Battle 1 HypoCrates: Socrates’ Beliefs and Hypocrisy on Machiavelli’s Prince and Politics Niccolo Machiavelli lived in Italy during a time of great change and political conflict and war. Similarly, Socrates lived in Greece, which was also experiencing political unrest. Both of these philosophers wrote about what they believed to be a successful political system and its leadership, or the Prince. Although both lived during similar societal unrest, each had different perspectives on what it is a fit Prince would be. Socrates believed that a Prince should be one who motivated the pursuit of wisdom and held some of their own, as well as one who valued morality in their rule. Machiavelli believed that a Prince would be one who had the right to manipulate their people as well as one who could separate morality from their rule. Socrates would not agree with Machiavelli’s concept of a Prince because of their differing views on how wisdom and morality should be applied to an effective Prince’s rule however, would have to support the political system that comes from the Prince’s rule because of Socrates’ belief on obeying law, whether it is just or unjust. Socrates and Machiavelli’s beliefs differ in what role wisdom takes on for a Prince. Socrates would not support Machiavelli’s view that a Prince would be permitted to manipulating the people simply because the people do not hold enough wisdom to mind. Machiavelli believes that people do not strive for gaining more wisdom because
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
statement, however, can be interpreted in two ways- in a Machiavellian state where one can accept this idea then strive for a world filled with order and stability, or a Socratic state where people should be just and fair even though they do not live in that kind of world. Socrates believes to an extent that this world is not the one that gets to judge you, but it is in fact in the afterlife- where one faces the gods- that matters. He would see Machiavelli’s prince as illegitimate depending on how he obtained and maintained power. For Socrates, a Prince that enables the suppression of ideas and of questioning is one that has no merit and no wisdom. There are three points in which Socrates would disagree with Machiavelli’s tactics. One being the use of violence- an inherent injustice to Socrates- on any person. The other is the use of money or material to bribe enemies, turning them into temporary friends. Lastly, Socrates would take issue with responsibility- to not only ones self, but for ones people. It is in these three points that which the ideals and virtues held so close to Socrates are destroyed in the name of peace and order.
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
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 writes The Prince centuries after Plato documents Socrates in Crito and The Apology. Despite the different time periods, both Machiavelli and Socrates experience times of turmoil where the concept of democracy was questioned. However, the different time periods cause the views and purposes of Machiavelli’s writing to largely differ from Socrates. Machiavelli writes in a time of turmoil where Italy was a bunch of small, fragmented states and when the Medici’s struggled to regain power after being expelled. This causes his views to be more cynical and pessimistic in comparison to Socrates. If Socrates were to read The Prince, he would disagree with Machiavelli’s beliefs and deem his portrayal of a prince as immoral. Their
The fundamental incongruity between Machiavelli and Socrates stems from what they value in a ruler. The most salient difference is their ordering of justice and efficacy.
Take Niccolo Machiavelli’s infamous Renaissance-era political treatise The Prince and recently deceased modern pop icon Prince, and upon first glance, they do not have much in common beyond a name. But an in-depth comparison reveals stunning parallels between Prince’s life and Machiavelli’s theories, allowing brand-new insight into their mutual focus on a number of age-old themes.
Socrates and Machiavelli are both very influential philosophers and two of the great minds of their time. However, both of these men had their own separate ideas that did not completely agree with one another. Machiavelli was born into a Renaissance time period of fragmented politics, lots of bloodshed, and angry citizens while Socrates grew up in a time of political adjustment and instability in Athens. Machiavelli constructed The Prince as a political pamphlet to his friend Lorenzo de ' Medici on how a prince would successfully rule his land or kingdom most effectively. This guide consisted of ideas that involved cheating and lying to keep people happy and asserting dominance over others. The Greek philosopher Socrates, on the other
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.
In The Morals of the Prince Machiavelli expresses his presumption on how a prince should act. He expresses that a prince should be feared, merciful, stingy, etc. He is right because if a prince is loved and too generous then people will take advantage of him and that will lead to his down fall. A prince must act appropriately to remain in power. Machiavelli gives his best ideas to keep a prince in power.
Socrates and Machiavelli both take politics very seriously. Because they love Athens and Italy so much, they want to bring good to them through their philosophy by thinking critically about the issues plaguing them and finding solutions. An integral part of Socrates was his desire to stay consistent to what he had spoken about and what he believed. I don’t believe that Socrates would find the political system, led by Machiavelli’s “Prince”, to be something he could support because the concept of Prince doesn’t fit into Socrates’ definition of consistent. To Socrates, the important thing “is not to live, but to live well” (Plato, 87) which for him, means living honorably and justly. Socrates and Machiavelli have different definitions for what “just” means. Machiavelli believes that a Prince should explore the best option in different situations and when the time comes, have the ability to do the dirty work that needs to be done. We will explore the ideas of morality and religion by analyzing Machiavelli’s concept of a Prince through the eyes of Socrates.
Modern politics did not just spring into existence, but was built upon foundations set hundreds of years before. Foundations that have been set by Niccolo Machiavelli and Socrates have proven to withstand the test of time, continuing to be influential and poignant in today’s world. Despite their prevalence, these men advocate and believe in starkly different principles in government. Machiavelli’s concept of the ruling figure, or prince, is one based strictly on the concept of power and its furtherance, which can best be seen based on the Prince’s moral code. Socrates’ concept of the ideal prince is one that advocates for the rule of law and is enlightened by the sense that he knows nothing. Prior to examining the Socratic view of a Machiavellian prince and whether Socrates would support a Machiavellian political system, it is necessary to carefully examine the two different perspectives on the ideal ruler. It is likely that Socrates would have viewed Machiavelli’s ideal prince with contempt due to differences in the two men’s ideas regarding originality of thought, the influence of a moral code on a leader’s rule, and the need to keep agreements. Furthermore Socrates would likely disagree with the foundations that Machiavelli’s political system was grounded upon, such as a stark and true disagreement on the importance of rule of law in a society and whether soulcraft or statecraft should
Socrates, throughout his teachings, emphasizes the importance of an establishment which exists to serve its electorate, stating that the intrinsic purpose of any government is to secure the security, prosperity, and contentment of those who it is charged with attending to. While Machiavelli stresses the necessity of the same thing for an affluent prince, he does so in demonstrating how a prince may remain unchallenged, whereas Socrates does so in hopes of actually protecting the people. Machiavelli only found such practices important so to remove potential threats and maintain the security of a prince’s position. This furthers earlier assertion that Socrates approaches his contemplations on policy from the perspective and interests of the whole population, while Machiavelli adopts the lens and comforts of the prince, bringing attention to the key conceptual difference in the Prince, the Apology, and Crito.