Compare And Contrast Machiavelli And The Prince

Socrates and Machiavelli both aspire to the same end of accomplishing certain political goals. Machiavelli, in the Prince, speaks of his desire to end political conflict through the institution of order while Socrates, as described by Plato, seemingly wishes for the government of his time to be replaced with a more just system. Though the two historical figures are both very relevant to the concepts of power and how to attain it, they are polar opposites when it comes to the means by which they hope to accomplish their personal ends. In The Prince, Machiavelli gives an essential guide of how a Prince must appear and how he must interact with his subject in order to make sure that they are complacent and subordinate. On the other hand,

Socrates and Machiavelli both lived during a period of nefarious governmental practices and political instability. However, these two men possessed dichotomous beliefs on how to achieve their ends, the means with which to achieve them, and the temperament a ruler must possess in order to be successful. Due to this stark contrast in their sentiments, Socrates would view Machiavelli’s concept of a prince as repugnant due to its absence of morality. Socrates would also disapprove of the political system that said prince would induce because it is one that would curtail the spread of truth, knowledge, and wisdom.

light and would not be supportive of the political system in which said Prince would run.

If someone were to write a novel about 2017 American politics, it would fit right in with books such as The Prince by Machiavelli (1513), We by Zamyatin (1921), and Persepolis by Satrapi (2000). These books center around the governmental ideas, views, and realities of oppressive environments, and could strike a little too close to home for the modern western reader. Written at different points and places throughout history, each book showcases the author’s view of the political and social scenes they saw around them, often uncovering parallels with contemporary society.

Machiavelli and Socrates both represent groundbreaking, radical, thinkers who contributed greatly to contemporary political theory and dialogue. Although both Machiavelli and Socrates were groundbreaking statesmen, their ideas clash fundamentally. Socrates’ expectation of a leader radically differs from that of Machiavelli. Socrates expects an ideal leader to always challenge the status quo, never accepting the ruling establishment, or the old way of going about governing. Most of all, Socrates would expect a leader to always challenge corruption, decadence, and moral decay of society. Such expectations are seen in both Socrates’ teachings and the actions he took throughout his life. Socrates actively fomented dissent against the nobility of Athens, casting himself as a necessary agitator purging Athenian society of its decadent proclivities. Machiavelli has a near completely opposite view of the virtues a ruler should hold close. Machiavelli’s aim in “The Prince” is to guide potential rulers on how to grow, and later maintain, their grip on power, by any means necessary. Such means may include corruption, the abandoning of one’s moral compass, principles, and just about any other defining characteristic. Machiavelli gives leaders a full license, in a sense, to commit any act that promotes their self-interest. It is clear that Machiavelli and Socrates diverge substantively on what constitutes an ideal leader, which, in turn, signifies that they

Niccolo Machiavelli lived in Italy during a time of great change and political conflict and war. Similarly, Socrates lived in Greece, which was also experiencing political unrest. Both of these philosophers wrote about what they believed to be a successful political system and its leadership, or the Prince. Although both lived during similar societal unrest, each had different perspectives on what it is a fit Prince would be. Socrates believed that a Prince should be one who motivated the pursuit of wisdom and held some of their own, as well as one who valued morality in their rule. Machiavelli believed that a Prince would be one who had the right to manipulate their people as well as one who could separate morality from their rule. Socrates would not agree with Machiavelli’s concept of a Prince because of their differing views on how wisdom and morality should be applied to an effective Prince’s rule however, would have to support the political system that comes from the Prince’s rule because of Socrates’ belief on obeying law, whether it is just or unjust.

History has proven time and time again that leaders are constantly being challenged by the very population they govern. The population challenging the ruling party has been a constant throughout political history. The relationship between a ruler and his subjects is a fragile one, and it is a relationship that has sparked constant debate for thousands of years. Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince and Plato’s Crito and Apology this relationship and discusses their views on proper governance. Machiavelli and Socrates propose two very different sorts of rulers. Machiavelli advocates for a strong feared ruler who takes pragmatic steps to ensure unity in the state. In both Crito and Apology, Plato portrays Socrates as a “social gadfly” whose purpose to challenge the power of the state. The views of Machiavelli and Socrates are opposing views, and indeed Socrates would be an opposing force in Machiavelli’s idea of how a “prince” should rule.

