Socrates And Machiavelli

He discusses that the prince have military knowledge, love and fear, trustworthiness, and good and bad reputations. He deeply believes in the art of war. "...a prince must not have any objective nor any thought, nor take up any art, other than the art of war and its ordering and discipline; because it is the only art that pertains to him who commands. And it is of such virtue that not only does it maintain those who were born princes, but many times makes men rise to that rank from private station; and conversely one sees that when princes have thought more of delicacies than of arms, they have lost their state." He also writes about whether it is better to be loved or feared, stating that it is best to be feared, but not hated. Love can change in an instant, and it is better to always have control, even if the prince must be feared. Patriotism and dedication to the state was also a very important aspect. In conclusion, Machiavelli strived for power and strength by any means possible. Through violence and fear, the end result would be worth it to him.

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

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

On the heels of the Peloponnesian war, Socrates was blamed for corrupting the youth and disrespecting the Athenian gods and Athenian values. His defense or “Apology” and reaction after he was sentenced to death in “Crito” demonstrate his most basic philosophy and ideals of what a government should truly be like. Yet in a vastly different situation, Machiavelli, who lived during the renaissance of Italy experienced constant shifts of power which he wrote his book, “The Prince”. Machiavelli writes about how a leader or prince should conduct himself in order to keep and efficiently run a republic or principality. Although Socrates’ texts on the surface deal with his accusations, the texts give great insight as to how he thinks a government

Machiavelli’s interpretation of human nature was greatly shaped by his belief in God. In his writings, Machiavelli conceives that humans were given free will by God, and the choices made with such freedom established the innate flaws in humans. Based on that, he attributes the successes and failure of princes to their intrinsic weaknesses, and directs his writing towards those faults. His works are rooted in how personal attributes tend to affect the decisions one makes and focuses on the singular commanding force of power. Fixating on how the prince needs to draw people’s support, Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of doing what is best for the greater good. He proposed that working toward a selfish goal, instead of striving towards a better state, should warrant punishment. Machiavelli is a practical person and always thought of pragmatic ways to approach situations, applying to his notions regarding politics and

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

Plato’s The Apology and Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince provide two opposing views of the ideal ruler and government. The seminal works attempt to uncover the true definition of justice which becomes the basis from which they craft their vision of effective civil leadership. The two men, both influenced by the times of similar conflict and chaos in which they worked, espouse divergent beliefs regarding proper and effective authority. This difference is rooted in a fundamental incongruity between their views of human nature. Socrates, as an ancient Greek philosopher and teacher, views the individual as a sacred and beautiful being capable of reason and great wisdom while Machiavelli believes that the people are inferior to their leaders

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.

There are two doors in front of you. One leads to prosperity, the other to happiness. Which do you choose? The philosophies of Socrates and Machiavelli are like these two doors. Both lead to positive futures, but the sociopolitical structures constituting those futures are very different. When a nation is experiencing turmoil, a government is needed that can do more than just preserve the status quo. It must be a beacon lighting a path forward to a better future. A government must have the ability to mitigate and overcome a nation’s difficulties. Socrates and Machiavelli both lived in uncertain times, characterized by corruption and brutality. They each had the goal of creating a government that could endure and surmount inevitable problems, but they differed in how such goal could and should be achieved. Machiavelli’s “The Prince” recognizes and takes advantage of man’s self-interested nature in forming an effective government. Socrates, however, would not support the type of system that Machiavelli proposed. One major distinction between these two important philosophers is that Machiavelli accepts the world as it is, while Socrates preaches about a virtuous ideal. This essential difference is the foundation for why Socrates would be unable to condone the system of government Machiavelli designs in “The Prince.”

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

When Socrates was executed by hemlock poison in 399 BC, he believed that his death would prove his point. His final public discourse to the trial that would serve as his criticism of Athenian democracy and morals and thus, made him immortal while the men who condemned him were forgotten by the pages of history. When he spoke these words which are now upheld as one of the greatest monologues in recorded history, we can see the inspiration from his apology in the work of Niccolo Machiavelli’s seminal work, the Prince. Though they lived many centuries apart, their works were written in eerily similar contexts. Socrates’ Athens was marked by discord, with tyrants coming and going and the fragile democracy fighting only to protect their reputations. Machiavelli lived in a world of city-states and intrigue, with a fractured Italy struggling to regain its once glorious reputation as the home of the world’s greatest empire. Both of these men were visionaries of their time, rejecting the established order and trying to build a new one. However, the world that these two men imagine are starkly different from one another. One is optimistic, believing that philosophy and justness is king, while the other is a realist who is willing to bend morals and obfuscate the truth in order to ensure stability. If Socrates had been alive to see the vision of the Prince that Machiavelli had written of, I do not believe that he would have been impressed and it would have contrasted greatly with his