Plato vs Confucius

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 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 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 ofhis schedule to run things. Likewise, even though a philosopher was dedicated to the truth and beauty in all things, he wouldnt be obligated in any way to share it. In the sample government he proposed in the Republic, its 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