The Republic Versus Machiavelli's The Prince

1. Explain the three parts of the soul in your own words as well as referring to the Republic, Book IV. In case of being corrupted by bad upbringing (441a), what is Plato’s suggestion/ solution? Explain. Do you think his solution is reasonable? Expand.

            On the contrary, Plato's idea of the ruler is almost exactly the opposite that of Machiavelli's.  Plato's reason for his ideal ruler and state was to explain the meaning of justice. One must examine what it means for a state to be just and what it means for a person to be just to truly understand the meaning of justice.  According to Socrates, ??if we first tried to observe justice in some larger thing that possessed it, this would make it easier to observe in a single individual. We agreed that this larger thing is a city?(Plato 96).?  Plato?s ideal ruler must have a good mind, always be truthful, have knowledge and discipline, and not be afraid of death.  The ruler is a philosopher that satisfies the four virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation/self-control, and justice.

Plato’s theory of the simplicity of the soul is seen in the Phaedo. Through the mouthpiece of Socrates, Plato argues for a simple soul which only has one true aim. He states that the soul only seeks truth and that all other senses and experiences are merely distractions through the soul being embodied ‘the soul reasons best when none of these senses troubles it, neither hearing nor sight, nor pain nor pleasure, but when it is most by itself, taking leave of the body and as far as possible having no contact or association with it in its search for reality.’ (Plato, 1997, §65c). The simple soul can only aim to grasp the truth of reality which it gets closer to as man becomes closer to death. This is why, in Plato’s opinion, a philosopher in particular can

“If the truth of all things always existed in the soul, then the soul is immortal” (The Philosophical Journey 89). This states that since the soul has all knowledge integrated, one recollects this knowledge through situations in an individual’s life and use one’s reasoning. With the dialogues of the Meno and Phaedo, Plato discusses the ideas of recollection and immortality of the soul in general. As well, the Republic, through the three different situations shown, Plato shows the ideas of the forms and what is real and what is not.

Nicolo Machiavelli is known as being an archetypical realist; in other words, he was someone who originated the idea that we should not try to figure out how people should be, but rather accept and deal with the world as it literally is. Unlike Machiavelli, Plato posited an idealist view of a philosopher king reigning through virtue. To Machiavelli, this is an extremely dangerous delusion for it ignores what he considers the reality of the human condition: humans are brutal, selfish, and fickle (Machiavelli and Power Politics). You don’t need a philosopher king to secure off enemies and reinforce order/stability; on the other hand, you need a prince or a leader

Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince give the world an insight on his thought about those who rule, virtue, military power, and human nature. He elaborates on his ideal prince who must take power, but also maintain power. The Prince is extremely relevant in modern society and often looked upon as the beginning of modern political thinking. Machiavelli gives this prince an outline of the tools needed to maintain power and reinforces these ideas by giving examples of other leader’s successes and failures. Machiavelli believes that the prince must complete understand the balance between war and government. Understanding this balance and being fluent in both politics and war is crucial for maintaining power. Politicians today still use some of the tactics given by

Socrates then discusses what it would take for an individual and community to achieve self-discipline or self-mastery. To achieve self-discipline one needs to have complete control between all three parts of the soul. When someone has achieved the sense of self-discipline the rational part of the soul has taken control of both the spirited and appetite. “There are better and worse elements in persons mind, and when the part which is naturally better is in control of the worse part, then we use the phrase self-mastery.” (Plato, 431a) When you’re spirited and desire parts of the soul do the job of the rational, you may make decisions that are not morally right. As in a community you would want the guardians to make the decisions rather than the farmers and fisherman because they lack the knowledge to make the decisions that make the community prosper. To Plato the soul is immortal and lives on after death and the body decays.

Plato had some views that seemed realistic to society while others to me seemed to be unjust for the people. According to Plato everyone by nature has their own function and in order to make an ideal state they each need to serve that role and only that. They are not permitted to do more than one thing or venture off of what they are suited best to do. These roles are people that are motivated by three

He writes, “when turned towards the twilight of becoming and perishing, then [the soul] has opinion only, and goes blinking about, and seems to have no intelligence” (Book VI, p. 25). By establishing opinion as the opposite to the ultimate good, and by definition, the ultimate evil, he criticizes the use of rhetoric and persuasion while praising to his long-winded, circuitous form of writing. By continually asking questions and telling parables, Plato avoids direct advocation of his beliefs and allows his readers to discover the truth for themselves, rather than to be coerced through eloquent language.

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 has been controversy between scholars about author Niccolo Machiavelli. His two famous works The Prince and The Discourses are two books which discuss monarchy and republic government and how both need to work to be efficient. The question asked is how can the author of The Prince also have written The Discourses? How can Machiavelli write about a republic with separation of power, then write about how a new established monarchy can work and survive? We will discuss the ideas set forth in both books and decide whether or not Machiavelli works are consistent or contradictory.

Distinction between the rational and appetitive portions is shown through the depiction of a spinning top. Showing that the outside is spinning but the axis is not. This is not because they are two seperate things but as with the individual they are two separate parts of the same thing. Evidence in support of the spirit or passionate side is given by Plato is that the individual may desire something and do it but still maintain that they are upset with themselves because they know it to be in opposition to what is best for them. The individual know what is best for them based on what the rational nature instructs and deems to be the ultimate

In order to understand why Machiavelli’s Prince may be more appealing than Plato’s Philosopher king, we must 1st come to understand what the King and the Prince look like as described by our writers. When it comes to the Philosopher King we are talking about someone who is truly virtuous on the basis of morality and justice. In Plato’s head a just person can create a just society.

As Plato advocates that soul belongs to different order from body, so it cannot be set alongside the body as homogeneous entity. The soul’s penchant is towards another world. It becomes evident, why the senses are envisaged, not as windows but as bars, since so far as the physical nature of man is concerned it is not just a matter of noting, ontologically, the finite character of its existence, but rather one making an ethical and religious value-judgment on this earthly life form the viewpoint of higher destiny. Only when the soul has undergone an inner transformation and been duly prepared for this it can looks at the body in a fresh light, as it were, and so discover as meaningful affinity between soul and body, which serves to orientate man towards the higher reality.

Plato and Aristotle’s views on the nature of a human being and the city are fundamental blocks of forming the best political regime. The ideal city of Plato stands upon the four virtues: wisdom, courage, moderation and justice. The concept of justice embodies the understanding that only when citizens are fulfilling their obligated roles while not interfering with others can a city achieve harmony. For this purpose, farmers, artisans, and shepherds will do what’s expected of them per their expertise while the Guardians, a special class, is fit to rule the state. So his view that since every individual has a different yet pertinent role in the city and as most men are only