Socrates And Machiavelli Analysis

Prince, Machiavelli describes an image of what he believes an ideal prince should be. He explains his ideas on how to conquer and rule with the peoples’ loyalty and respect. Machiavelli argues in chapter five that the way to take over a free state is initially to destroy it and by destroying the city, the citizens have no other choice but “let [the] prince win and maintain his state” by following his commands. Later Machiavelli describes what he believes leadership is. Leaders, he explains, are followers in many ways. All leaders are imitating great rulers in history. A leader who truly wishes to achieve glory does so by his own talent. Anyone can inherit a kingdom, but not anyone can rule it with natural leadership. Machiavelli also explains that a leader should not try to buy his subjects, because they will only be temporarily loyal. A prince needs to eliminate his enemies and do so all at once. Even if a prince does not succeed in ruling by his own skill in his lifetime, he is still setting a good foundation for future princes. The next chapter explains the level of evil needed in order to rise to power. He gives a clear insight into the pros and cons of obtaining power by evil means and how to use evil in ways that will be beneficial. Machiavelli believes very strongly in manipulation. If a prince can unleash all of his evil and destruction at one time, the people will forget and move on

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 believed that a prince’s morality and ethics characterized a good leader whereas Machiavelli believed a ruler should use their power and fear to maintain control. Socrates would view Machiavelli’s concept of a prince as morally wrong and would not be supportive of a political system led by a Prince with a Machiavellian train of thought.

At first glance, Socrates and Machiavelli appear to have a lot in common.  They both lived in a time of political unrest and violence. They both dealt with uncertain surroundings in their societies. Most importantly, they both tried to use philosophy to improve their society. However, there was also an important difference between them. While Socrates was a moral philosopher whose goal was to search for truth and knowledge, Machiavelli was a political philosopher whose goal was to create a lasting society with a Prince that could hold power. Because of their clashing ideals, it is unlikely that Socrates would be supportive of a Machiavellian political system or Prince, though there are specific aspects of the society that Socrates 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

The works of Socrates and Machiavelli are as polarized as the phrases “the unexamined life is not worth living” and “the ends justify the means.” The Prince by Machiavelli and The Last Days of Socrates by Plato are both crucial texts to the discussion of what makes a good political leader. Well, what makes a good political leader? Socrates would disagree with Machiavelli’s ideation of the Prince because of the immorality that he allows this model to have in the public sphere. However, Socrates would find that Machiavelli’s Prince would lead to a political system that he would favor, because it would be one ruled by a qualified and expert leader, unlike in a democracy.

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’ ideal Prince is much different than that of Machiavelli. Socrates found great power in his analysis of Athens, rather than direct involvement. Through questioning, reason, and critical analysis he attempts to instill wisdom, truth and virtue in Athens, specifically in the youth. He was charged with corrupting the youth because his idea of how life should be lived was much different than that of the states. Socrates corrupted the youth of Athens because he degenerated or undeveloped them from becoming strong political, economic, and military leaders. The people of Athens, in particular the wealthy and powerful, wanted their children to be educated in ideals that Machiavelli would support. It was the job for these privileged youth to learn how to be strong leaders so the city could run smoothly in the future and Socrates was undermining this structure. If the youth Socrates was teaching were treated as a counterpart to Machiavelli’s Prince, a difference in ideals and teachings can be found. Machiavelli teaches his Prince how to maintain power at all costs, while Socrates teaches his students to put aside the concept of materialistic power such as wealth and

To be the prince, you have to be unethical. Machiavelli’s philosophy can be seen as cruel and evil, however, I believe that he is just teaching what he believes will work when governing. The reason behind his cruelty and terror as instruments are simply instruments of leadership – not because he finds joy in harming and scaring others. The effective truth of the matter is that certain times call for punishment and putting fear into people in order to keep power. For those who are in power – the prince – will have a natural urge to keep their own state.

Machiavelli and Socrates’ respective beliefs on political thought are shaped by how they view the world. Machiavelli looks at the world through a realist scope. He sees the world as how it is, not how it should be. Machiavelli is often dubbed the “father” of realism and his ideal political system reflects that. He believes the paramount interest of a state is to protect its political autonomy. He instructs princes to be cunning, deceitful, and constantly suspicious of other rulers. The Prince will be judged by the results of his reign rather than the means he used to achieve them. War for Machiavelli is good; it allows the Prince to broadcast his power, instilling fear in other rulers. Socrates would oppose this mindset and outlook on the world. He would instead take a more idealized approach to political affairs. Socrates would instruct a Prince to look at other sovereign rulers as potential allies. War, for Socrates, is the last resort, if an option at all. Socrates’ prince would work tirelessly to settle disputes with diplomacy

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.

Socrates was a man who sought goodness and wisdom above all else, and would find Machiavelli’s concept of a prince to be a leader void of these qualities. Socrates would be critical of a Machiavellian prince’s character and actions for failing to meet his morally absolute standard of goodness, and of the Machiavellian prince’s notion of wisdom for conflicting with his own. Socrates would not be supportive of the political system formed under a Machiavellian prince, the perpetuation of which inherently clashes with his stringent moral absolutism and ideals of devotion to one’s country.

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.

When it came to government and the structure of society Machiavelli and Socrates had opposing ideas. Machiavelli's idea of the perfect government in his letter to Lorenzo de Medici is that there is a hereditary principality where the prince is from the line of descendants that have previously ruled. He says hereditary principalities are better than mixed or new principalities because, " People will change their rulers willingly hoping to better themselves, and this hope induces them to take up arms against their prince" (Machiavelli 7). Ultimately Machiavelli believes in the need for routines and old traditions so people don’t feel the need to change anything. In his mind, he believed that change was detrimental, which makes sense given the unstable state of Italy at the time. After seeing rulers come in and out of Italy Machiavelli had concluded that such instability leads to ruin. Socrates had the idea that the best ruler would be the one who didn’t want to rule in the first place