Plato and Confucius?

Question

Plato's Philosopher King and Confucius' Sage Emperor?

I am not a scholar (an interested amateur) so I am looking for an answer I can understand (references would be good I enjoy books and lectures, but not the internet); Both of these concepts (oddly, formed at about the same time) seem to be very similar and the consequences to their author's were also similarly negative (Socrates was executed and Confucious died a poor, isolated man).

I would enjoy hearing how these two concepts disagree (IF they disagree), or I would like to hear how they could have been developed at almost the exact same time, worlds apart.

Answer 1

Well, let's start with clearing up a bit of the debris.  First of all, most scholars tend to agree that the notion of a philosopher-king is not one that was necessarily native to Socrates.  He was famous for deriding the democracy of Athens, and several of his students actually did overthrow the democracy for periods of time, but they established an oligarchy and a tyranny, neither of which Socrates had any interest in being involved with.  He seemed to see his role as critic, not leader by any stretch.

Of course, his ideas undoubtedly informed Plato's ideas, but by the time Plato brings up the notion of a philosopher king it's thirty years after Socrates' death and what the character Socrates says in The Republic is probably much more Plato than Socrates.  This is also two hundred years after Confucius, so it may even be that the two concepts you mention are not quite so isolated from each other as they may seem.

A couple interesting differences between the two become readily apparent.  Plato thought that a true philosopher actually wouldn't WANT to lead unless he was forced to... he would be far more interested in pursuing his various philosophic studies instead of taking time out of his schedule to run things.  Likewise, even though a philosopher was dedicated to the truth and beaty in all things, he wouldn't be obligated in any way to share it.  In the sample government he proposed in The Republic, it's actually the opposite:  because workers and warriors can't understand and appreciate truth like philosophers, they are constantly manipulated and deceived to gain their cooperation.

Confucius' life experiences and political goals are in many ways the complete opposite of this.  His Sage Emperor was as much a shining model to the people of morality as anything else.  His power was sharply limited and constant truthfulness was an absolute requirement.  But because Confucius thought that moral perfection should be everyone's goal, to him it would be natural for everyone to want to be the Sage Emperor if they could.  Since Confucius ideally has everyone moving in the same moral direction anyway, the Sage Emperor is the leader simply because he's the best at moving in that direction.  Governmental force would only be necessary for dissidents and aliens.  Confucius himself spent years seeking one political office after another.

The Great Learning goes over this notion, if briefly.  It's not the primary introduction to Confucianism by accident, after all.

That's may take, for what it's worth.  Hope that helps!