen. Blocking out the bronze souls is like filtering out the bad minds, and leaving room only for the divine minds to give their opinion. If you were to educate everyone, and everyone was to put the same amount of effort and time into their research, and among testing, the results showed vast differences in I.Q, would you still invite all of those people to a meeting to discuss future matters? I would not think so, you would want the top scholars, whereas the others, although given the same opportunity just were not born with the same qualities needed to be specially educated. Philosopher Kings, with their high intelligence, can sense who has the capacity to learn to the fullest extent and who does not. So you are skipping the process of having to educate everyone, only to have a portion be able to show the results.

Philosopher Kings choose whether citizens have a bronze, silver or gold soul. Earlier, when stating the three elements of the soul that Plato discusses, it is the ones with Bronze souls whom become producers. They are those who desire money and earthy goods; ones whom are interested primarily in the