Apology And Crito Analysis

It can be concluded from Socrates’ philosophical approach and teachings in The Apology and Crito, that politically speaking he is an idealist. This in turn is a stark contrast to Machiavelli’s more practical writing in The Prince. Therefore, the two inherently diverge on their political perspectives and thus, would differ in what they would deem an ‘ideal’ prince, and consequently the political system that would form as a result.
In both The Apology and Crito, it is rather ambiguous as to what Socrates believes makes up the ideal prince, as he never clearly outlines it in these texts as Machiavelli does in The Prince. Socrates is not exact in what his idea of an ideal prince is, as he himself views himself as pretty disengaged from politics, working in the private sphere as opposed to the public sphere.
Thus, even though he questions political figures, acting as a gadfly, and teaches the youth some of his philosophies, …show more content…
Socrates would find Machiavelli’s lack of concern for the people a major issue because for Socrates, an ideal prince listens to the critiques and is accountable to the people. This is evident as Socrates assumes the role of a gadfly in the Athenian state, or rather he questions government officials and brings to light the issues of the state. He believes this role to be vital and beneficial to the state, and as mentioned before, he uses it as an appeal to his innocence and way to persuade the council in The Apology, not to sentence him to death. Thus, Machiavelli’s little time devoted to the people in The Prince asserts the fact that Socrates would disagree with Machiavelli’s idea of the ideal prince.
Socrates would also not agree with Machiavelli on the grounds that it is inferred that Socrates believes a foundation of philosophy is present in an ideal prince, however Machiavelli advises a prince to be crudely ambitious, using whatever means to attain an end goal, and it will all be