In Socrates' anonymous thought experiment about a city, as described by Plato, none of the social classes possess as much intrigue as the Guardians. Appointed by Socrates as militaristic defenders or leaders at birth, depending on the sub-sect to which the individual guardian belongs, they nevertheless enjoy less freedom and material satisfaction than those they protect. However, the implication is that Socrates believes that justice derives at least in part from servitude and the personal denial of conventional comfort, although the forced nature of both raises serious questions about the genuine veracity of the guardians' just nature. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The most notable aspect of the guardian establishment proposed by Socrates is their proto-communist, smurf social structure. The strict limitations and mandates placed on guardians are also the most glaring structural anomaly, at least when viewed through the lens of our culture and society. Socrates' first statement is that no guardian "should own any private property, except what is necessary." By denying the guardian class their natural right to property, Socrates arguably forces it to derive satisfaction from a seemingly vital source of internal complacency which in turn derives its “power” from the knowledge that the city is protected. The denial of ownership also depersonalizes individual guardians, which in turn defuses or dampens any revolts. Because, without any material possessions, their primary loyalty cannot waver to the state, and the protection of private property is replaced by the protection of the state status quo, since the former is almost non-existent. And, since property rights can indeed be considered the cornerstone of human rights themselves, Socrates not only denies them private property, but dehumanizes them by transforming them into a faceless mass designated to watch over the city. Therefore, it can be argued that through the denial of property, Socrates has made each individual guardian an expendable entity whose sole purpose is to preserve the sanctity of the state and propagation to achieve the same ends. As a natural extension of the denial of private property to guardians, Socrates then dictates that no individual can have “a dwelling or a storehouse which no one who wishes may enter.” This is, of course, a further reinforcement of Socrates' proto-communist social structure, designed specifically for guardians. However, with this new clarification on the exact amount of private property that guardians can consider “theirs,” Socrates also cements the concept that guardians must be true servants of the state, to the point of having to sacrifice the basic human rights that they themselves stand for. protecting, even if it is the protection of the rights of ordinary people rather than of themselves. This is probably Socrates' idea of ​​the ideal and definitive politician: one who sacrifices himself for the state and all its citizens. One can only assume, then, that Socrates would be disappointed by our current situation with respect to the comparative levels of comfort that our politicians, or modern guardians, enjoy vis-à-vis citizens, or ordinary people (in line with the ideal city/ current American society). Although this only represents the ruling sub-sect of guardians, as individuals in the military could probably be considered more in line with Socrates' code on guardianship. One of Socrates' last mandates could also be considered the most esoteric, as well as being the most difficult to accept. It is also a multi-faceted plan,although it revolves around the propagation of the guardian class. In a complex and meticulously detailed plan, full of Freudian implications, Socrates establishes that not only women are to be considered equal to men, but all wives and children must "be common" to all other guardians. The concept put forward by Socrates, that men and women are capable of carrying out the tasks required of guardians with equal efficiency and effectiveness, was not surprisingly found to be very controversial by those he addressed at the time. However, rather than immediately objecting to female equality on the basis of physical or mental ability, Socrates' philosophical compatriots primarily take issue with the implication that women, being equal, will subsequently be permitted (or, rather, required) to exercise naked with men , as was apparently customary at the time (Plato 86). Detractors continue with this reasoning, pointing out that it is not necessarily the exercise of nudity that they disagree with, but rather the observation of the exercise of nudity by women of “advanced age” (Plato 86). Socrates, to his credit, immediately dismisses this as a frivolous and superficial argument, and says that “the women of our guardians must undress for their exercises, as they will wear virtue instead of robes.” The objections continue, and mainly concern more conventional claims against male/female equality, but these too are deftly dismissed by Socrates. Socrates then proposes that all wives and children be held “in common” with the entire community of guardians. The most logistically difficult aspect of this plan is the aspect of common wives, and Socrates therefore proposes that marriages are not determined by the individuals involved, rather, it is in the best interests of the city that "the best of both sexes be brought together as often as possible." To this end Socrates establishes that “certain feasts” will be held, in which predetermined pairings of the “best” guardians will take place, so as to ensure purity and excellence in the guardian class, while the least excellent of guardians will otherwise be prohibited from sexual interaction. While the opinions of those surrounding Socrates during these ceremonies were primarily concerned with logistical issues, it is easy, viewing the proposal through a lens of modernity, to see how Socrates' concept of mating excellence could only be used to support a eugenics-like agenda through which “undesirables” are slowly eliminated from the gene pool through the process of predetermined relationships. One of Socrates' last commandments regarding the way of life of the guardian class is that children, born from matings that occurred during the holidays, are considered children of the entire community, without the children knowing the identity of their parents, and vice versa. (Plato 92). This draws a curious parallel with modernity, in particular with Hillary Rodham Clinton's book It Takes a Village, in which the former First Lady proposes a more metaphorical version of keeping all children in common, which certainly raises questions about what other ways of life "enjoyed" them. the guardians Mrs. Clinton might marry. Almost disturbingly, however, Socrates is very precise in the logistical process of keeping children communal, from allowing “imperfect children” to be hidden in a “mysterious and unknown hiding place” to forcing mothers to care for children who do not they are their children. possess when "their breasts are full." Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a custom essay The main role of guardians in Socrates' thought experiment on an The ideal city.