在essay代写-柏拉图和卢梭所宣扬的意识形态中，社会正义变得毫无意义。从本篇论文范文中可以了解到，公民社会中存在着价值体系的创造。可以看出，简单的二分法是显而易见的。一种古老的哲学存在于以公民社会的社会建构为基础的社会之中(Riesenberg, 1994)。这是一个明显的两分法，体现在人们拥抱社会的方式上。人们想要独立生活。现代性和人的概念是建立在从社会枷锁中发展出来的自由之上的。最终，这两种理论归结为社会是如何构建和看待的概念。社会中的人们需要问的问题是，他们如何才能发展一个更好的公民社会。自由的概念是主观的，这是系统中存在不同的政治类比的主要原因(Riesenberg, 1994)。从这个模式中可以获得许多见解。
Hence, the ideal assumptions that are made by Plato and Rousseau have innate limitations. Plato’s argument can lead to the formation of tyrannical leaders who believe in authoritarian regime. On the other hand, social justice becomes meaningless in the ideology that is professed by Plato and Rousseau.
From the analysis of the ideology between Plato and Rousseau, it is important to understand that there is the creation of value system that needs to be placed in the civil society. It is observed that simple dichotomy that is evident. An ancient philosophy exists in the society where the nature of the man is based on the societal construction of the civil society (Riesenberg, 1994). An obvious dichotomy that is embedded in the ways in which man is able to embrace society. The people want to live with on their own. The notions of modernity and man are based on liberties that are developed from the shackles of society. Ultimately, these two theories come down into the notion of how the society is framed and viewed. The question that the people in the society need to ask is how they can develop a better civil society. The notion of freedom is found to be subjective and this is the main reason for the different political analogies that exists in the system (Riesenberg, 1994). A number of insights can be garnered from this schema.
Plato wanted a society with a perfect leader, guiding the society. He aspired the people to have a leader who they can look up and craved to frame a system that is based on how the leader functions. This invariably led the people to give up their civil liberties and freedom of speech. This was functionally wrong. The importance of an appropriate leader is emphasized in the arguments that are put forward by Plato. Rousseau stated that for the people to hand over their liberty, it would be an impossible task. He also alluded that that progress is not needed for the growth of the society. He emphasized the need for developing a social contract to establish the sovereign power. It stated that the majority of the people must decide how the government needs to function in the society. However, there is an idealism that is observed in both the arguments. This makes the arguments with fundamental limitations in the society. The ideology of political system that is based on these two philosophers is based on their own subjective interpretation as to how the society needs to function.
Plato stated the importance of a good leader who is benevolent. Rousseau on the other hand wanted a leader who was selected by the people. He fancied the people to make the decision that is forged from societal contract. He makes the allusions that Plato theory of political governance would only lead to a totalitarian regime in the society. Rousseau theory limitation is that the minority population in the society and the needs of the people can be overlooked in the process. Hence, the importance of leadership and societal construction are expected to be idyllic in both these theories. This is the reason for the limitation of these theories. It is important to address these limitations in the modern political framework. By addressing these gaps, modern political theoretical framework needs to be framed. However, it can be concluded that no perfect system that is created in the current times. A need for newer innovative political system is required to address the needs of the people. These were the main conclusions that can be drawn from this analysis.