FREE ESSAY ON THE SEEDLING OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY...PLATO!!!!

THE SEEDLING OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY...PLATO!!!!

Tara 
Political Philosophy
December 3,1998
Option 1
The Seedling of Political Philosophy...Plato!!!!!!!!
Political philosophy's 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 needs 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 Plato's, 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 Plato's 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 avail. 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 weren't 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 Plato's 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 Plato's 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 Plato's 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 themselves. 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, Plato's 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 Plato's ruler would be naturally picked by the
individual's 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 who's ideas where simply branches of Plato's 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 Plato's 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 individuals.
Being from France, De Tocqueville was intrigued by the amount of political freedom that
all people, from the lowest to the highest social classes were entitled to. It amazed him
how the United States could manage to maintain such a strong political system without
having a central dominating party that had the final say in what laws were passed. Much
to his surprise, people of even the lowest financial class were able to give an opinion
as to what rules and laws the government should pass. This was evident in the U.S.
judicial system, were every person was capable of being on a jury and deciding the fate
of another person. The person on trial was not simply heard by a single superior being,
but instead was given the chance to convey his side of the case to 
#
a jury of many people. This gave the plaintiff an equal shot at justice despite what his
social status may be. Because the jury was randomly selected amongst all citizens, from
all social statures. This judicial system protected the rights of the individuals and
maintained the nations declaration of the common good. The jury that is selected would be
comparable to Plato's guardians, who's job was to defend what the founders had
established. Likewise, the jury's job is to make sure that everyone gets a fair shot at
justice, a right that America's founders set out to uphold.
Among other things, De Tocqueville was dumb founded by the ease with which people were
able to voice their opinions. And, despite their opinions, people seemed more willing to
follow the rules and laws that the nation set, even if the weren't in favor of them. He
came to the conclusion that,
"...as long as the majority is still undecided, discussion is carried on, but as soon as
its decision is irrevocably pronounced, every one is silent, and the friends as well as
the opponents of the measure unite in assenting to its propriety"(De Tocqueville,
Princeton Readings of Political Thought,p.416).
Because decisions such as, what laws and rules to pass, are decided by a majority after
weighing the pros and cons, people are more willing to yield to the ruling because it has
been fairly 
#
analyzed and presented by both sides, not just by a monarch with absolute power and say.
The absence of a monarch in America was to assure that the goal of the common good would
never be endangered by injustice. 
The way that America handles it's citizens, allows for amendments to laws and an equal
chance for everyone to succeed, regardless of individual's preceding family histories.
Here we are able to see another similarity to Plato's Republic when De Tocqueville
directs his attention to how the people of America work together to build a strong
community, instead of fighting each other to survive, they are aware of their dependency
upon others. One person cannot pass a law in America, a majority vote is needed in order
to pass laws that are in the best interest of the country as a whole, not just an
individual. De Tocqueville, explored the common good of America and was able to locate
the precise reasoning as to why the United States' political system could continue to
progress in such a democratic framework without any major outbursts of anarchy. After
dissecting the political system and people of the country, his conclusion became clear.
People in the United States have come from many different origins and have come together
in search of a common good. The common good that became the foundation of America was
independence, that 
#
could only be fully found in a democratic society. Many of the people that came to the
United States, came from places of oppression and monarchal rule and were deathly afraid
of any monarchal reoccurrence. With the founding fathers of the United States all in
agreement that they wanted a secure system that would prohibit any type of monarchy, the
common good of equality and freedom for all citizens came into play. This agreement,
though quite different in content, was equivalent to the covenant that Hobbes' society
abided by, in that it was an agreement that everyone honored. 
What baffled De Tocqueville, was why such a democratic configuration wouldn't be feasible
in Europe. In his comparison study he confronted the reasons as to why the specific
democratic system of America was viable there, but not in his native Europe. The
justification that he came up with is actually quite interesting. The aristocratic ways
of Europe have been so engraved in their political system, that any attempt at complete
Democracy would cause more conflicts than compliments to their social arena. People in
Europe are enthralled by their past ancestry and culture. Because these people are
leading lives with such social segregation, any glimpse of complete equality would lead
to more upheavals than celebrations. Bringing people of 
#
lower classes and higher classes to a point where they are no longer separated by
financial or family restraints would cause more chaos on the society. With people holding
their ancestry so close to their hearts, feelings of spite and harshness are bound to
deliver a mass anarchy, that would outweigh the societal unity that would normally be
expected with the budding of equality and independence. Democracy would not be in the
interest of the European countries because of the nature of their citizens, and the
strong traditional feelings that they hold. The common good of Europe is not necessarily
the same as America's. De Tocqueville deducted an answer that seemed to be pretty
accurate when looking at the two government structures. He was very practical when he
decided to base his social ideals on the present situations of people, instead of trying
to start from the very primitive and natural stages of humans. Though this aspect of his
research is different than Plato's and Hobbes', it still allowed him to come up with a
pretty similar solution to the two preceding philosophers. De Tocqueville's way of
looking at society allowed him to see that though a Democracy may be the best way for
America to reach it's common good, a Democracy may not be as efficient when dealing with
the different communities of Europe.
Karl 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 society's structure to be a result of history, that would
eventually smooth it's 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
it's voracious need to compete and dominate the production 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 "classless" 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 Marx's 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 Marx's 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. Marx's 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;
doesn't 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 end...the 
#
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. Plato's thoughts were the first seedlings and roots in the search for the
common good. Hobbes', De Tocqueville's and Marx's writings are the branches that have
flourished from Plato's seedlings. The ideas and theories of political philosophy owe a
great deal to Plato. Without Plato's initial seedlings, we wouldn't 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.