Throughout history, both ancient and modern, there have been few literary works composed as notable nor influential as Machiavelli’s consummate discussion of politics, known as the Prince. Equally if not more significant, however, is Plato’s account of the Apology by Socrates and the subsequent events illustrated by the famous Greek philosopher in Crito between Socrates and his titular comrade. Both texts, being written in times of abundant political alteration and conflict, make powerful statements about politics and take firm stances on the function governments and how they should be used to serve society, or in turn, how society should serve them. In the Prince, Machiavelli provides strict guidelines by which an individual must adhere to
…show more content…
Under the palpable belief that constituencies experience superlative performance in times of cooperation and obedience, both philosophers marked this a fundamental touchstone for a flourishing government. Furthermore, the two continued this argument and further specified it in maintaining that the most successful regimes will afford greater attention and value to the needs and constraints of the common person in society rather than the magistrates and other individuals in place of power, which can be seen as Socrates says, “to live well amounts to the same as living honourably a justly” (Crito, 48b), and when Machiavelli says “that every prince must desire to be considered merciful and not cruel” (Machiavelli 600) and “as long as you benefit [men], they are entirely yours” (Machiavelli 61) as discusses the relevance of public opinion. Paired with other instances of proposed doctrines and measures in which the two seem to be aligned found within the works in question, it could then be understandably misconstrued that Socrates and Machiavelli, if cotemporaries, would generally regard one another’s ideologies as essential for the maintenance of a successful country. Once passed these superficial findings, however, the similarities abruptly meet their
Under the palpable belief that constituencies experience superlative performance in times of cooperation and obedience, both philosophers marked this a fundamental touchstone for a flourishing government. Furthermore, the two continued this argument and further specified it in maintaining that the most successful regimes will afford greater attention and value to the needs and constraints of the common person in society rather than the magistrates and other individuals in place of power, which can be seen as Socrates says, “to live well amounts to the same as living honourably a justly” (Crito, 48b), and when Machiavelli says “that every prince must desire to be considered merciful and not cruel” (Machiavelli 600) and “as long as you benefit [men], they are entirely yours” (Machiavelli 61) as discusses the relevance of public opinion. Paired with other instances of proposed doctrines and measures in which the two seem to be aligned found within the works in question, it could then be understandably misconstrued that Socrates and Machiavelli, if cotemporaries, would generally regard one another’s ideologies as essential for the maintenance of a successful country. Once passed these superficial findings, however, the similarities abruptly meet their