Both Aristotle and Niccolò Machiavelli are regarded as two of the greatest political theorists of all time. Their works are still studied and put into practice by many of modern history’s greatest leaders. However, despite their brilliance, they still adopt differing views regarding the definition and practice of Virtue. Comparing and contrasting both thinkers’ views on the subject provides a clearer insight on how one should rule and govern more effectively. The problem lies in the question of whether the straightforward Aristotelian view of Virtue or the distorted Machiavellian view is superior and more practical for the purposes of ruling a faction or state. As Aristotle begins to search for what really is the true and highest “good”, he
…show more content…
He must be a person who is “good” with regards to morality, justice, empathy, altruism, bravery, and other virtuous characteristics. He believes that a leader of this type will inevitably thrive due to the respect and reverence that he will receive from his constituents. Those who are outside of his society will, in Aristotle’s opinion, inevitably be drawn to this virtuous, “city on a hill” society and it will remain and thrive. Machiavelli, on the other hand, would deem this theory idealistic and, as a result, essentially unrealistic in …show more content…
That is why he strives to leave out “what is imagined” (Machiavelli XV: 61) and instead pay attention to and discuss “what is true” (Machiavelli XV: 61). People, especially principalities, are not classified and qualified by a vast spectrum of prevalently outward characteristics. Machiavelli goes off on a tangent claiming how people can be considered, “someone a giver, someone rapacious; someone cruel, someone merciful; the one a breaker of faith, the other faithful; the one effeminate and pusillanimous, the other fierce and spirited; one humane the other proud” (Machiavelli XV: 61-62). Upon first reading this may seem merely to be a list of characteristics that range for virtuous to vicious. However, when one carefully considers the order in which these binomial phrases are introduced, it becomes apparent that there is not a necessary order in that Machiavelli lists a virtue then subsequently a vice or the other way around. For example, his first couplet is that of a “giver” and someone “rapacious”. In this instance he lists what would be classified as a virtue first and a vice second. In the next binomial he speaks of one “cruel” and the latter “merciful”. The pattern has switched in that the vice is listed first and the virtue follows. Through this syntactical configuration, Machiavelli has metaphorically portrayed the
He must be a person who is “good” with regards to morality, justice, empathy, altruism, bravery, and other virtuous characteristics. He believes that a leader of this type will inevitably thrive due to the respect and reverence that he will receive from his constituents. Those who are outside of his society will, in Aristotle’s opinion, inevitably be drawn to this virtuous, “city on a hill” society and it will remain and thrive. Machiavelli, on the other hand, would deem this theory idealistic and, as a result, essentially unrealistic in …show more content…
That is why he strives to leave out “what is imagined” (Machiavelli XV: 61) and instead pay attention to and discuss “what is true” (Machiavelli XV: 61). People, especially principalities, are not classified and qualified by a vast spectrum of prevalently outward characteristics. Machiavelli goes off on a tangent claiming how people can be considered, “someone a giver, someone rapacious; someone cruel, someone merciful; the one a breaker of faith, the other faithful; the one effeminate and pusillanimous, the other fierce and spirited; one humane the other proud” (Machiavelli XV: 61-62). Upon first reading this may seem merely to be a list of characteristics that range for virtuous to vicious. However, when one carefully considers the order in which these binomial phrases are introduced, it becomes apparent that there is not a necessary order in that Machiavelli lists a virtue then subsequently a vice or the other way around. For example, his first couplet is that of a “giver” and someone “rapacious”. In this instance he lists what would be classified as a virtue first and a vice second. In the next binomial he speaks of one “cruel” and the latter “merciful”. The pattern has switched in that the vice is listed first and the virtue follows. Through this syntactical configuration, Machiavelli has metaphorically portrayed the