Similarities Of Socrates And Machiavelli

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.

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

Socrates, Machiavelli, and Rousseau are three philosophers discussing political ethics from entirely different perspectives. This paper argues that Socrates, Machiavelli, and Rousseau are all idealists regarding their stances on political ethics. First, this paper argues that Socrates is an idealist due his belief that the current government has much more potential than it is currently reaching, and that the government could eventually be changed. Second, this paper argues that Rousseau is an idealist because of his unrealistically positive view of the natural state of humanity and negative view of society. Lastly, this paper argues that Machiavelli is idealistic because of the overwhelming, impossible number of criteria that the Prince

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.

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

18). A true prince in Machiavelli’s eyes is someone that the nobles, people, army, and neighboring states will be dependent on. To Machiavelli humans are by nature power hungry and greedy and that as long as there is dependence on the prince whether it is due to heredity, fear, or a variety of other factors, he will remain in power.

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.

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

He states “…the difficulties of maintaining hereditary states accustomed to a reigning family is far less than in new monarchies…” (Machiavelli, 5). Socrates may not oppose this first idea, but this sets up the rest of the book’s intentions which are how to rule most effectively, which Socrates may find very wrong. Machiavelli next goes into detail in The Prince on how this new leader should lead the people of his kingdom. He then tells a story about someone who was handed land and did everything correctly in his eyes but got very unlucky (Machiavelli, 1950). This person is Cesare Borgia, Duke of Valentinois. He was given territory by his father, Pope Alexander VI. He became a vicious ruler, one that Machiavelli extremely admired and claimed to have had ruled perfectly. Machiavelli admired how Borgia came into power and instantly took out any allies/armies he had a lack of trust with. Next, Borgia “…appointed Messer Remirro de Orco, a cruel and able man, to whom he gave the fullest authority” (Machiavelli, 27). This man was hired to keep control of the area and have everyone feel threatened so they wouldn’t be disobedient. But once Borgia found out this threatening figure running the land was causing people to dislike him as a leader, Borgia decided to cut Messer Remirro de Orco in half and display his body in the center of town. After displaying his body to the town, it “…caused the people both satisfaction

Although written nearly two centuries apart, The Republic by Plato and The Prince by Machiavelli offer important views on political philosophies of rulers. Plato writes of a perfect society where status as ruler is naturally selected through innate abilities. These abilities are used to sustain the society, better it, and preserve it. Machiavelli writes of a society where anyone can be a prince; which for our purposes is a synonym for ruler, if they follow his instructions. These instructions are to ensure a new ruler can take control of new lands and maintain order in them for the sake of conquering and expanding power.

First let us discuss the ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli in is piece “The Prince”. Machiavelli has a very independent controversial way of thinking and portraying his ideal form of governance in this text. The ideal and most effective from of governance for him is not in that of a republic but instead he insists in an autocratic regime. He argues that republics and other forms of government are too weak because of the corruptness of human nature. This book is written as a guide on how a prince should run his state or nation based on how and when he would come into this power. One of his main concerns in which he has been criticized for is his disregard to follow moral values so as to properly run the state, as well as

Niccolo Machiavelli’s abstract work of The Prince discusses politics and government and focuses in not only acquiring power, but also how to maintain it. Throughout his work, one of the most prevalent yet disputed themes is between the acquirement of states between principalities and republics. The Prince shows a predominant and constant debate on which group will excel in acquiring power. However, despite Machiavelli’s harsh criticisms on principalities, his work does not solely praise or focus on the excellence of republics. In fact, as Machiavelli continues to speak and provide examples about the successes and failures of both republics and principalities, it becomes clearer that the lone purpose of The Prince is to merely provide tactics in political governance, instruction on how to maintain power once it is acquired, and most importantly, advice on how to become a great leader.