When looking into the terminology of politics, the words ‘power’ and ‘justice’ often come to mind. In many cases, the leaders of politics toe the line of abusing their political power in order to achieve a state of ‘justice’ for the state. While enacting on these actions, some leaders may encroach on the civil liberties of an individual. Without the interpretation and in-depth thought provided by both Socrates and Machiavelli, I believe the state of politics would be vastly different. Throughout Plato’s The Last Days of Socrates, the reader is able to learn the life and teachings of Socrates, a man highly regarded in the political field. Throughout The Apology, Plato uses Socrates’ experiences as a guide to explore the true meaning of power and justice. Similarly, to The Apology, Machiavelli wrote The Prince as his interpretation of power and political stability during his experiences of civil war and constant political turmoil. In The Prince, there is also an exploration of power, however, Machiavelli distinguishes his work by boldly separating politics and ethics. Machiavelli and Socrates are both similarly interested in the relationship between the state and the individual in regards to the social contract, yet Machiavelli is far less concerned with the moral principles attached to the individual when in power. On the other hand, Socrates cements a firm bond between the individual and the state so much so, that he deeply believes it is impermissible to ever stray from

Machiavelli attempted to quell the political instability characteristic of his time by creating a political system that stressed tranquility. He believed in the power of the leader to make difficult choices to maintain their regime by any means necessary. Machiavelli entrusted leaders to make decisions that benefitted the masses and believed that strategic use of lies, cruelty and violence were necessary in order to preserve order. On the contrary, Socrates believed in a political system where people were able to challenge leadership through their personal beliefs and stressed the importance of humility. Socrates would argue that Machiavelli’s concept of a Prince is too self-interested and that this Prince would lead to a corrupt political system of which he would not support.

Socrates and Machiavelli were ancient philosophers whose ideas are still discussed and debated to this day. Socrates wanted people to not live in fear of the state and wanted laws that were fair to individuals. Machiavelli wanted a strong leader who the people lived in fear of in order to maintain stability of the state. He believed the Prince should do what is necessary for the state, whether or not that conflicted with morality. Socrates would have seen this form of government as tyrannical and individuals would not have any power. He believed in free speech for the people and thought it was okay for people to speak out against the government. Machiavelli despised free speech and believed it threatened the stability of the state. These two philosophers had very different ideas of government that are even seen today. The main difference between their ideas of government is how much power the state should have over the individual. Socrates would not have liked Machiavelli's Prince because Socrates favored individuals over the state and believed that the state should not have all the power over individuals.

Machiavelli and Socrates examine the political state in different frames. In this way, the “ends” and “means” that both men seek to are incongruous. The ideal Prince according to Machiavelli would rely on deception and dishonesty to maintain power. According to Machiavelli, “ One who deceives will always find those who allow

Machiavelli’s Prince was written as a prescription for taking and maintaining power through calculated decisions and prudency. Socrates was the founder of the western world’s notion of philosophy, and a man who valued personal examination above all else. Both men had the goal of seeking knowledge but went about their task through different methods. If followed in its entirety, Machiavelli’s Price would have been an all-powerful ruler only focused on the control of his state which is not the type of ruler Socrates would be fond of. Despite this it is very possible that Socrates would be supportive of the system this prince ruled over.

Socrates is supportive of democracy and people having the right to learn new things. In Socrates’ apology he was put on trial for his teachings and influence on the youth. After talking to an oracle, Socrates decided to go out and seek wise men. He says, “so I had to go, in considering what the oracle was saying, to all those reputed to know something” (Socrates 22a). Socrates goes and questions these men and decides that he is wiser than them. The sons of the wealthiest people also follow Socrates around and watch him question people and then go out and do the same. The people against Socrates say that he is

Socrates and Machiavelli lived in very similar times of political turmoil and war centuries apart. Post-war Athens had an unwelcome pro-Sparta government installed, so the people rebelled and created a democratic government. During The Apology, the government was still unstable. Machiavelli wrote The Prince during a time where modern-day Italy was being fought over by various city-states and other actors. They both recognized the need for a long term solution to the instability plaguing their states. However, the approaches they outlined in their philosophical texts differ greatly. While Machiavelli places heavy emphasis on the unwavering power of the prince, Socrates advocates for strong laws and fair implementation of them. Socrates would have disapproved of Machiavelli’s idea of a prince, arguing that he risks losing a trusting relationship between him and the constituents and places too much trust in the leader by allowing him to stray from morality and break his own laws.

Politics revolves around decision making for the advantage of the general population. It infers power and power needs to discover defense and arguments to keep it spreading. This is the reason there has always been an association amongst political issues and the standards of ethical quality, regardless of whether the latter supports the former or they kept refuting each other. This very idea focuses on the connection between the morals of soul and that of politics as portrayed through the profound writing of Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince' and Plato's ‘The Trial and Death of Socrates’. Although, both Machiavelli and Socrates share numerous similarities as observed through their teachings, both of these great men truly contrast on the concept of appearance versus reality. Though Machiavelli, a pragmatist, whose ideas backdrops from history of politics, advocates the importance of dual personality: appearance of public versus a private being, Socrates, on the other hand, being an idealist, instructs individuals through making inquiries through dialogues and depicts the idea that appearance does not by any means make a difference since one must be what he/she says to be.