Summary Of Plato'sThe Prince And Machiavelli

All forms of government will eventually collapse. It’s not a question of how, bit rather; when. Every person on Earth is either governed by a ruler, or governing as a ruler. Often, philosophers argue about methods of statecraft. Between Plato, Aurelius, and Machiavelli, almost every type of governance is discussed in great length.

The political situation that prompted Machiavelli to write The Prince was that Italy wasn’t a unified country yet. It was a bunch of city states.

    Many people in history have written about ideal rulers and states and how to maintain them.  Perhaps the most talked about and compared are Machiavelli's, The Prince and Plato's, The Republic.  Machiavelli lived at a time when Italy was suffering from its political destruction.  The Prince, was written to describe the ways by which a leader may gain and maintain power. In Plato?s The Republic, he unravels the definition of justice.  Plato believed that a ruler could not be wholly just unless one was in a society that was also just. His state and ruler was made up to better understand the meaning of justice.  It was not intended to be practiced like that of

In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses ways in which a ruler should obtain power and maintain power, emphasizing the concept of gaining power through virtue versus fortune. Virtue, or virtu in the original Italian, is defined as the masculine quality of power, and not necessarily tied to ideas of morality as it is in the English definition.

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

In 1513, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote “The Prince,” in which he discussed the characteristics that qualify a leader to have control of his people. Machiavelli claimed that a leader ought to associate with vices that have a positive impact to his rulings to avoid embarrassment, thus building a strong leadership. This claim is policy because it delivers the message of ruling. Machiavelli’s audiences are former rulers or anyone aspiring to become a leader.

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

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

Niccolio Machiavelli (Born May 3rd, 1469 – 1527 Florence, Italy.) His writings have been the source of dispute amongst scholars due to the ambiguity of his analogy of the ‘Nature of Politics'; and the implication of morality. The Prince, has been criticised due to it’s seemingly amoral political suggestiveness, however after further scrutiny of other works such as The Discourses, one can argue that it was Machiavelli’s intention to infact imply a positive political morality. Therefore the question needs to be posed. Is Machiavelli a political amoralist? To successfully answer this it is essential to analyse his version of political structure to establish a possible bias. It would also be beneficial

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.

Machiavelli and Socrates were beings of their time. The world around them shaped their views, and their views have in turn shaped ours. While both lived through turbulent times, they do not share the same ideology. Socrates would dislike Machiavelli’s description of the ideal prince, regardless of how the prince actually ruled. Socrates would oppose both how the prince got to power and keeps it, as well as the society over which he rules. Socrates assigned certain responsibilities to both the ruler and the subjects, and some of them are incongruent with the expectations and suggestions proposed by Machiavelli in The Prince. As a result, even if Socrates liked the ruler he would see it as a result of the individual (the ruler) and not the

“Machiavelli wrote The Prince to serve as a handbook for rulers, and he claims explicitly throughout the work that he is not interested in talking about the ideal republics or imaginary utopias, as many of his predecessors had done” (Harrison). There is an ongoing debate about which philosopher’s ideas are most correct on the subject of leadership. Two main philosophers come to mind when thinking of this topic and they are Machiavelli with his book The Prince and Plato’s dialogue The Republic. The Republic takes a very theoretical point of view on leadership and portrays life as it should be in an ideal state, whereas Machiavelli’s The Prince, takes a more realistic point of view. Machiavelli is less interested with what things should be

Niccolo Machiavelli was the first to clearly decipher politics from ethics by studying politics in such depth and thought. He created the basis of what politics should be and how they are runned for today. His book The Prince is primarily a handbook for all rulers to follow to be the most successful in their reign. His book is considered political realism which means he speaks about only the truth of politics, so it can be used for the practice of governing. Machiavelli’s book is the handbook for obtaining and maintaining power even for today’s modern politics.

It is highly debated what type of ideal king is the better type of ideal king. Both philosophers, Plato and Machiavelli, have their own separate version of what the best and most ideal king would look like. Plato’s version of the ideal king can be found along with a description in Plato’s Republic Book 6. He describes a king raised in philosophy, and a regimented education plan. Machiavelli’s king can be found with a description in Machiavelli’s The Prince. This king is best summarized as a “might is right” type of fellow. The Philosopher King is a better king because he has been educated by the people, for the people.