The Political Philosophy Of Niccolo Machiavelli And Socrates

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.

In the Prince, Machiavelli argues that the idea of truth in the government is only a method to manipulate the unsuspecting public. A leader does not need to be truthful as long as the public believes he is. Politics during Machiavelli’s time was much harsher than that of Socrates and his work reflects his cynical history. While Socrates experienced a major change in his home government during his lifetime, Machiavelli witnessed multiple periods of governmental turmoil.

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 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.

For example, one thing Machiavelli mentions is that it is necessary for a Prince to appear “merciful, faithful, humane, trustworthy, and religious,” to his subjects. However, Machiavelli believes that actually having those qualities is irrelevant, as long as it looks like he is to his people. Socrates would not approve of this sort of deception of the population. When Socrates discusses wisdom and his quest for knowledge, he talks about how when he talked to both the poets and the craftsmen, they thought themselves knowledgeable in many aspects that they were not, which led him to conclude that true wisdom is knowing the limitations of knowledge. This common theme for Socrates, the acknowledgement of one’s shortcomings, is diametrically opposed to Machiavelli’s version of a Prince, who appears virtuous regardless of how accurate that is. Because of this, Socrates would not agree with Machiavelli on what makes a good Prince.

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.

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.

He states “…the difficulties of maintaining hereditary states accustomed to a reigning family is far less than in new monarchies…” (Machiavelli, 5). Socrates may not oppose this first idea, but this sets up the rest of the book’s intentions which are how to rule most effectively, which Socrates may find very wrong. Machiavelli next goes into detail in The Prince on how this new leader should lead the people of his kingdom. He then tells a story about someone who was handed land and did everything correctly in his eyes but got very unlucky (Machiavelli, 1950). This person is Cesare Borgia, Duke of Valentinois. He was given territory by his father, Pope Alexander VI. He became a vicious ruler, one that Machiavelli extremely admired and claimed to have had ruled perfectly. Machiavelli admired how Borgia came into power and instantly took out any allies/armies he had a lack of trust with. Next, Borgia “…appointed Messer Remirro de Orco, a cruel and able man, to whom he gave the fullest authority” (Machiavelli, 27). This man was hired to keep control of the area and have everyone feel threatened so they wouldn’t be disobedient. But once Borgia found out this threatening figure running the land was causing people to dislike him as a leader, Borgia decided to cut Messer Remirro de Orco in half and display his body in the center of town. After displaying his body to the town, it “…caused the people both satisfaction

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.

Relying on the needs of the society of that time, Machiavelli comes to the conclusion that the most important task is the formation of a single Italian state (Machiavelli 15). Developing his thoughts, the author comes to the following inference: only a prince can become a leader capable of leading people and building a unified state. It is not a concrete historical personality but someone abstract, symbolic, possessing such qualities that in the aggregate are inaccessible to any living ruler. That is why Machiavelli devotes most of his research to the issue of what qualities should the prince possess to fulfill the historical task of developing a new state. The written work is constructed strictly logically and objectively. Even though the image of an ideal prince is abstract, Machiavelli argues that he should be ruthless, deceiving, and selfish.

It is fundamentally important to preface the discussion hosted in this essay by addressing ourselves to the most mundane question-why consider Machiavelli in the context of philosophy, least of all, political philosophy? This question dominates any philosophical inquiries of the Machiavelli’s political ideologies. Put differently, do the contributions by Niccolò Machiavelli to the various salient discourses in the Western thought, most notably political theory, meet the requisite standard models of academic philosophy? Machiavelli essentially seems not to consider himself a philosopher. In fact, he overtly disapproved of any philosophical inquiries into his works. In addition, his credentials do not qualify him to be properly admitted within the realm of philosophy (NeDermAN, 2002).