Socrates and Machiavelli are two of the most famous (or infamous) names in political philosophy, even to this day. Separated by hundreds of years of knowledge and experience, these two great minds offer contrasting viewpoints on the subject of political stability and how it should be maintained. While they share the same end goal and existed in times of similar political instability, given the chance, Socrates would quickly reject Machiavelli’s concept of a Prince or Principality as it entails a deceptive ruler with little importance held on truth, wisdom, and virtue.
In Plato’s book The Republic, Socrates makes the argument that an ideal ruler of any nation should be what he refers to as a “Philosopher King.” He argues that “until philosophers …show more content…
In this guide, he emphasizes the significance of the image of the Prince and his standing amongst the people he governs. In a constant battle to avoid revolt, Machiavelli feels that the Prince “will find greater security in being feared than in being loved" (Machiavelli, Chapter 17, pg. 60). This means that he can commit open murder so long as he performs a few good deeds after. At the same time he must avoid being seen as generous when helping his people or risk being taken advantage of, but also assist his people enough to avoid rebellion. Machiavelli’s ideal prince is someone of complete secrecy who is strategic, swift, and powerful. He feels that "a prince must have no other objective, no other thought, nor take up any profession but that of war, its methods and its discipline, for that is the only art expected of a ruler" (Machiavelli, Chapter 14, pp. 53-54). This entails that there is no room for mercy, empathy, or really any emotion when it comes to a Prince. He is an all powerful figure who pursues his goal of a prosperous nation by any means without the input of the public. As for the subjects, they are not to ask questions nor expect those questions to be answered. According to Machiavelli, people are not truly concerned with the truth, only …show more content…
Both Machiavelli and Socrates are in search of a method by which they can bring about political and social peace so that they can live lives of liberty and happiness. Socrates chose to do this by speaking out against a system and encouraging others to do so as well. He hoped that truth and knowledge would inspire the public to rise up against the power that held them down or inspire that power to welcome liberty. Machiavelli, on the other hand, chose a more strategic, systematic, and hands on approach. He had little faith in the common masses of Europe whom had been fighting for thousands of years. Instead, Machiavelli chose a system that controls and subjugates the masses so that they can be trained for lives of freedom. The true difference here is that Machiavelli was terrified of revolution and civil war (a theme that was ravaging across Europe at the time) and wanted to avoid it at all costs. Perhaps Machiavelli saw the seemingly cruel nature of his political philosophy as the lesser evil when compared to the alternative of a violent rebellion. One could even argue that given the same historical understanding of Machiavelli, if Socrates were placed in Florence Italy in the 1400’s, he would likely come to a similar
In Plato’s book The Republic, Socrates makes the argument that an ideal ruler of any nation should be what he refers to as a “Philosopher King.” He argues that “until philosophers …show more content…
In this guide, he emphasizes the significance of the image of the Prince and his standing amongst the people he governs. In a constant battle to avoid revolt, Machiavelli feels that the Prince “will find greater security in being feared than in being loved" (Machiavelli, Chapter 17, pg. 60). This means that he can commit open murder so long as he performs a few good deeds after. At the same time he must avoid being seen as generous when helping his people or risk being taken advantage of, but also assist his people enough to avoid rebellion. Machiavelli’s ideal prince is someone of complete secrecy who is strategic, swift, and powerful. He feels that "a prince must have no other objective, no other thought, nor take up any profession but that of war, its methods and its discipline, for that is the only art expected of a ruler" (Machiavelli, Chapter 14, pp. 53-54). This entails that there is no room for mercy, empathy, or really any emotion when it comes to a Prince. He is an all powerful figure who pursues his goal of a prosperous nation by any means without the input of the public. As for the subjects, they are not to ask questions nor expect those questions to be answered. According to Machiavelli, people are not truly concerned with the truth, only …show more content…
Both Machiavelli and Socrates are in search of a method by which they can bring about political and social peace so that they can live lives of liberty and happiness. Socrates chose to do this by speaking out against a system and encouraging others to do so as well. He hoped that truth and knowledge would inspire the public to rise up against the power that held them down or inspire that power to welcome liberty. Machiavelli, on the other hand, chose a more strategic, systematic, and hands on approach. He had little faith in the common masses of Europe whom had been fighting for thousands of years. Instead, Machiavelli chose a system that controls and subjugates the masses so that they can be trained for lives of freedom. The true difference here is that Machiavelli was terrified of revolution and civil war (a theme that was ravaging across Europe at the time) and wanted to avoid it at all costs. Perhaps Machiavelli saw the seemingly cruel nature of his political philosophy as the lesser evil when compared to the alternative of a violent rebellion. One could even argue that given the same historical understanding of Machiavelli, if Socrates were placed in Florence Italy in the 1400’s, he would likely come to a similar