Political Criticism Of The Prince

Political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli’s, “The Prince”, exemplifies an early depiction of several “modern” ideological principles that would sustain and preserve nations (especially after the separation of the church and state) in the sixteenth century. In this critically acclaimed work, Machiavelli satirically bequeaths a map of qualities that princes should steadfastly uphold and advance. Expressly, the qualities mapped out are frequently criticized as, “crafty, cunning and unscrupulous methods by which a prince can acquire and maintain political power”. One of the most prominent principles that almost served as a catalyst and enchiridion for Machiavelli’s “ethical” behavior as an eminent political figure of Florence, Italy was, “the end

As philosophers, both Socrates and Niccolo Machiavelli developed theories in response to the warring political environment around them. However, the theories and principles developed by the two philosophers are vastly different in regard to the concept of truth, Socrates would hate Machiavelli’s model prince due to Machiavelli’s manipulative view of truth. While Socrates desired a state that focuses on fundamental truth and ethical decisions, Machiavelli advocated a state led by a pragmatic, logical, and even cruel decision maker. The difference between the two theories is stark, not only would Socrates disagree with Machiavelli’s concept of a prince, he would view the prince with utter

In my attempt to compare the past and the present, I must explain to you the inner thoughts and workings of an ancient icon known as Niccolo Machiavelli on his publication “The Prince”. To do this, I must first start with explaining the brighter side of an ill fate. William Enfield suggested that “The Prince” was a ridicule of Machiavelli’s own perception of political leaders in his time. All in all, declaring that the book was written to “pull off the face of tyranny” and that “men were always fickle, liars, and deceivers” (Enfield, William) as the reporter points out in his article summary as well. Machiavelli’s personality makes this idea a double standard because of the fact that he wrote of breaking the bond of love and even trust if

Socrates would view Machiavelli’s concept of a prince as ignorant and built upon falsehoods as seen through Machiavelli’s explanations of holding new principalities. From the very start of “The Prince” Machiavelli explains that hereditary principalities are always easier to rule, because of the fact that “it is sufficient only for the prince to maintain the customs of those who ruled before him” (Machiavelli, Ch. 2). In contrast Socrates in the “Apology” passionately fights against the status quo. He likens himself to that as a gadfly of the Athenian state stinging the large horse “great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life” (Apology, 30e). Socrates finds that a leader who grows content and maintains customs as those before him is foolish as he does not think for himself. A truly enlightened prince would question and challenge everything that comes his way. An enlightened prince would

Socrates and Machiavelli both existed during times of political unrest. Both men sought different means of political leadership, and could be seen as activists of their times. During times of war and unrest, it was a bold choice that both men made to stand up for their beliefs and speak out against the system. However, Socrates wouldn’t have agreed with Machiavelli’s means and concepts of the Prince and his ideas for how a political establishment should function.

Socrates believed that a prince’s morality and ethics characterized a good leader whereas Machiavelli believed a ruler should use their power and fear to maintain control. Socrates would view Machiavelli’s concept of a prince as morally wrong and would not be supportive of a political system led by a Prince with a Machiavellian train of thought.

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]

Machiavelli and Socrates agree on very little. While an initial reading of the two may elicit some comparisons, the goals of their respective philosophies rely on different foundations, and would therefore culminate in very different political results for society. Socrates would likely see in the Prince a selfish ruler, while Machiavelli would see in Socrates a dangerous idealist whose ideas would lead to instability and the death of the state in which these ideas were implemented. Machiavelli’s philosophy of the Prince would not satisfy Socrates because instead of focusing on right action, the Prince is encouraged to put political expediency and self-preservation above all else. In addition, the type of political system that Machiavelli’s

While Socrates and Machiavelli lived over 1900 years apart, the dilemmas their societies faced draw many parallels. In Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, he demonstrates a wide-ranging set of rules and principles to be followed by a leader to ensure the steady maintenance of authority and stability in a state or principality. Not only would Socrates be opposed to many of the espoused views in “The Prince” on what creates a successful ruler, thereby society, but had he lived in Machiavelli’s “ideal” state, he would openly question and rebel against the cogs that maintain its stability, possibly even advocating its upheaval. Socrates would most ardently disagree with Machiavelli’s depiction of the supremacy of the prince and state over its

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.

Machiavelli and Socrates reveal strong beliefs and principles regarding the manner in which a government should operate, reflecting their ideals to their current states. Socrates emphasizes the importance of truthfulness and justice in governmental systems and Machiavelli focuses on having a determined ruler than can lead the state into success. Both men lived during a time of uncertainty and instability, desiring to change their society for the better. Socrates would view Machiavelli’s Prince as a unacceptable ruler due to Machiavelli’s emphasis on deceit and power, while Socrates bases his government ideals of justice, honesty, and morality.

The makeup of a functioning society is one that lies in the grey area of human existence. Not every aspect of human nature is ready to be sorted into one or the other. Which is why when examining society, it is important to have both a realistic as well as an idealistic view. Philosophers Niccolò Machiavelli and Socrates lived in a time of uncertainty, political fragmentation, and violence and their attitude on how to deal with such issues were contrasting. Machiavelli chooses to focus on creating a political power that is long lasting while Socrates chooses to investigate more into the unknown and promote transparency by challenging the authority that is already in power. As indicated by the works The Apology and Crito, Socrates has an idealistic approach towards ethics and politics. On the opposite hand, in the work The Prince, philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli advocates a realistic point of view in creating a political power that is strong and long-lasting. Socrates would not be supportive of Machiavelli’s The Prince as it advocates for everything that Socrates identifies as unstable characteristics for a government. In short, the political system of which Machiavelli is advocating for is the sole one that Socrates is trying to dismantle.

Plato’s The Apology and Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince provide two opposing views of the ideal ruler and government. The seminal works attempt to uncover the true definition of justice which becomes the basis from which they craft their vision of effective civil leadership. The two men, both influenced by the times of similar conflict and chaos in which they worked, espouse divergent beliefs regarding proper and effective authority. This difference is rooted in a fundamental incongruity between their views of human nature. Socrates, as an ancient Greek philosopher and teacher, views the individual as a sacred and beautiful being capable of reason and great wisdom while Machiavelli believes that the people are inferior to their leaders

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.

When reading Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, one can’t help but grasp Machiavelli’s argument that morality and politics can not exist in the same forum. However, when examining Machiavelli’s various concepts in depth, one can conclude that perhaps his suggested violence and evil is fueled by a moral end of sorts. First and foremost, one must have the understanding that this book is aimed solely at the Prince or Emperor with the express purpose of aiding him in maintaining power. Therefore, it is essential to grasp his concepts of fortune and virtue. These two contrary concepts reflect the manner in which a Prince should govern while minimizing all chance and uncertainty. This kind of governing demands violence to be taken, however this