The Seedling of Political PhilosophyPlato!!!! Essay Example For Students

The Seedling of Political PhilosophyPlato!!!! Essay Tara Political PhilosophyDecember 3,1998Option 1The Seedling of Political PhilosophyPlato!!!!!!!!Political philosophys are the theories and ideas of those who believe that they have an answer to the questions that politics raise in society. The questions that these political philosophers set out to answer range from describing what the state of nature is to what type of regimes are necessary to tame and organize the nature of man.The ideas that they come up with are not all that original. Plato, an early political philosopher and student of Socrates, set out to come up with a society that would function properly.His ideal society would consist of rulers, guardians, and the masses. All of which are molded at a young age to play a societal role in order to contribute to the betterment of their social arena. Plato has gone down in history as one of the better political philosophers to ever live, and arguably the best. While looking at what a society needs, he was able to recognize the n eeds of a society as well as the needs of the individual. He #humbled the ego of man, when he acknowledged that one individual could not survive on his own and that all people are dependent on others to survive. His idea of an organized community has been the focus of many political philosophy debates and has been a stepping stone from which many philosophers have created their own ideal social environment. Though their theories may not be identical to Platos, signs of his structures are definitely evident. Thomas Hobbes, a political philosopher in the seventeenth century, had many theories and ideas that seemed to have coincided with Platos thoughts.Hobbes view of the state of nature was a very primitive one. He felt that in the state of nature there was a war of every man against every man to survive. In the natural state, justice was impossible, because without set limits and structures, everyone has the rights to everything and anarchy is almost inevitable.The only way to escape the unfortunate fate of anarchy would be for everyone to agree to a covenant. In this covenant, all the people would give up their rights and create a sovereign. The conditions of the covenant was to give the sovereign full discretion in dealing with citizens. It was up to the sovereign to protect the lives of the citizens. Quite ironically, the sovereign also had the right to have any citizen #killed. Fortunately, the citizens did not give up their right to fight back and were allowed to, usually to no avai l. As long as the sovereign was keeping the majority of citizens alive and maintaining absolute power, the covenant would be considered successful and a civil society would have been created. The covenant proposed in Leviathan, was meant to help keep the common good of peace. As long as people werent killing each other the common good was being reached and the monarchy was considered successful. If people continued to kill each other the covenant of the absolute sovereign would be looked upon as tyranny. This is clearly comparable to Platos theory of a civil society. Plato pointed out how no one person could survive by them self or without the help of a controlled civil society. Hobbes takes Platos idea of men dependent upon other men, to extremes when he reveals that men will kill each other in order to survive. WHY? Because other people have what we need in order to maintain our lives, whether it be property, food or etc. But why do we need a civil society? Hobbes, again is playing off Platos acknowledgement of the selfishness of man. Because people are selfish and are willing to do whatever it takes to live, they are going to violate others in order to better themselve s. Only in a #society where restrictions and laws are placed upon people, will people begin to work with one another instead of against one another in the effort to survive together and use the resources and expertise that each person has to offer. Though Hobbes way of governing this communal society is a bit different than Plato, it still stems from the same premise. The sovereign that Hobbes describes will be given complete discretion and is trusted to act on what is best for the overall community. Likewise, Platos rulers are trusted to bring the community together in the hopes of making a strong and flourishing civil society. A definite difference between the two rulers of Hobbes and Plato is that Platos ruler would be naturally picked by the individuals inherent wisdom. His ruler would be someone who was born wise and meant to be in the ruling position. Hobbes ruler would be someone who the citizens picked and acknowledged as the absolute sovereign in the societies covenant. Alexis De Tocqueville, a political philosopher of the nineteenth century, is another good example of a philosopher whos ideas where simply branches of Platos philosophical roots. Coming from an aristocracy in France, De Tocqueville went to America to study the prison system. Instead of following through with this study, he found himself intrigued with the political #system that occupied America. His work, Democracy in America, became a political comparison between Aristocracy and Democracy. Instead of looking at the behavior of people in the primitive state of nature, like Plato and Hobbes, he focused on the present and what would be the best political structure for the