Machiavelli and Socrates both share a similar background filled with political fragmentation and violence; however, the two philosophers would not see eye to eye on the way the government should be ran. Both men are very different in how the government should be structured and treat its people. Machiavelli’s prince would not be able to rule under the same philosophy of Socrates, and wouldn’t be able to let Socrates live among his people. In no way, would Socrates support Machiavelli’s concept of a prince seeing how it would constrain Socrates, being a gadfly. If Socrates lived under Machiavelli’s view of a prince then Socrates would ultimately be put to death for his contradictory views of a sovereign that interferes with the prince’s absolute
…show more content…
By doing this Socrates is a revolutionary man who wants change from dependence from what we know by ideology, but more towards scientific reasoning for things that can be proved. Socrates would want a ruler who is not just okay with what he is told, but to question it until there is evidence or reasoning behind the fact. Yet not to be stubbornly closed minded to new opposition with concern for reasoning of what he, the ruler, believes in. In the Prince Machiavelli writes for the prince’s “sentence to be irrevocable and let him adhere to his decisions so that no one may think of deceiving or cozening him”, which would suppress anything that Socrates would want to oppose (Prince, XIX, 67). The prince that Machiavelli describes is one that Socrates would see as close minded and unable to reason or question with. Machiavelli’s meaning may be more oriented for security of a prince to not be deceived by foes who would like to trick or confuse the prince into doing their bidding and overthrow. Which is a valid point, however it is paranoia that will be the result. This paranoia will lead to the prince to not listen to anyone including a sophisticated man of reason like Socrates. If a person were to point out that this quote instead means to not let another person apply their rule with the prince’s because that …show more content…
Socrates lives among many people that has deceived the public into thinking they are among the intelligent when after all they cannot answer the questions to prove their intelligence but inversely Socrates disproves them. Socrates opposes people that deceive the public and Machiavelli acknowledges that sometimes a prince must, and it is a good attribute to own. The Prince teaches that sometimes a smart prince that has odds stacked against him must deceive, which Socrates would oppose from his moral standpoint or character he possesses (Prince, XIX, 73). Socrates values are furthermore contradicted from Machiavelli, when Machiavelli infers when a prince lives like something of Socrates, the prince would be killed. In the prince, it states that when a leader lives nobly and shows great strength of character, it is a sign of their weakness that allows their subjects to conspire against him and be overthrown. Therefore, what Socrates would see as an excellent value to have in a sovereign, Machiavelli says to do the opposite because it is what leads to
By doing this Socrates is a revolutionary man who wants change from dependence from what we know by ideology, but more towards scientific reasoning for things that can be proved. Socrates would want a ruler who is not just okay with what he is told, but to question it until there is evidence or reasoning behind the fact. Yet not to be stubbornly closed minded to new opposition with concern for reasoning of what he, the ruler, believes in. In the Prince Machiavelli writes for the prince’s “sentence to be irrevocable and let him adhere to his decisions so that no one may think of deceiving or cozening him”, which would suppress anything that Socrates would want to oppose (Prince, XIX, 67). The prince that Machiavelli describes is one that Socrates would see as close minded and unable to reason or question with. Machiavelli’s meaning may be more oriented for security of a prince to not be deceived by foes who would like to trick or confuse the prince into doing their bidding and overthrow. Which is a valid point, however it is paranoia that will be the result. This paranoia will lead to the prince to not listen to anyone including a sophisticated man of reason like Socrates. If a person were to point out that this quote instead means to not let another person apply their rule with the prince’s because that …show more content…
Socrates lives among many people that has deceived the public into thinking they are among the intelligent when after all they cannot answer the questions to prove their intelligence but inversely Socrates disproves them. Socrates opposes people that deceive the public and Machiavelli acknowledges that sometimes a prince must, and it is a good attribute to own. The Prince teaches that sometimes a smart prince that has odds stacked against him must deceive, which Socrates would oppose from his moral standpoint or character he possesses (Prince, XIX, 73). Socrates values are furthermore contradicted from Machiavelli, when Machiavelli infers when a prince lives like something of Socrates, the prince would be killed. In the prince, it states that when a leader lives nobly and shows great strength of character, it is a sign of their weakness that allows their subjects to conspire against him and be overthrown. Therefore, what Socrates would see as an excellent value to have in a sovereign, Machiavelli says to do the opposite because it is what leads to