John Locke 29 August 28 October Two Philosophers Two prominent English political philosophers have had a profound impact on modern political science. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both have made contributions to modern political science and they both had similar views on where power lies in a society. They both are in favor of a popular contract or constitution, which is where the people give the power to govern to their government. This does not necessarily mean a democracy, but can be something as simple as a tribe or as complex as the fictional government described by Plato in The Republic, which is more like an aristocracy or communism rather than a Republic.
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 Plato vs locke argument. 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.
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? And thus protection against possessions?
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 Plato vs locke 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. 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.
One needs to grasp the fact that educated persons know what is better for you, than you do for yourself. 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.
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. 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.An innate idea is a notion people are said to be born with, as opposed to knowledge, which is learned through experience.
Aristotle’s approach was more empirical. While Plato believed in the pre-existence of the soul in the world of ideas, for Aristotle, these ideas merely pre-existed potentially. 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. Although John Locke and Socrates existed over a thousand years apart in time, they had very similar views on how societies are formed, societies duties to.
Aristotle vs Plato comparison. Aristotle and Plato were philosophers in ancient Greece who critically studied matters of ethics, science, politics, and more.
Though many more of Plato's works survived the centuries, Aristotle's contributions have arguably been more influential, particul.
Plato Vs Locke Free Essays. Plato Vs Locke Free Essays.
5 stars based on reviews rutadeltambor.com Essay. Essay on spring season of india thesis about english proficiency in the philippines basic principles in writing a reflective essay neural network thesis good university level essay. Sample essay on terrorism in india long word. Compare and contrast the theories of Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Marx on citizenship, individualism, private property and the state?