This philosophical analysis will define the themes of civic loyalty and “virtu” in the qualities of a good citizen and good leader in the political systems of Socrates and Machiavelli. For Socrates, the notion of civic loyalty (to the gods, military, and laws of the state) is defined in the qualities of a good citizen and leader to serve the greater good of the state. In a similar manner, Machiavelli presents the ideology of “virtu” as a guide to create a good citizen, and more importantly, a good leader, such as a prince, to serve a lawful state. However, Machiavelli tends to define “virtu” as showing the characteristics of ruthless leadership through princely governance, which countermands the less-authoritarian aspects of the Socratic republic.
…show more content…
The “leader”, in this case, is the prince, which defines a prospective of the governing nobility. “Virtu” is defined as the strength of the leader to active on the virtues (courage, fealty, skill, wisdom, etc.), but within the context of the prince’s ability to use any means necessary to protect the state: “Without that first opportunity their strength [virtù] of purpose would never have been revealed” (Machiavelli 19). This is not unlike the qualities of a good citizen and a good leader in Socrates’ argument, yet is also show a tendency to use tyrannical or ruthless methods to maintain the lawfulness of the …show more content…
in this manner, the ideal would be to balance the premise of civic loyalty ( to higher power, such as the gods), and to the practical reality of human leadership as defined in the “virtu” of the prince. These aspects of political philosophy define the similar perspectives of Socrates and machiavelli on the loyalty to the state as a premise for the good citizen and in the eduction of the good leader in these belief systems. More so, a balance should be achieved between the ideal of the good citizen and good ruler in the struggle between ideas (the gods, spiritual authority, the Forms. etc.) and the reality of civiic loyalty in the sometimes ruthless practices of ‘virtu” as defined in the role of the prince in state
The “leader”, in this case, is the prince, which defines a prospective of the governing nobility. “Virtu” is defined as the strength of the leader to active on the virtues (courage, fealty, skill, wisdom, etc.), but within the context of the prince’s ability to use any means necessary to protect the state: “Without that first opportunity their strength [virtù] of purpose would never have been revealed” (Machiavelli 19). This is not unlike the qualities of a good citizen and a good leader in Socrates’ argument, yet is also show a tendency to use tyrannical or ruthless methods to maintain the lawfulness of the …show more content…
in this manner, the ideal would be to balance the premise of civic loyalty ( to higher power, such as the gods), and to the practical reality of human leadership as defined in the “virtu” of the prince. These aspects of political philosophy define the similar perspectives of Socrates and machiavelli on the loyalty to the state as a premise for the good citizen and in the eduction of the good leader in these belief systems. More so, a balance should be achieved between the ideal of the good citizen and good ruler in the struggle between ideas (the gods, spiritual authority, the Forms. etc.) and the reality of civiic loyalty in the sometimes ruthless practices of ‘virtu” as defined in the role of the prince in state