Machiavelli And Plato 's The Prince Essay

The political situation that prompted Machiavelli to write The Prince was that Italy wasn’t a unified country yet. It was a bunch of city states.

    Many people in history have written about ideal rulers and states and how to maintain them.  Perhaps the most talked about and compared are Machiavelli's, The Prince and Plato's, The Republic.  Machiavelli lived at a time when Italy was suffering from its political destruction.  The Prince, was written to describe the ways by which a leader may gain and maintain power. In Plato?s The Republic, he unravels the definition of justice.  Plato believed that a ruler could not be wholly just unless one was in a society that was also just. His state and ruler was made up to better understand the meaning of justice.  It was not intended to be practiced like that of

On the heels of the Peloponnesian war, Socrates was blamed for corrupting the youth and disrespecting the Athenian gods and Athenian values. His defense or “Apology” and reaction after he was sentenced to death in “Crito” demonstrate his most basic philosophy and ideals of what a government should truly be like. Yet in a vastly different situation, Machiavelli, who lived during the renaissance of Italy experienced constant shifts of power which he wrote his book, “The Prince”. Machiavelli writes about how a leader or prince should conduct himself in order to keep and efficiently run a republic or principality. Although Socrates’ texts on the surface deal with his accusations, the texts give great insight as to how he thinks a government

In ancient Greece two great written philosophers lived. First there was Plato and then Aristotle. Aristotle was a pupil of Plato. Despite being taught by Plato they had different theories and views. Their ethics were very typical and traditional of ancient Greece but Aristotle detailed virtue ethics and the path to happiness. Plato’s political theories for a utopian society varied from Aristotle’s view of ‘best state for each society’. Their metaphysical theories are complete opposites and very contradicting. Even though Plato and Aristotle came from the same era and were closely linked they had very different philosophies.

Socrates and Niccolo Machiavelli were both incredibly influential in the development of Western philosophical thought, specifically in relation to ethics in politics. Machiavelli’s text The Prince, written during a period of political turmoil in Italy, outlines the necessary steps a prince must take to obtain both power and authority. Plato’s The Last Days of Socrates assesses the moral and ethical guidelines an ideal leader should possess through the beliefs and teachings of Socrates. While both texts had similar objectives, their opinions were quite contradictory. Socrates would have found Machiavelli’s concept of the “Prince”, and the government he creates to be both unethical and fundamentally flawed. Socrates places higher value on the maintenance and creation of justice, while Machiavelli stresses the process of obtaining and preserving power, unethical or not. Due to their differences in their ideas of virtue, knowledge, and justice it can be concluded that Socrates would not be supportive of the government in which The Prince proposes.

History 's most prominent leaders have shown extreme congruence. These leaders almost always hold reality over ethics. How can we classify lying and manipulative leaders as immoral when their duplicity is the very reason a society can maintain stability? This idea has of "means justifying the ends" has been a staple in History 's most prosperous of societies. Machiavelli 's novel The Prince was the first stab at understanding this human tendency of what is now known as Machiavellian. Machiavelli grasped the sad reality of our world and did not fall prey to other 's idealistic propaganda. Great leaders understand what the endless potential they hold, they can manipulate their followers to make best of what is possible and above all they understand sacrifice. Modern day Machiavellians and successful leaders think realistically and communicate through idealism. No matter the extremes of your belief, utilizing Machiavellian tactics have the capability to bring anyone to power.

Plato was an Ancient Greek philosopher who lived between 428-432 B.C. He wrote mainly in dialogues, to stay true to how Socrates communicated philosophy. Plato displayed what is considered Socrates’ philosophy throughout the dialogue The Apology. In The Republic, Socrates is mainly used as a mouthpiece to communicate Plato’s philosophy. Socrates follows a philosophy best explained as “I do not know”, whereas Plato tries to find the ultimate solution to philosophical problems. In this essay, I will argue how Socrates has the best philosophical approach compared to that of Plato.

