In their discussions and explorations of what it is that makes a person a good human being, Socrates and Confucius value many of the same traits. Primarily, they both value the pursuit of learning as key to the development of their model of an enlightened person. However, there are a few important differences between the two. The first difference that comes to mind is how the philosophers are born predestined to be philosophers while sages are not determined at birth. However the main difference in the two lies in how they interact with the world around them once they attain the guardian or gentleman status. First of all, Plato would have his guardians feel no attachment to those around them whereas Confucius emphasizes the importance of relationships with family and friends. In addition, while gentlemen question the world around them, guardians remain silent. Finally, when guardians are ready to become philosophers, it is because they came to know the forms. On the other hand, when gentleman becomes a sage, it is because they were able to do and act with benevolence all the time. .
In The Republic, the philosophers are supposed to not know what suffering is so that when they are sent into battle, there is no chance of them becoming cowardly. In addition Socrates would have his philosophers free of emotional attachments to any person. So, when discussing the grief attached to the loss "of a son, a brother, a fortune or anything else" the guardian will be taught "that of all men he is most sufficient to himself in leading the good life. He has least need of anybody else" (Book III, section e). It seems to me that if a person is not attached to anything but himself than he will not feel true loyalty in his heart to anybody or anything but himself. Therefore when he is on a battlefield the effect would be opposite than what Socrates intended. To be truly good at defending something I think that you have to have emotional attachments to it that will force you to go the extra mile.