Although Machiavelli and Socrates both lived during times of uncertainty, political fragmentation and violence, their philosophies about how the state should conduct itself are in direct contrast with one another. Machiavelli’s the Prince is founded on the principal that if a ruler wishes to maintain power, he should embody the ideology of pragmatism, while Socrates believes the state should follow him in his commitment to moral purity and justice. The inherent dissonance between these philosophies would lead Socrates to be unsupportive of Machiavelli’s concept of a prince, and consequently the political system Machiavelli would recommend he install, despite his apparent change in rhetoric from the Apology to the Crito.
Throughout Plato’s interpretation …show more content…
Machiavelli puts this ideology into words best when discussing how a prince must regard virtues like goodness, “A prince, and especially a new prince, cannot observe all those things which are considered good in men, being often obliged, in order to maintain the state, to act against faith, against charity, against humanity, and against religion. And therefore, he must have a mind disposed to adapt itself according to the wind, and as the variations of fortune dictate, and, as I said before, not deviate from what is good, if possible, but be able to do evil if constrained” (65). This passage perfectly summarizes the key dissidence between Machiavelli’s and Socrates’s philosophies. While Socrates’s philosophy is founded on upholding moral virtues and justice at all costs, Machiavelli’s pragmatic philosophy stresses a prince detach himself from all moral virtues and be willing to act against them when necessary. To Machiavelli this means being deceptive in projecting the appearance of being pious and virtuous, while being morally unconstrained in acting in your own …show more content…
This is exemplified in Socrates criticism of the jury for valuing wealth and political titles as a replacement for proper moral goodness. “Are you not ashamed that you give your attention to acquiring as much money as possible, and similarly with reputation and honor, and give no attention or thought to truth and understanding and the perfection of your soul?” (56). Not only is Machiavelli an avid supporter of gaining political power, he values gaining political power through one’s own ambition and cunning above other methods like inheritance. Furthermore, his realist view of politics and wealth’s role in maintaining the state unsurprisingly leads him to the conclusion a good prince must not fear a reputation of being cheap, describing it as necessary “if he wishes to avoid robbing his subjects, if he wishes to be able to defend himself, to avoid becoming poor and contemptible, and not to be forced to become rapacious.”(59) Machiavelli further promotes this view of politics by directly addressing the danger of ruling with Socrates’ uncompromising idealist view, ”He who abandons what is done, for what ought to be done, will rather learn to bring about his own ruin, than his preservation” (56). This explicit warning along with the fact that Machiavelli’s pragmatic philosophy directly contradicts Socrates uncompromising dedication to virtues would ensure Socrates
Throughout Plato’s interpretation …show more content…
Machiavelli puts this ideology into words best when discussing how a prince must regard virtues like goodness, “A prince, and especially a new prince, cannot observe all those things which are considered good in men, being often obliged, in order to maintain the state, to act against faith, against charity, against humanity, and against religion. And therefore, he must have a mind disposed to adapt itself according to the wind, and as the variations of fortune dictate, and, as I said before, not deviate from what is good, if possible, but be able to do evil if constrained” (65). This passage perfectly summarizes the key dissidence between Machiavelli’s and Socrates’s philosophies. While Socrates’s philosophy is founded on upholding moral virtues and justice at all costs, Machiavelli’s pragmatic philosophy stresses a prince detach himself from all moral virtues and be willing to act against them when necessary. To Machiavelli this means being deceptive in projecting the appearance of being pious and virtuous, while being morally unconstrained in acting in your own …show more content…
This is exemplified in Socrates criticism of the jury for valuing wealth and political titles as a replacement for proper moral goodness. “Are you not ashamed that you give your attention to acquiring as much money as possible, and similarly with reputation and honor, and give no attention or thought to truth and understanding and the perfection of your soul?” (56). Not only is Machiavelli an avid supporter of gaining political power, he values gaining political power through one’s own ambition and cunning above other methods like inheritance. Furthermore, his realist view of politics and wealth’s role in maintaining the state unsurprisingly leads him to the conclusion a good prince must not fear a reputation of being cheap, describing it as necessary “if he wishes to avoid robbing his subjects, if he wishes to be able to defend himself, to avoid becoming poor and contemptible, and not to be forced to become rapacious.”(59) Machiavelli further promotes this view of politics by directly addressing the danger of ruling with Socrates’ uncompromising idealist view, ”He who abandons what is done, for what ought to be done, will rather learn to bring about his own ruin, than his preservation” (56). This explicit warning along with the fact that Machiavelli’s pragmatic philosophy directly contradicts Socrates uncompromising dedication to virtues would ensure Socrates