“It is much safer to be feared than loved.” This quotation was just a specimen of the harsh and very practical political annotation of the legendary historian, Niccolò Machiavelli – philosopher, patriot, diplomat, advisor and statesman. He was born as the son of a poor lawyer in 1498, but he never let boundaries restrict him. He still received an excellent humanist education from the University of Florence and was soon after appointed as the Second Chancellor of the Republic of Florence.2 His political importance to Florence would soon give him the opportunity to write what is disputed as one of the most significant works in history, The Prince.

Outside people relations, Vlad embodied one of the most crucial principle Machiavelli stressed in “The Prince,” Principle 10 - How the Strength of All States Should be Measured. Machiavelli believes that for a prince to maintain his control over the state in times of war, he must be ready to fight for his people. Vlad went beyond that by succeeding his predecessors through weaponizing Wallachia for battle and personally leading the charge against neighboring states. His first hurdle was his confrontation with Hungary where “he tried to maintain a fragile peace, skillfully balancing the interests of the Hungarian and the Ottoman Empire in Wallachia. However...conflict broke out between Wallachia and Hungary…[eventually] Vlad succeeded to obtain

Niccolio Machiavelli (Born May 3rd, 1469 – 1527 Florence, Italy.) His writings have been the source of dispute amongst scholars due to the ambiguity of his analogy of the ‘Nature of Politics'; and the implication of morality. The Prince, has been criticised due to it’s seemingly amoral political suggestiveness, however after further scrutiny of other works such as The Discourses, one can argue that it was Machiavelli’s intention to infact imply a positive political morality. Therefore the question needs to be posed. Is Machiavelli a political amoralist? To successfully answer this it is essential to analyse his version of political structure to establish a possible bias. It would also be beneficial

Nowadays, it is politically impossible to commit to paper a "training guide" for leaders. There are innumerable detractors to any possible stance or strategy a leader might adopt. As a result of this, all "training" must take place behind closed doors, far from the prying eyes and ears of the news media or the public. But this has not always been the case.

Niccolo Machiavelli and Karl Marx developed theories concerning wealth and poverty in our society, as well as different types of governments. For instance, Machiavelli supported a capitalist economic system, unlike Marx, who embraced socialism in the society. Machiavelli wrote a book "The Prince" that explained how to be an effective leader. The theme of the book is "the end justifies the means." A person could or should do whatever is necessary to achieve the desired goal. According to Machiavelli, there is no concept of a perfect ruler, but only effective or ineffective leaders. Therefore, he claims that there are no fair fighters, but only losers and winners. Contrary, Marx embraced democracy as good practice for the government. This paper will analyze whether Marx would buy Machiavelli 's thought that states "desired ends justify undesirable means" (Weng 1).

Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince examines the nature of power and his views of power are still somewhat in existence today. I'll discuss this in this essay, emphasizing the following theses. Machiavelli discusses power over the people, dictatorial power, and power with people, shared power. While it is possible for power with to attain greater prevalence in society, it will not completely eliminate power over. In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses two distinct groups of people, the political elite, including nobles and other princes, and the general public. Today in the United States, the first group, the political elite, includes political leaders, religious leaders, business leaders and the leaders of

“Machiavelli wrote The Prince to serve as a handbook for rulers, and he claims explicitly throughout the work that he is not interested in talking about the ideal republics or imaginary utopias, as many of his predecessors had done” (Harrison). There is an ongoing debate about which philosopher’s ideas are most correct on the subject of leadership. Two main philosophers come to mind when thinking of this topic and they are Machiavelli with his book The Prince and Plato’s dialogue The Republic. The Republic takes a very theoretical point of view on leadership and portrays life as it should be in an ideal state, whereas Machiavelli’s The Prince, takes a more realistic point of view. Machiavelli is less interested with what things should be

It is highly debated what type of ideal king is the better type of ideal king. Both philosophers, Plato and Machiavelli, have their own separate version of what the best and most ideal king would look like. Plato’s version of the ideal king can be found along with a description in Plato’s Republic Book 6. He describes a king raised in philosophy, and a regimented education plan. Machiavelli’s king can be found with a description in Machiavelli’s The Prince. This king is best summarized as a “might is right” type of fellow. The Philosopher King is a better king because he has been educated by the people, for the people.