Socrates And Machiavelli : A Political Philosopher

An absolute that Machiavelli states for a prince is that they, “ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and disciplines” (88).

He explains that, “...a natural difficulty which exists in all new dominions, because men change masters willingly, hoping to better themselves; and this belief makes them take arms against their rulers…” (Machiavelli 6). Hence, in order to be an effective ruler, a prince must overcome the aforementioned challenge. Moreover, he must also be pragmatic, unbound to moral consciousness or traditional scruples, heavy-handed, sleuth, defend his state with a domestic military (as mercenaries only provoke the weakening of a state), and take whatever lengths he must to solidify his strength and capabilities to rule, brutality being a welcomed measure so long as the “ends justify the means”, while also not oppressing the people.

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

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

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.

Socrates and Niccolo Machiavelli are two of the most renowned influential political theorists in history. Their most acclaimed works, Apology, and The Prince appropriately created the basis for various political ideologies that are still being used in today’s society. Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 1513 as a gift to the Medici family who controlled Florence at the time. The Apology was written by Plato in 399 BC who was one of Socrates students and admirers. Most of our knowledge on Socrates philosophies and theories originate from the writings and dialogues of Plato. Machiavelli and Plato lived during times of uncertainty, violence and political fragmentation however they both had different perspectives on what makes a good prince.

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.

Socrates’ contradicting views are presented when he claims, “Not from money does virtue come, but from virtue comes money and all of the other good things for human beings both privately and publicly” (Apology, 30b). Socrates disputes that fortuna comes from virtue and presents a cause and effect relationship, contrary to the interconnected relationship as presented by Machiavelli. A prince should use philosophical thinking to question and explore many ideas in order to amass success. Just having money and luck, on the other hand, will not lead to more success because the prince is unable to think about how he can execute his rulings. Through his views, he connotes how the ruler cannot start his reign with both fortuna and virtue. This contradicts with Machiavelli’s prince because Socrates disputes the lack of emphasis on fortune.

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.

The differences in Plato and Machiavelli’s accounts of virtue is evidently that they focus on different virtues and identify varying virtues as being valuable to political life. Plato discusses four virtues: wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. Plato compares wisdom, or knowledge, to the sun in an attempt to aid us in understanding the Form of the Good which is the definitive entity of knowledge by saying

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.