societies that people were currently in. This way of building his political beliefs was different than Platos and Hobbes way of coming up with their theories, but was still effective in helping him analyze what type of societal structure would most effectively contribute to the common good of each communities individu als. Should voting be compulsory in Australia? EssayKarl Marx, a political philosopher from the nineteenth #century, is another very well known philosopher. Just like Plato, Hobbes and De Tocqueville, Marx had a vision of how a community that is segregated by social classes could possibly take up a new governmental structure that would best help all the citizens of the society, not just the aristocracies of the area. His ideal society would be classless.Marx saw societys structure to be a result of history, that would eventually smooth its way out. The beginning means to his plan of the classless society would commence when a movement towards ending capitalism took effect. He saw capitalism as a way in which the bourgeoisie exploited their workers in order to increase the value of their productions. Unfortunately for capitalism, it had a lethal and self-destructive characteristic that would bring an end to it. This ruinous trait was its voracious need to compete and dominate the product ion market. The competition of the producers to produce more and in turn exploit their workers more, would eventually cause some of the producers to go out of business. With less competition there would be more lower level and oppressed proletarians. The effect of having more proletarians than middle class citizens changed the society from being a capitalist community to a community of socialism. Eventually, this ever changing society would change from socialist environment #to a classless society. Marx held firmly that industrialism would be the key to the classless society. He calculated that more machines bearing the brunt of production would liberate humans from the harsh labor that they had endured. Because machines can produce more in a shorter period of time than humans, he speculated that their would be enough produce to allow everyone to live a generous life. Hence, everyone would have an equal means to a good life and the society would turn from an aristocracy to a classle ss society. This classless atmosphere would be a communist environment where no one person owns land, but instead the property and goods produced on property would be custody of the state, not the individuals of the state. Karl Marxs theory of the state being the owner of all property, in a sense, put all people in the state on an equal level. Because the state owned all the produce and property, they were able to distribute the goods to all the citizens. This would reassure that all citizens well-beings were being met, thus the common good would be attained. Because of Marxs sensitivity towards the proletariat class and their needs, as well as the needs of the middle class, his theories were merely concepts that would help meet the common good #of the state as a whole, not just the elite. Marxs mentality is what puts him in the same class as Plato, Hobbes and De Tocqueville. He sought a means towards improving the community; communism was the final concept he came up with, that he felt could enhance the living styles of all the people within his social arena. The ideas of Hobbes, De Tocqueville and Marx were all ways of making the means meet with an end. They all sought to provide a communal environment where all citizens could live without bias. Though Hobbes sought a monarchy, with one sovereign to lead the state, and De Tocqueville discovered that what is good for one state is not necessarily good for another and Marx founded a communist government he thought would best work for his state; doesnt mean that they did not all share a common goal. It is obvious through their thoughts and words that each of these philosophers focused an immense amount of their attention towards forming the perfect political structures to manage the citizens of their states with. All three of them shared the same goal, their goal was to seek out the finest solutions that would resolve the dilemmas that their states faced, they were all on a quest for the common good. The only thing that separates these writers is the means they used, in an attempt to satisfy the endthe #common good. Plato was the earliest of all the presented philosophers. His ideas and aspirations were all based on the knowledge that he acquired from his teacher, Socrates, and his own experiences. His thoughts of pursuing a common good for a community of people, not just for an individual, were foundational thoughts that had a drastic carry through on political philosophers that would follow. Hobbes, De Tocqueville and Marx have had noteworthy effects on the political systems that have emerged; but I can say with confidence, that at the root of their philosophical writings, is the seedling that Plato first planted. Platos thoughts were the first seedlings and roots in the search for the common good. Hobbes, De Tocquevilles and Marxs writings are the branches that have flourished from Platos seedlings. The ideas and theories of political philosophy owe a great deal to Plato. Without Platos initial seedlings, we wouldnt have the strong foundation that has allowed us to obtain the means which has allowed us to come even closer to achieving the ultimate common good of society.