Machiavelli Nature Of Politics

Despite living thousands of years ago, Socrates and Machiavelli were both influential thinkers whose works are still relevant today. These two great thinkers and philosophers wrote about and extensively studied political systems. The influences of their work can still be seen today in constitutions and governments around the world. Were it not for their transcendent works, there is a real chance today’s systems of government would look very different. While no governments today exactly match those advocated for by Machiavelli and Socrates, their writings surely influenced other thinkers later on in history. Both of these philosophers advocated for different leadership structures with the hope of creating fair and long-lasting states.

The wicked morality that looms in order to justify the ends, and the disregard for the means to get to those ends: Machiavellianism. The term is coined from the very character of Niccolo of the renaissance age, as he stated and concluded that “only the strongest, most ruthless leader could impose order” (Sayre, 58) and that “the prince must be willing to sacrifice moral right for practical gain” (59). To the naked eye, it would be pretty obvious to note that Machiavelli had a dangerous sort of mentality since war itself, in his opinion, was eventual with the leaders he spoke fondly of. However, maybe Niccolo would disagree, as he suggests to show more insight on his political views. Machiavelli seems to be more complex in nature than many might actually think.

Many great leaders have ruled throughout history, but what made them great? Throughout the ages many very intelligent men have sought to enlighten the world on how to best govern their people. Many of these ideas were written down in great literary works, including: Plato’s “The Republic”, Marcus Aurelius “Meditations” and Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. Plato Sculpted his ideal society with his philosopher king at the head. Marcus Aurelius lead by example as the poster child for stoicism. Machiavelli on the other hand broke away from Plato’s ideal society and placed the strong above all others with his real politik. While these men were all very intelligent and sought the same goal of security, there can only be one victor. The best way to govern a people is the Machiavellian way, his methods are based on historical events, his methods were proven effective and they are based on realism.

Socrates, Machiavelli, and Rousseau are three philosophers discussing political ethics from entirely different perspectives. This paper argues that Socrates, Machiavelli, and Rousseau are all idealists regarding their stances on political ethics. First, this paper argues that Socrates is an idealist due his belief that the current government has much more potential than it is currently reaching, and that the government could eventually be changed. Second, this paper argues that Rousseau is an idealist because of his unrealistically positive view of the natural state of humanity and negative view of society. Lastly, this paper argues that Machiavelli is idealistic because of the overwhelming, impossible number of criteria that the Prince

By looking at the readings of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke, there are a few distinctions between how the modern thinkers viewed politics versus the way the ancient thinkers believed politics should be. There are many topics both modern and ancient thinkers discuss in their writings, such as the purpose of politics, the science of politics, human nature, as well as the ideal regime. By doing so, these thinkers’ views on political topics such as these illuminate how they thought politics should work and who should be able to participate in the activity of politics.

Human reason has been one of the guiding principles in our society since the beginning of time and because action is preceded by thought, these two go hand in hand. Every choice we make is based on our thinking process, differentiating between what is good or bad, and contemplating cause and effect. Machiavelli, Locke, and Marx all have distinct conceptions of human nature, which has led to a variety of conclusions regarding the political structures of society that still have resonance today, which goes to show how much of an impact their theories have.

Aristotle’s virtue ethics assume that moral virtue is necessary for flourishing, It logically follows, then, that those exhibiting the ordinary vices of domination, despite appearances to the contrary, are far from ever attaining a truly good life. Aristotle’s ethics are too narrow in scope, because any code of ethics should be universally applicable and equal because reinforcing privilege and oppressive structures negatively affect everyone's chances--including the perpetrator’s-- at developing the virtues described in Nicomachean Ethics and therefore negatively affect everyone's chances at leading the best life possible.

The writings of Nicolo Machiavelli are the single most important example of this new humanist thought. Drawing from ancient Roman writers, Machiavelli developed a worldly concept of politics, and was one of the first in the modern period to discuss the virtues of republican government and a system of checks and balances. He is perhaps most famous for his rejection of Christian idealism in politics. Princes and other leaders, he argued, must view human affairs must as they really are, not as we hope ideally they should be. The rules of worldly power (best understood by the

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.

Niccolò Machiavelli was an activist of analyzing power. He believed firmly in his theories and he wanted to persuade everyone else of them as well. To comment on the common relationship that was seen between moral goodness and legitimate authority of those who held power, Machiavelli said that authority and power were essentially coequal.9 He believed that whomever had power obtained the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power. This implied that the only genuine apprehension of the administrative power was the attainment and preservation of powers which indirectly guided the maintenance of the state. That, to him, should have been the objective of all leaders. Machiavelli believed that one should do whatever it took, during the given circumstance, to keep his people in favor of him and to maintain the state. Thus, all leaders should have both a sly fox and ravenous wolf inside of him prepared to release when necessary.10

Plato and Machiavelli are both theorists that focus on the concept of well-being in regards to the state. However, although their main concentration is the same – the well-being of the state – they vastly differ when it comes to what their stand on morality is, focusing on separate virtues within their books, Republic and The Prince respectively. A virtue is defined as a conformity to a standard of right: morality” or a “particular moral excellence” (Virtue). Plato centres around virtues such as wisdom, courage, temperance and justice whereas, Machiavelli focuses on boldness, adaptation, prudence and foresight. In this paper I will focus on the differences and similarities between Plato and Machiavelli’s accounts of virtue, what virtues each finds valuable for political life and how they contribute to the health of the state. I will also touch on how the theorists’ accounts of virtue deviate from one another and what that tells us about the approaches each takes in regards to the political life.

Throughout the course of history, political philosophy has been dominated by two great thinkers: Niccolo Machiavelli and Socrates. Although both highly influential, Socrates and Machiavelli may not see eye to eye. When it comes to the idea of how an “ideal prince” would act, Machiavelli believes that they should lead through fear and follow a thirst for power, no matter the cost. Socrates, on the other hand, believes that they should lead through morality and have a healthy thirst for knowledge. Overall, these two would not exactly agree on what the actions of a good leader would look like or how a political system should be run.

In "The Politics", Aristotle would have us believe that man by nature is a political animal. In other words, Aristotle seems to feel that the most natural thing for men to do is to come together in some form of political association. He then contends that this political association is essential to the pursuit of the good life. Finally he attempts to distinguish what forms of political association are most suitable to the pursuit of this good life. In formulating a critique of "The Politics", we shall first examine his claims as to what is natural to man and whether the criterion of the natural is sufficient to demonstrate virtue. We shall then examine what it is about political association that

Although misunderstood when introduced to society during their time, Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince and Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan have been two of the most influential political works in history. The Prince and Leviathan, although seen as immoral and almost wicked works of their time, have guided many political thinkers, even America’s own Thomas Jefferson, on the subject of governance and power. This paper will compare the similarities and differences between both works in terms of the historical settings in which they were written as well as between the two distinct political philosophies presented by each man. More specifically, this paper will differentiate the purpose of power between Machiavelli’s theory of an absolute ruler separated from morals and ethics compared to Hobbes’ reasoning for a necessary and absolute ruler to put an end to the chaotic “state of nature” he presents.

However, that said, some of his ideas continue to attract philosophical engagements even by the so-called first rank philosophers. This qualifies the incorporation of some of his ideologies into any comprehensive philosophical survey. This paper therefore zeros in on his political ideals that have culminated into what is known as Machiavelli’s political philosophy of ‘Machiavellism’ (Meinecke, 1965). The paper seeks to explore his political ideologies in general. Further, the paper seeks to establish based on any real evidence whether Machiavelli is indeed a ‘break’ in the political philosophy or otherwise. In keeping with the latter