Similarities Of Socrates And Machiavelli

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.

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

The story of Socrates has influenced many Western philosophers, including Machiavelli. Even though the story of Socrates took a heavy influence on Machiavelli, it seems as though Machiavelli argues much of Socrates’s philosophy. Socrates’s philosophy is rooted in just rulers, those who valued moral virtue. In contrast, Machiavelli believed in “virtu”, which directly represents what is best for the state, regardless of moral upstanding. Even though both philosophical theories seem to agree on a wide variety of stances, the lack of moral commitment to rule is what ultimately divides them. Socrates would disapprove of Machiavelli’s concept of a Prince, Socrates believes that without virtue, civilization will fall and crumble under the laws of the land. In The Prince, Machiavelli believed that the only purpose for a ruler was to wage war. The purpose of waging war is meant to protect the people from attacks from foreign entities. Machiavelli believes that the only way to protect the state is to be in a constant state of war. The ruler Machiavelli describes will go to any means necessary to maintain peace and solidarity of the state, even if it is deemed unjust. Socrates argues this and believes that a ruler can be unjust in their actions, even if it means the safety of the state. String 2 Machiavelli promotes how violence is appropriate if the ends justifies the means. This translates to how Machiavelli supports violent actions and believes that the people should support a ruler

Although both are considered some of the greatest political and philosophical thinkers of their respective times, Socrates and Niccoló Machiavelli had very different methods and beliefs of how a political system should be run. The mindset of Socrates can be seen in the works Apology and Crito by Plato. Socrates, who values wisdom and justice over power and prestige, would view Machiavelli’s concept of a Prince very contradicting to how he believes a good life should be lived. In his work, The Prince, Machiavelli details how a prince should rule and maintain power. Socrates would not be supportive of Machiavelli and his Prince’s political system because it is rooted in unethical behaviors. Machiavelli views these actions as virtues

prince and how the political system would be led under this rule because of their opposing views

While Socrates clearly emphasizes how an individual can act ethically in an unjust society, Machiavelli rejects this premise. Machiavelli uses his writing in The Prince not to focus on moral actions, but rather to show how strong and feared leadership will lead to better national security. Socrates’ actions prove that he isn’t necessarily

He believed that the sovereign is primarily judged based on his success and not on the process he took to get there or the characteristics he displays. Socrates on the other hand would question the nobles until they felt inferior and encourage the government to become more virtuous, a suggestion that Machiavelli says his Prince would shut down: “it is necessary that he should be prudent enough to avoid the scandal of those vices which would lose him the state, and guard himself if able to, he can indulge them with less scruple” (Machiavelli 57). Machiavelli believes that in some cases it is better to harbor bad characteristics if it means protecting the state, adding to his point that the ends justify the means. Socrates was a firm believer that the pursuit of truth and perfecting the soul outweighed the privileges of being the wealthy and honorable leader that Machiavelli describes. Socrates believed that extra riches would not bring extra happiness and the only real knowledge is that we know nothing. No body or ruler is truly wise or “wealthy” of knowledge until they admit that they really know nothing, start to ask questions and get educated on matters that they are unfamiliar with. Only then will the aristocrats and rulers truly be able to be successful in leading a democratic society.

Socrates would view Machiavelli’s prince as unnecessarily strict and limiting to the knowledge that people crave to possess. Machiavelli’s leanings towards the state over the individual starkly contrast Socrates’ quest for individual knowledge through questioning.

