Machiavelli's The Prince And Plato

Machiavelli also presents the idea that the power of a leader depends more on the qualities of the man than on of god. Thats the matter, loved and feared-qualities need there limits the same way as anything else in a social relation. Machiavelli himself stating that a man who makes himself loved than who makes himself feared; the reason is that love is a link to obligation, which men, because they are rotten, and will break any time soon. Machiavelli complicates the nation of good as purely subordinate power, arguing that the excess of “good” can actually do harm. In this case too much clemency can lead to uprisings and civil war. Cruelty what Machiavelli believes in, states that it can serve the greater good. I personally disagree with Machiavelli's text, I think love is stronger than fear. A commander loved by his soldiers will defeat a commander feared by his soldiers in almost all battles, but the feared commander is less subject to arbitrary chance. Its not only love that can destroy a man, so can fear.

    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

Machiavelli writes the ‘Prince’ while away in exile which by most people, is interpreted as his manual or guide on how to rule. It is quite clear that he demonstrates political interest and advocacy in his work through the many stories of past rulers he shares as examples of what to do and what not to do. An example of a ruler who came from a lower position, meaning no riches or status, was Agathocles (son of a potter, who became the King of Syracuse) (Machiavelli [1532] 2006) which is similar to the status of the man Plato speaks of, Socrates. However, Machiavelli speaks for power politics and the importance of the ruler being in total control since “a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others” ([1532]

Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florence native, presented revolutionary ideas about leadership in his famous work “The Prince.” This sort of “how-to” handbook for rulers was written in a time when power was frequently changing hands, leaving nations in constant confusion (The Prince, 443). Machiavelli presented a way for these new leaders to maintain their power, encouraging such things as cruelty and fear as a means of governing the common people. This new concept was drastically opposed to the Christian ideals which had been taught for centuries. Despite its harshness, Machiavelli’s doctrine was accepted by many and has influenced some very popular men throughout history. One such person is none other than William Shakespeare. Multiple plays written by Shakespeare are stories of men in government who are either attempting to maintain their power or regain it. It is no wonder, then, why Shakespeare would refer to “The Prince” as a resource when writing these plays. One play in particular, “King Lear,” is evidence of Shakespeare’s acknowledgement of Machiavellian beliefs. Throughout this paly it may be witnessed how Machiavelli’s ideas on what a ruler should be were taken into account by the famous playwright, leading either to his characters’ success or downfall.

Nicolo Machiavelli is known as being an archetypical realist; in other words, he was someone who originated the idea that we should not try to figure out how people should be, but rather accept and deal with the world as it literally is. Unlike Machiavelli, Plato posited an idealist view of a philosopher king reigning through virtue. To Machiavelli, this is an extremely dangerous delusion for it ignores what he considers the reality of the human condition: humans are brutal, selfish, and fickle (Machiavelli and Power Politics). You don’t need a philosopher king to secure off enemies and reinforce order/stability; on the other hand, you need a prince or a leader

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

Niccolo Machiavelli stressed that “one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved…for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.” He felt that a true leader must be cunning and deceptive, winning the hearts of his people through power and influence. If he could not be liked, he could at least get by knowing he has intimidated these below him into submission. However rash or cruel this may seem, Machiavelli’s argument is not one to be countered easily.

Back in Machiavelli’s time politicians lied so they could get the votes of others, “Of this endless modern examples could be given, showing how many treaties and engagements have been made void and of no effect through the faithlessness of princes.” (Machiavelli, 137-138) Many Presidential candidates need votes to actually become President, and to get votes they need people, people are not willing to give their votes willingly, they need a good reason as to why they should vote for that person. As a result the Presidential candidates need to make up reason like giving better healthcare benefits, tax reductions, and helping create more jobs they make the people believe them so they vote for that political candidate. When they actually become President they will have more important things to think about (mainly war going on in other countries) to even consider what they think is the little subjects. Lying is apart of human nature everybody does it, even in Machiavelli’s

He believes that the knowledge and application of the good will lead to a perfect state. However, this cannot be said to be realistic, as despite the education of the good, one's desires will ultimately overcome the need to be good and the state will collapse. If the rulers are only thinking of the overall good of the state, their own needs will not be met, which can lead to unhappiness on the part of the rulers and ultimately to the downfall of the system. Machiavelli implies in his criticism that the needs of the ruler must be met in order to maintain a stable state, he must trust his instincts and base desires in order to remain true to himself. If he does not, as Plato states and does as he ought to, not as he wishes to, then he will be living a lie within himself and not rule as he should. Without being true to what human nature tells one to do, an uprising either within the ruler or of the subjects will take place and the state cannot stay afloat.

The implicit tension between pragmatism and Christian ethics within texts signifies a contextual desire to alter social and political attitudes. Machiavelli’s The Prince (1513) was founded on emerging principles of Renaissance Humanism that privileged reason over Christian morality, which in turn influenced Shakespeare’s representation of the political opportunism that underpinned the assassination and chaotic aftermath of Julius Caesar (1599). Both texts share commonality in their examination of the timeless lust for power that underpinned the tension between the pragmatism emerging from Renaissance Humanism and the conservative religious ethics of the16th Century. Machiavelli represents the experiences of important power figures from history

However, he encourages the use of virtues as a method of control in both chaos and order. Furthermore, contrary to the Greeks, he views the virtues as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Moreover, he encourages the use of virtue as a facade, rather than their internalization. Seeing that history plays a crucial role in Machiavelli’s political theory, it can be postulated that his tainted views on virtues result from the 1494 French takeover of Italy. Fortune the arbitrator of such despair, shattered a stable and peaceful community, interrupting the security, stability and legitimacy to rule, allowing many to take advantage of the state’s instability, while leaving the virtuous in anguish. This leaves Machiavelli affirming that a prince must have the required skills of “appearing” temperate, courageous, liberal, magnificent, pious, humble and honest, rather than internalizing these virtues. Therefore, it can be concluded that Machiavelli carries a more realistic approach to political theory when compared to Plato. This further contributes to how Machiavelli views politics as a theatrical piece in which a ruler must remain in character for the audience, or in this case the masses. In addition to appearing virtuous, a ruler must also create a social distance with the masses, in order to separate the inferior form the superior, generate authority and, give the

achiavelli presents a unique view on governing a state. Machiavelli believes the ruling Prince should be the only authority that

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.

Although he may be considered cold hearted and unjust, I believe that in many roles of political leadership, a person will have to be cold in many areas of ruling. Machiavelli is a leader who understands the human mind. With this knowledge he has, he influences the people. If the people are loyal to their leader they will prosper and benefit mutually. If the city so does the leader and he gains more power. So to me it seems like a cycle of you get what you want, and I get what I want. Machiavelli understood the place of a prince and the place of his subjects and citizens. He knows what leadership consist of and how to obtain true power. He also knows that most common people do not, and they should be ruled over for their own good. Maybe I'm being too easy and optimistic about Machiavelli, but I do believe he gives sound advice based on his knowledge of how people work and think. Pain and evil are real and necessary to in order to rule affectively. Machiavelli states that laying down a solid foundation is important in building a successful future for the city/state. By doing evil and causing pain, it might be hurtful at the time, but in the long run, a good prince will be setting up a solid foundation for future