The ideal political leader does not exist, for each person has a different view on what “ideal” entails, but the ideal leader should be able to cope in the most stressful situations, should be honest, a true leader, and educated as well. In the Republic, comes forth the examples of a leader in that they are educated. From Marcus Aurelius’’ Meditations it’s easy to see a ruler that is honest and a true leader. And finally, from The Prince one can see the role of a ruler as direct, and capable to act in the face of challenge. All of these works of literature hold key aspects of what the ideal political ruler should be, although none are prefect, they hold valid points that have the capability to become divine. From The Republic, Meditations and The Prince it is evident that the ideal political leaders are honest, born leaders, educated, and to be bold in the face of adversity. The first aspect of the ideal ruler is found in the Meditations, this attribute is honesty. An honest ruler will be able to gain the trust of his people. Trust is a necessary foundation for any relationship, including that of a ruler and his/her people. In Shelley Kirkpatrick and Edwin Locke’s article, they say, “Key leader traits include: drive (a broad term which includes achievements, motivation, ambition, energy, tenacity, and initiative); leadership motivation (the desire to …show more content…
These attributes derive from the literary works of Plato’s The Republic, Machiavelli’s The Prince and Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations. These three literary works conflict many views, even occasionally bash on the ideas of the other, but each has something very necessary for a leader to truly be ideal. Whether it be honesty, leadership, education or boldness, each *attribute* brings something intriguing to the table that can make up a truly ideal
The first characteristic of a great leader is being loved by their people. By way of example Jane Simmons wrote “ an aggressive military leader, he was feared but also admired by people in other land.” Sulieman scared the people that he needed to scare but he was admired by the people he helped. Also in Amit carters queen Elizabeth I summary it says “she was thought of as a good and wise ruler who was truly thought of as a good ruler
In the fourteenth century, the humanist philosopher Francesco Petrarch wrote a letter entitled How a Ruler Ought to Govern His Sate. Nearly a century later, another philosopher by the name of Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a book about governing, The Prince. The two documents show many similarities in content and theme. While the two wrote in similar subject matter, it is clear that these philosophers possess distinctly different viewpoints on how a ruler should govern. In Petrarch’s How a Ruler Ought to Govern His Sate and Machiavelli’s The Prince, both philosophers possess different opinions on how a ruler ought to govern. In particular Machiavelli pays specific attention to the importance of
From the 14th century into the 17th century of European history, a cultural revolution took place. The renaissance came to Europe and pushed out old middle age ideals and brought in new humanistic ones. The renaissance brought new cultural ideas, new ways of learning, new art, and new standards of how to rule a Kingdom. Kingdoms were coming and going fast at this time, rulers were slipping under the pressures of expanding rule and it seemed that a new kingdoms were continuously being conquered. The guidelines set up in Machiavelli’s The Prince, help to define what makes up a good and bad leader in terms of the new Renaissance ideals.
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
Despite living thousands of years ago, Socrates and Machiavelli were both influential thinkers whose works are still relevant today. These two great thinkers and philosophers wrote about and extensively studied political systems. The influences of their work can still be seen today in constitutions and governments around the world. Were it not for their transcendent works, there is a real chance today’s systems of government would look very different. While no governments today exactly match those advocated for by Machiavelli and Socrates, their writings surely influenced other thinkers later on in history. Both of these philosophers advocated for different leadership structures with the hope of creating fair and long-lasting states.
Many great leaders have ruled throughout history, but what made them great? Throughout the ages many very intelligent men have sought to enlighten the world on how to best govern their people. Many of these ideas were written down in great literary works, including: Plato’s “The Republic”, Marcus Aurelius “Meditations” and Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. Plato Sculpted his ideal society with his philosopher king at the head. Marcus Aurelius lead by example as the poster child for stoicism. Machiavelli on the other hand broke away from Plato’s ideal society and placed the strong above all others with his real politik. While these men were all very intelligent and sought the same goal of security, there can only be one victor. The best way to govern a people is the Machiavellian way, his methods are based on historical events, his methods were proven effective and they are based on realism.
Character and Determination. A leader is made by their character and willpower, meaning that the two go together hand-in-hand in a virtuous
unique voices. While some philosophers have similar opinions on what it takes to be an effective leader, such as intelligence and worldliness, there are many that disagree on traits they find beneficial. The reasons for these disagreements are vast but one of the crucial factors are the societies and historical eras these authors were nurtured within. Through their own experiences with government and turmoil, philosophers are able to give their critiques on government and human nature as a whole. Socrates and Machiavelli, both philosophers in what it means to be a proper leader and the role of the people within a society, share contrasting views.
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
As a growing debate, the question at hand is whether great leaders are born with specific leadership traits, or if one can be taught certain traits over time. According to (Wikipedia.com) the approach of listing leadership qualities, often termed "trait theory of leadership", assumes certain traits or characteristics will tend to lead to effective leadership. I believe that leadership traits such as honest, competent, initiative, inspiring, hardworking, intelligent, and the ability to lead the masses, are some of the leadership traits one should possess. Within this paper, I will examine the overall concept of leadership traits, while observing the traits that were, or can be associated with successful 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.
Although written nearly two centuries apart, The Republic by Plato and The Prince by Machiavelli offer important views on political philosophies of rulers. Plato writes of a perfect society where status as ruler is naturally selected through innate abilities. These abilities are used to sustain the society, better it, and preserve it. Machiavelli writes of a society where anyone can be a prince; which for our purposes is a synonym for ruler, if they follow his instructions. These instructions are to ensure a new ruler can take control of new lands and maintain order in them for the sake of conquering and expanding power.
The Trait Approach was the 1st systematic attempt to study leadership. In the 20th century it was known as the “great man” theory. This approach takes a look at the leaders personal attributes such as but not limited to: motivation, energy, intuition, creativity, persuasiveness and foresight. Some of the traits that are essential to this list include: intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity and sociability. Thus it focuses mainly on the leader and not on the followers or situations. The strengths of the Trait Approach includes: 1) it is intuitively appealing, 2) it has research to back it’s theory, 3) it highlights the leader, 4) it identifies what the traits of a leader should have and whether the traits we do
Throughout class one of the major themes has been what qualities make the best possible ruler. Two of my favorite philosophers, Plato and Machiavelli, although very different both attempt to give an answer of what makes a good ruler. Plato’s Philosopher King and Machiavelli’s Prince share their similarities and differences, but in the end Machiavelli paints a more realistic picture of a ruler which makes his prince more favorable.
The nature of politics is one in which individuals are striving to make the best possible decisions with the mental tools they have. Political leaders who can moderate themselves and have the ability to maintain their composure in the midst of heated moments is what constitutes a mark of great virtue. In the play “Antigone” by Sophocles, the leader Kreon is depicted as a tyrant leader who sees himself differently when he has to face the consequences of choosing power over his own son’s wishes. According to Aristotle, what makes a person a good citizen or leader is whether they have the virtues of moderation, justice, and prudence. The implementation of these virtues in political events allows for individuals to act in a reasonable and wise manner as they make decisions. Following from Aristotle’s view of a good leader, Kreon does not posses the essential characteristics that would have aided him in his immoral endeavors. Thus, Socrates would be a better leader than Kreon because of his possession of virtues and self-control.