What Are The Differences Between Socrates And Machiavelli

And he supplements this with his second premise- if he did want to live amongst those he corrupted; it could only be because he was mad, and therefore unintentional. He reasons that those who are mad should not be killed, but institutionalized instead.

Perhaps it is the divided sentiments of the vote that impact Socrates, or perhaps just his realization that from the onset, he would have been condemned not matter what his arguments, but Socrates appears to transform himself after the votes are cast. Socrates is given the opportunity to propose an alternative sentence to the death penalty proposed by Meletus, and many men would have begged for mercy, asked for forgiveness, claimed to repent for their actions, and request leniency. Socrates, though, demonstrates not only his strength in his

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.

Despite being taken to court by the Athenians for allegedly corrupting the youth, Socrates continued his line of questioning at his trial. Socrates stated that he saw himself as the only one seeking to uncover the truth about the government and thus the only voice for reform for Athens. His argument continued, later comparing himself and his truth-seeking campaign to a fly on a horse “rousing, persuading, reproving every one of you” (Plato 57). Socrates was so devoted to the idea of truth in government, he refused to renounce his beliefs while facing the death and was willing to argue for them while on trial.

Socrates was put on trial with a jury of his peers who were already biased against him. He could have fled, but he chose to face them. This showed fortitude. He was charged with not recognizing the gods, inventing deities, and corrupting the people of Athens. His first and most important counter was the fact that the Oracle of Delphi called him the wisest man. “He asked whether there was anyone wiser than I. The Pythia replied that no one was wiser” (Plato, 4). If the Greeks were so devoted to their

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

Machiavelli writes the ‘Prince’ while away in exile which by most people, is interpreted as his manual or guide on how to rule. It is quite clear that he demonstrates political interest and advocacy in his work through the many stories of past rulers he shares as examples of what to do and what not to do. An example of a ruler who came from a lower position, meaning no riches or status, was Agathocles (son of a potter, who became the King of Syracuse) (Machiavelli [1532] 2006) which is similar to the status of the man Plato speaks of, Socrates. However, Machiavelli speaks for power politics and the importance of the ruler being in total control since “a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others” ([1532]

A good point here is counterpointing the weight of a politician’s private life versus the valid ideas turned into concrete plans that envision to make people’s lives

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

To claim that Socrates would or would not be supportive of any political system might then seem irresponsible, a presumptuous analysis not fitting for an academic recognizing the false equivalence between Socrates’ philosophy and Machiavelli’s political ethics. The strategy to conduct any sort of liable and valid analysis is not to wholly ignore the “political” part of the system but to evaluate the ethics behind the systems. The goal of this essay will be to compare and evaluate the Machiavellian ideological government, through the lens of Socratic

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

Take Niccolo Machiavelli’s infamous Renaissance-era political treatise The Prince and recently deceased modern pop icon Prince, and upon first glance, they do not have much in common beyond a name. But an in-depth comparison reveals stunning parallels between Prince’s life and Machiavelli’s theories, allowing brand-new insight into their mutual focus on a number of age-old themes.

An individual’s background can have a profound effect on the beliefs and ideology they come to develop. This does not mean, however, that two individuals with similar backgrounds will adopt the same values or view their environment in the same way. This is the case with two philosophers, Socrates and Machiavelli, who both lived during times of internal political strife. Greece was divided into numerous city states that were constantly at war with one another and hundreds of years later, Italy would also experience this political fragmentation and violence. Despite having these identical environments, Socrates and Machiavelli adopted two very distinctive and contrasting perspectives. Socrates used his experiences and the environment

Socrates, throughout his teachings, emphasizes the importance of an establishment which exists to serve its electorate, stating that the intrinsic purpose of any government is to secure the security, prosperity, and contentment of those who it is charged with attending to. While Machiavelli stresses the necessity of the same thing for an affluent prince, he does so in demonstrating how a prince may remain unchallenged, whereas Socrates does so in hopes of actually protecting the people. Machiavelli only found such practices important so to remove potential threats and maintain the security of a prince’s position. This furthers earlier assertion that Socrates approaches his contemplations on policy from the perspective and interests of the whole population, while Machiavelli adopts the lens and comforts of the prince, bringing attention to the key conceptual difference in the Prince, the Apology, and Crito.

Socrates and Machiavelli are considered to be great philosophers and well-known political thinkers of their times. They are the basis of which political philosophy and theory is studied and learned today. Each individual had a different idea on what the best political system is, how citizens should act, and how the ruler of said political system should conduct themselves. The differences in opinion can be attributed to the different time periods each profound thinker lived in. Socrates lived in Ancient Athens in a time of post war and political transition while Machiavelli lived in Italy during a time period laced with insecurity, political discontinuity, and violence. The opposing viewpoints can all so be ascribed to the different types of morality in which the philosophers constructed his concepts on.