Plato, Augustine, And Machiavelli

A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both

In life, people are guided by moral beliefs and principles. Whether their beliefs are good or bad, their decisions are based on them. In Plato “The Crito”, Socrates emphasizes his moral beliefs and principles when he decides not to escape from prison. Although Socrates had the opportunity to escape his death sentence, he chose not to do so because he had a moral obligation to commit a sacrifice.

As a defender of civic virtue, the significance of obligation and authority of one’s representative government epitomizes the magnitude of respect that Socrates had for Athenian Jurisprudence, irrespective of the fact that he was prosecuted against. In the accounts of the Apology and Crito, there exists a plethora of evidence that demonstrate Socrates’s adherence of institutionalized authority. His loyalty of the Athenian State derives from his notion that the obligation to surrender to the law manifests a just society. One may ask, “how is it possible for a persecuted man to continue to profess allegiance to a polity that sought his trial and execution”? Though many would not have the capacity to sustain such integrity, Socrates had his reasons in

He proclaims that “examining both myself and others is really the very best thing that a man can do, and that life without this sort of examination is not worth living” (Plato 66). Socrates believes that the government will be able to change so that people who value goodness and truth would be in power. However, later in the Apology, Socrates contradicts himself when he explains why he has led a mostly private life, saying that “if I had long ago attempted to take part in politics, I should have died long ago” (Plato 58). Socrates believes “a man who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life” (Plato 59). This goes against what he has been saying for the rest of the trial and demonstrates the unrealistic quality of the high standards to which he holds the government and leaders. If Socrates says it is dangerous for proponents of justice to live a public life, it becomes extremely difficult for politicians to be virtuous and morally good, since politicians live essentially their whole lives in the public sphere. It is not realistic for Socrates to believe that the government of Athens could progress so that good people hold the power, when he has shown that in his own experience and observations it is not safe for good people to hold public positions.

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.

Socrates' belief was that he was called on by the Gods to live his life examining others and himself. He believed the necessity of doing what one thinks is right even in the face of universal opposition, and the need to pursue knowledge even when opposed. "I became completely convinced, to the duty of leading the philosophical life by examining myself and others."¹ Socrates believed that to desert this idea was ridiculous and would make his life absurd. Socrates chose to live a life of truth and not to worry about things that did not matter. For Socrates not to live his life by the plans and requests of Gods it would be disobedient and untrue to the Gods. Socrates was brought to court to defend

Socrates, at the other end of the spectrum, saw politics as a wasted venture for him because his life was devoted to a quest for knowledge. He stated his way of life, which conflicts with that of Pericles' model, to differ from that of the democratic system of Athens because he saw the government to be corrupt and the majority to not be just. Socrates did not bother to lead a life of servitude to the ideals of the state because he showed through his actions that an unexamined life without critical thinking was not a life at all. As is made clear by the admittance of Socrates himself, his defense plea is the first time he has appeared in a court of law, even by the age of seventy. Socrates' life was dedicated to the pursuit of further comprehension and debate with the Athenian people on the deeper issues of life, not to a court

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.

Although, refusal to sacrifice rational thought wasn’t the only reason that Socrates wasn’t willing to accept the plea. Again, when confronting his own mortality Socrates announced to the jury that no man with a spark of decency “ought to consider life or death, the only thing he ought to consider... is whether he does right or wrong” (Apology, 515). For Socrates this idea of doing what is right is classified under the idea of justice, however; even Socrates has difficulty defining what justice is. Socrates attempts to define justice

On the off chance that this were the situation, then why did Socrates talk against the state? The Filial Piety contention gets to be risky as Socrates repudiates his own particular activities of talking against government officials. To finish up, I accept that Socrates ought to escape from jail on the grounds that the Principle of Fidelity expect that a law is constantly

Having grown up during times of war and turmoil, both Socrates and Machiavelli use philosophy to evaluate people and politics. After seeing corruption, fragmentation and death, both philosophers developed different views. Machiavelli’s concept of a Prince includes strong stances on morality and religion. Socrates would be likely to agree on the general ideas that Machiavelli believes a Prince should have but he would differ mainly in how they should be executed. I believe that Socrates would agree with Machiavelli that there needs to be a kind of “political renaissance” that changes how people organize and alter political systems as well as gives a new definition of what morality is concerning politics and government. However, in the Last

In St. Augustine’s book entitled Political Writings, one could see that Christianity plays a very important role in his view of politics. His opinion on the morality or lack of morality in politics, to me makes it more evident that Christianity persuades his views. Although it seems his writings have become quite well known and admired, not everyone fully shared his beliefs. Niccolo Machiavelli, for instance, seemed to believe in a government that was not driven by morality, but more by practicality. In, The Prince, Machiavelli stresses that the moral fibers of government should not be so soft. Like St. Augustine, his work went on to become one of the most famous books ever written about politics. Throughout the two works there are some

Niccolò Machiavelli, Karl Marx, and John Locke are three rationalists who, in spite of the fact that have changing feelings on how rulers should act, all think about the prosperity of the individuals from society. These three distinctive compelling figures of each of their own separate eras would in the long run make pieces out of scholarly showstoppers that give peruses a look into what the world resembled when overseeing powers ruled over social orders. The principal rationalist, Niccolò Machiavelli, composed the work entitled The Prince, which subtle elements the means Machiavelli trusted it took to get and hold political power. The second work, The Communist Manifesto, a synergistic piece composed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,

Niccolo Machiavelli and John Locke are, in simple terms, two vastly different kinds of people. They were separated by nearly two centuries, and lived in two different countries. Despite their contradictions on sovereignty, both Locke and Machiavelli shared a primary concern- the betterment of society.

Niccolo Machiavelli and Socrates (through Plato) have both given the world plenty of advice when it comes to governing. Both men have contributed to the debate of what a ‘prince’, or ruler, should look like. They lived in different time periods but were both surrounded by political uncertainty and fragmentation, which contributed to their views of government. Their ideals of a prince overlap in ways, but overall there are glaring differences in how they think a ‘prince’ should rule. A strong example of a difference they have is Socrates putting the law over the people, and Machiavelli putting the people over the law. This essay will examine and provide more evidence to justify why Socrates would not be supportive of Machiavelli’s concept