Two of the most significant works in literature, setting the basis and framework for political philosophy, are Plato’s The Last Days of Socrates, and Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince and The Discourses. Both pieces take place during political uncertainty with surrounding societal turmoil. Each take a different approach to how these issues must be dealt with. They each have their own construct of an ideal political regime which, at times overlap, but at others do not. Machiavelli seeks to gain power and wealth while Socrates seeks to gain knowledge and justice. It is because of these differences that Socrates would disapprove of Machiavelli’s concept of a prince, thus resulting him in having a different concept based on his values that he

In this essay, I will argue that Socrates would not approve of Machiavelli’s concept of a prince, nor would he approve of the political system to which Machiavelli’s prince would lead. Machiavelli’s focus on objective events and the quickest path towards absolute power, as opposed to the morality of such a path, differs from Socrates’ approach entirely. Socrates, having always dealt more with the subjective than the objective, would discount the Machiavellian prince as too individualistic, and not focused enough on the greater good. In addition, Socrates would be opposed to the political system to which Machiavelli’s prince would lead as its foundations would be laid upon unjust actions committed in the past. Socrates argued that there are no circumstances under which wrongdoing is acceptable. In addition, Socrates prioritized obedience and fealty to a state which has provided one with shelter, and therefore would disapprove of any Machiavellian plot to overthrow a government one has been reared in, as long as it has not done the usurper serious harm. Therefore, he would not only disapprove of the Machiavellian prince itself, but also the political system to which it would lead.

Rather than just basing his rule entirely off of successful predecessors, Socrates would utilize their methods to formulate his own strategies in a more forward-thinking manner. Socrates would examine various other means to get to the same end of establishing power and dominance amongst his people, rather than concluding that the method used by Cesare Borgia was the right course of action in the given situation. He would look at Borgia’s exercise in power and question what the man could have done as an alternative to killing his minster. Would it be exiling him? Or perhaps question he would this man like he would do to the so-called “wise” men of Athens and try to catch him in a lie? These are means that Machiavelli failed to consider in lieu of blindly following the example of rulers’ past. Thus, Socrates would consider Machiavelli’s reliance on historical examples to be not enough when it comes to a successful political system, and would passionately disagree with the unexamined regime the Florentine endorses.

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 and Machiavelli were two great thinkers who lived in vastly distant, and yet remarkably similar, periods of human history. Both thinkers developed their conceptions of the world under conditions of violence, uncertainty, and political fragmentation, and yet they came to quite separate conclusions about the nature of the state and its actors. Between the political philosophies of Socrates and Machiavelli, the difference boils down to a question of soulcraft or statecraft—absolute morality or moral ambivalence—idealism or practicality. Socrates professes support for the ‘examined life,’ in which one lives one’s life questioning every action to determine whether it is good or ill, and in this way he expresses an absolute sense of justice and morality, and a belief that one’s allegiance should be to these ideals above status, riches, or power. The Prince crafted by Machiavelli, however, rules with a degree of moral ambivalence, feigning virtue but willing to do injury or injustice upon others for the sake of gaining and keeping power over a unified state. From the perspective of Socrates, Machiavelli’s Prince would seem morally unprincipled and preoccupied solely with gaining and keeping power over his state, even at the expense of justice. Socrates would not consent to a political system under the absolute rule of a Prince who does not strive to always do what it is moral and just. The most

contemporaries, disapproving of their preoccupation with gaining status and wealth, and claiming it best “not to think more of practical advantages than of [one’s] mental or moral well-being . . . in the case of the State or of anything else” (Apology 36c). He scorns the materialism of Athens’ powerful figures, and their obsession with power and status. These judgements would suggest that Socrates’ ideal ‘Prince’ would not only never do injury upon others, but would in fact be entirely unconcerned with gaining political status. “The true champion of justice,” he insists, “must necessarily confine himself to private life and leave politics alone” (Apology 32a). This attitude represents the antithesis of all of Machiavelli’s advice in The Prince, although, as already discussed, Machiavelli does not claim that a Prince should be a champion of justice, another point on which Socrates would disagree. In addition to land and power, Machiavelli’s Prince, as previously mentioned, is also chiefly concerned with his own “security and wellbeing” (Prince 57). In this ruthless world which Machiavelli envisions, a Prince must protect himself and his state at all turns from power-hungry nobles, a dissatisfied populace, and foreign invaders. While this Prince is likely to think of “security and wellbeing” in terms of the security and wellbeing of his state and his person, Socrates claims that the wellbeing of the person is above all a matter of the soul, encouraging the citizens of Athens