Essay about Plato vs Machiavelli

Ideas on the same topic always seem to differ from person to person. This holds true to the ideas of Machiavelli and Castiglione. The Prince, written by Machiavelli, and The Courtier, written by Castiglione, are both somewhat how-to guides for nobility, royalty, and princes. However, there are many distinct differences among the ideas of Castiglione and Machiavelli. Castiglione's philosophy leads down the path of a well-rounded person; a more peaceful manner. Machiavelli's philosophy is more straightforward and violent, where you should do anything and everything you have to do in order to achieve your goal. Both books and figures were of great importance to society.

            On the contrary, Plato's idea of the ruler is almost exactly the opposite that of Machiavelli's.  Plato's reason for his ideal ruler and state was to explain the meaning of justice. One must examine what it means for a state to be just and what it means for a person to be just to truly understand the meaning of justice.  According to Socrates, ??if we first tried to observe justice in some larger thing that possessed it, this would make it easier to observe in a single individual. We agreed that this larger thing is a city?(Plato 96).?  Plato?s ideal ruler must have a good mind, always be truthful, have knowledge and discipline, and not be afraid of death.  The ruler is a philosopher that satisfies the four virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation/self-control, and justice.

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 his book, "The Prince", Machiavelli wrote "It may be for the advantage of a Prince, that from his having no other, territories, he is obliged to reside in the State which he has acquired." Machiavelli argued in this sentence and throughout his book that newly acquired states are best maintained when the Prince resides within them. It is written that if a newly acquired territory should hold similar customs, traditions, and languages to that of the Princedom then it should take little effort to maintain it. However, should a newly acquired territory differ in customs and language, then a Prince should move to the newly acquired territory in order to immerse himself within its customs and traditions. A Prince must immerse himself within the traditions of the territory and live amongst his people to either gain their love and admiration or fear and and obedience. Princes who live on site can easily detect disorders and find their remedies, but a Prince who is not on site will not be able to cure a problem until it is too late.

Socrates’ was willing to defend his ideal of ethics and the truth until his death, however, Niccolo Machiavelli had a starkly different view of the truth and ethics and politics. Machiavelli lived during a time of constant warfare, political upheaval, and regime changes resulting in a flexible and pessimistic view of the truth’s role in society.

In his writings, Machiavelli stresses the importance of authoritarianism and that it is vital to keep the people dependent on their ruler in order to avoid an uprising. To Machiavelli, people who were ruled by others had little to no say in any matter, their only role was to support the choices that were made. While the people never seemed like a likely threat, with Machiavelli writing that all they basically wanted was to avoid oppression and be protected (Machiavelli, pg. 45), he still stressed how those in charge should crush any inkling of free will. Coercion was a much needed asset to those in power, if they were able to get the people on their side with false promises, then there would be less of a possibility of being overthrown. Along with coercion, Machiavelli also emphasized the necessity to be both a lion and a fox writing, “A prince ought to be a fox in recognizing snares and a lion in driving off wolves” (Machiavelli, pg. 68).

Continuing to Chapter 3, Machiavelli talks about acquiring territories. There are two scenarios in this situation: regions with similar language and customs and regions with different language and customs. The first scenario is straight forward that the new ruler must not alter their old laws or impose new taxes and to make sure the previous ruler had no heirs or seconds (Machiavelli 9). On the other hand, the second scenario is a bit trickier and Machiavelli suggests that the best solution would be for the new ruler to go and live in these new territories. As we see above, from just two chapters, Machiavelli’s logic in creating power as a ruler and how to maintain this balance of power inside their own state and in expanding territories.

He drank in the company of peasants, fought in local villages and railed at his fate. At night, he dressed in the old robes of office, sat at his desk, and wrote. He drew on his experiences in government and composed a manifesto for pragmatic leadership (PBS).” Machiavelli used his own personal accounts and experiences in order to write The Prince. In the book, Machiavelli describes how to take and maintain control of foreign lands with any means necessary, regardless of morals. "Because how one ought to live is so far removed from how one lives that he who lets go of what is done for that which one ought to do sooner learns ruin than his own preservation: because a man who might want to make a show of goodness in all things necessarily comes to ruin among so many who are not good. Because of this it is necessary for a prince, wanting to maintain himself, to learn how to be able to be not good and to use this and not use it according to necessity (Machiavelli).” The Prince is different from other books about creating and controlling principalities because it doesn't tell you what an ideal prince or principality is, but Machiavelli explains through examples, which princes are the most successful in obtaining and maintaining power. Machiavelli draws his examples from personal observations made while he was on diplomatic missions for Florence and from his readings in ancient history. His writing has the mark of the Renaissance upon it because he sprinkles his text with Latin phrases and many examples are drawn from Classical

Socrates, in his early works, maintained a steadfast distance from involvement in politics, making a comparison or evaluation of a political system in his persona technically impossible. To claim that Socrates would or would not be supportive of any political system might then seem irresponsible, a presumptuous analysis not fitting for an academic recognizing the false equivalence between Socrates’ philosophy and Machiavelli’s political ethics. The strategy to conduct any sort of liable and valid analysis is not to wholly ignore the “political” part of the system but to evaluate

Machiavelli’s concept of “Virtu” virtue for politicians involves wisdom, strategy, strength, bravery and when necessary ruthlessness. For being a successful ruler one needs to be virtuous. However, “a ruler ought not to mind the disgrace of being cruel, if he keeps his subjects peaceful and law abiding, for it is more compassionate to impose harsh punishments on a few than out of compassion, to allow disorder to spread, which leads to murders or looting” (Machiavelli, 1994. Pg51). According to Machiavelli every ruler wants to be loved but somehow he

Ancient philosophers have opened up many eyes to what we in a modern society take as basic knowledge. However, back then this was revolutionary information coming their way. Philosophers looked at how flawed certain systems or beliefs were and looked to change it for the benefit of society; Machiavelli and Plato is a good example of this. Machiavelli who wrote The Prince, looked at the flawed system of ruling a kingdom sought to change and inform current rulers how to better themselves so that the kingdom’s people would not have to suffer. Plato who wrote Socrates’ Apology, simply saw all the same people conforming to the same belief without really having any thought or choice in what they believed in. This paper will seek to accomplish how these two were accomplishing similar things, with different goals. Seeing to educate people to better advance their respective societies, just in a different level of things.

Machiavelli’s, book the prince has been the centre of debate since its inception. There has been a prevalent stand-point among the philosophers of political science that there ought to be an interplay between morality and legitimate control/ authority. Many philosophers during the course of middle ages leaned towards believing that the authority held by the rural/ leaders was only legitimate, if he was righteous. Thus for the rulers who wanted a long reigns and aimed their heir to acquire the office had no option but to make sure that they behaved well in accordance to normative understanding

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

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.

Plato believed that rulers or guardians use moral virtue to have justice in the state. While Machiavelli is criticizing this, as he believes that the prince does not have to be virtue and he has to do the wrong things or whatever is required for the sake of his state. Machiavelli does not believe in morality, and he believes that anything the prince is doing is for the sake and benefit of his state and citizens, even if what he is doing is wrong and he went into a war with other