Similarities Between The Prince And Machiavelli

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.

There is an aspect that both Socrates and Machiavelli both speak about in detail within their works that provide a positive connection between them. Machiavelli writes about the mindset of the people in his criticism of the role of religion in the government. In The Prince, Machiavelli does mention principles that have the church as a core part of the prince’s legitimacy, which he refers to as “Ecclesiastical Principles” (The Prince, CH. XI). Machiavelli does confess the the people within the principles are happier, but this is not what he values. He believes that an ideal prince should not encourage religious practices, especially in relation to his role as the ruler. To Machiavelli, he believes that the prince should put loyalty to the state over that of a higher power. He writes “which men are esteemed, being often forced, in order to maintain the state, to act

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.

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 Republic is a Socratic dialogue written by Plato that is widely considered to be one of the most influential and well known works in philosophy and political theory. The Republic is largely focused on defining and explaining the concept of justice through both a individual man and through the “perfectly just” city. This “ideal city” is known as the Republic and throughout the work, there is much debate and discussion over how the city should function and be run to create this perfectly just environment. Throughout the dialogue, it is acknowledged that the republic is an imagined city that “doesn’t exist anywhere on earth”. (Glaucon 274) Along with The Republic there have been many other philosophic texts that attempt to create the model society or leader. In contrast to this style, The Prince written by Niccolo Machiavelli is centered around how to maintain or take control of a kingdom and it describes politics as he believes it exists in reality and not in one’s imagination. The Prince is well known for being a kind of counter to Plato’s Republic. The most notable and obvious clash between the two writing can be found in Machiavelli’s criticisms of what he refers to as “imagined republics”. One can be certain that Plato would have responded to Machiavelli’s criticisms in a brilliant show of wit, however Plato died in 347 B.C. and The Prince was not published until 1532. For one to determine the manner in which Plato may have responded, one must first identify and

I have always found great interest in the infamous Niccolo Machiavelli and his ways of thinking; my eye was drawn to him long before I knew I would be studying at Colorado State and even before I had any interest in politics. It was from young man know as Tupac Shakur, and let me tell you it is great to finally understand who Machiavelli is and the things he has done for the outlook on politics after hearing about how much respect and praise he got from the iconic rapper of the 1990s. In this paper I will be analyzing and contrasting Thomas More’s “Utopia” and Machiavelli’s “The Prince” and their ideas on subjects that include good governance and social orders, key reforms, and who should be held responsible for providing good governance and an orderly society.

When mentioned to most of the people, Machiavelli is associated with evil, corruption, temptation, revenge, etc. The main reason for this is the book that Machiavelli wrote “The Prince”. The book being completely revolutionary for it’s time is the origin of one of the most immoral political doctrines-Machiavellianism. Widely criticized throughout centuries, Machiavellianism is based on personal gain, achieving and maintaining power. But even thought the main origin of Machiavellianism is considered to be Machiavelli it is arguable weather or not he himself was a Machiavellian but a victim of the church’s hatred.

History has proven time and time again that leaders are constantly being challenged by the very population they govern. The population challenging the ruling party has been a constant throughout political history. The relationship between a ruler and his subjects is a fragile one, and it is a relationship that has sparked constant debate for thousands of years. Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince and Plato’s Crito and Apology this relationship and discusses their views on proper governance. Machiavelli and Socrates propose two very different sorts of rulers. Machiavelli advocates for a strong feared ruler who takes pragmatic steps to ensure unity in the state. In both Crito and Apology, Plato portrays Socrates as a “social gadfly” whose purpose to challenge the power of the state. The views of Machiavelli and Socrates are opposing views, and indeed Socrates would be an opposing force in Machiavelli’s idea of how a “prince” should rule.

Machiavelli and Socrates examine the political state in different frames. In this way, the “ends” and “means” that both men seek to are incongruous. The ideal Prince according to Machiavelli would rely on deception and dishonesty to maintain power. According to Machiavelli, “ One who deceives will always find those who allow

Socrates and Machiavelli both lived during a period of nefarious governmental practices and political instability. However, these two men possessed dichotomous beliefs on how to achieve their ends, the means with which to achieve them, and the temperament a ruler must possess in order to be successful. Due to this stark contrast in their sentiments, Socrates would view Machiavelli’s concept of a prince as repugnant due to its absence of morality. Socrates would also disapprove of the political system that said prince would induce because it is one that would curtail the spread of truth, knowledge, and wisdom.

Machiavelli and Socrates both represent groundbreaking, radical, thinkers who contributed greatly to contemporary political theory and dialogue. Although both Machiavelli and Socrates were groundbreaking statesmen, their ideas clash fundamentally. Socrates’ expectation of a leader radically differs from that of Machiavelli. Socrates expects an ideal leader to always challenge the status quo, never accepting the ruling establishment, or the old way of going about governing. Most of all, Socrates would expect a leader to always challenge corruption, decadence, and moral decay of society. Such expectations are seen in both Socrates’ teachings and the actions he took throughout his life. Socrates actively fomented dissent against the nobility of Athens, casting himself as a necessary agitator purging Athenian society of its decadent proclivities. Machiavelli has a near completely opposite view of the virtues a ruler should hold close. Machiavelli’s aim in “The Prince” is to guide potential rulers on how to grow, and later maintain, their grip on power, by any means necessary. Such means may include corruption, the abandoning of one’s moral compass, principles, and just about any other defining characteristic. Machiavelli gives leaders a full license, in a sense, to commit any act that promotes their self-interest. It is clear that Machiavelli and Socrates diverge substantively on what constitutes an ideal leader, which, in turn, signifies that they

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.

Several authors contributed to the politics of the world by sharing their personal views on different styles of leadership including contributing factors like morals and religion. Niccolò Machiavelli is one of the most influential political contributors in history. He wrote several books that expressed different political views. One of his most famous writings is The Prince. Most people believe that this book shows that Machiavelli supported a monarchical way of rulership. He makes arguments like authority and power are equal and that an effective leader knows how to use their power. The result was the conclusion that Machiavelli was a monarchist who believed that the leader should have all the power. Machiavelli’s other writings, however, show that he believes in a republic as well. One such writing is The Discourses on Livy. The book shows that Machiavelli sees value in civic involvement in rulership. He gives an example of France which he believes has been successful because of the king’s dedication to the law. This essay shows the specific contrasts between Machiavelli’s The Prince and The Discourses on Livy.

If someone were to write a novel about 2017 American politics, it would fit right in with books such as The Prince by Machiavelli (1513), We by Zamyatin (1921), and Persepolis by Satrapi (2000). These books center around the governmental ideas, views, and realities of oppressive environments, and could strike a little too close to home for the modern western reader. Written at different points and places throughout history, each book showcases the author’s view of the political and social scenes they saw around them, often uncovering parallels with contemporary society.