Relationship Between Machiavelli And Socrates

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.

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

A just and fair world filled with just and fair people does not exist- it is a utopia. This

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.

Niccolò Machiavelli, a Florentine philosopher and political aficionado from the 16th century and Socrates, a classical Athenian savant who lived during the 5th century B.C., are both judged as being forefathers to modern western political science and thought. The two great men both came from erratic epochs within their respective nations of Italy and Greece: wars, transitions of power, and domestic conflicts left their countries void of sustainable leadership and in desperate need of a brighter future. But despite being from equally hopeless times, their theories on how their societies (and ultimately, future ones) should function in order to prosper, are divergent. In this essay, I will argue that Socrates would

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.

In the Prince, Machiavelli argues that the idea of truth in the government is only a method to manipulate the unsuspecting public. A leader does not need to be truthful as long as the public believes he is. Politics during Machiavelli’s time was much harsher than that of Socrates and his work reflects his cynical history. While Socrates experienced a major change in his home government during his lifetime, Machiavelli witnessed multiple periods of governmental turmoil.

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

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.

The great philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli, having such beliefs, puts to rest man’s downfall and presents that way to preservation in his book The Prince, which produces an effective guide for political action based off of his own philosophical beliefs and history’s past. The Prince rest on the principle that, above all, the foundation for a ruler’s success is within verita effettuale—or, the effectiveness of a prince’s rule. Machiavelli urges rulers to focus on acting in ways that will result in the best political dominance rather than to be concerned with what others think of his actions. Furthermore, he mandates that for a prince to uphold his objective as the maintainer of the state, he must not be bound to a set code of morality. With that, Machiavelli takes out what was previously said on human morals and teaches that rulers do not, in fact, need to possess personal moral character in order to be effective political leaders. Indeed, a prince must learn to pay attention to moral qualities in such a manner as to be able to use them to gain the necessary power to control the state. He claims, a prince “should not deviate from what is good, if that is possible, but he should know how to do evil, if that is necessary” (Machiavelli). With this in mind, Machiavelli addresses how a prince should best use love, hate, fear, and cruelty to garner the most effective political rule possible.

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

Regardless of the time and setting, there has always been an old age question of whether true political stability can be achieved. One can argue that even current worldly governments have yet to reach equilibrium of power and wealth. Needless to say, philosophers like Machiavelli and Socrates, who lived in dark times of political turbulence, aimed to find peace within their respective political atmospheres. Machiavelli’s proposal of the prince reflected Italy’s Renaissance era and drew upon the idea that a head of power would rule in accordance to certain beliefs and guidelines that would establish a government in which greater good of the people would be prioritized. Meanwhile, Socrates preached in Athens focusing on the emphasis of

Most rulers used and believed in the divine right which was the caused of the absolutism but was exercised by influences. Over the centuries rulers always have the mind that they must be a dominant ruler, because their people should fear him or her, but the monarch shouldn't fear them. The Prince, written by Mach-iavelli which is showed on document 1, expressing his ideas about absolutism. He express how a ruler should rule and why. He wrote "Men have less hesitation in offending a man who is loved than who is feared" meaning that is better to be a feared ruler in order to get the respect and de-voted of his subject.

In this paper, I will examine Niccolo Machiavelli’s claims in The Prince that dictatorial power drives most princes. Machiavelli discusses the differences between shared and dictatorial power. The dominant power is to never be conquered, even with the possibility for people to attain greater status. In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses two groups of people: the public and the upper class. This paper will uncover more of how Machiavelli creates the distinctions between powers.