Opposing Visions of a Leader and the Ways in Which a Political System Should be Run
In times of war, violence, political upheaval, and uncertainty, revolutionary thinkers often emerge to question how rulers can be effective, and what responsibilities they have to the people they rule. Socrates, who fought in the Peloponnesian war and lived during the thirty Tyrants period questioned authority. He challenged societal norms; and tried to change the values of the public. Machiavelli, lived during the fragmented 15th century Renaissance period, wanted to change and reconstruct political organization, and he came up with a new morality on how to judge the state. Socrates and Machiavelli were both revolutionary figures of their times, however this is not to say they had synonymous views.
Socrates was an idealist who was more concerned with how things should be; Machiavelli was a realist, focusing on things as they were, rather than as they would be in a perfect world. Socrates believed that men were innately good and Machiavelli believed men were innately evil. Socrates would view Machiavelli’s concept of a Prince in a much different light because of …show more content…
Machiavelli believed that in order to achieve success in public life, a Prince must know when and how to do what no good person would do. This can be seen when Machiavelli writes, “Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires.” This demonstrates his belief that in public life, the only way to measure a ruler’s success was the praise or blame of the citizenry (Prince, 44). Machiavelli’s Prince would not care about public opinion as long as they obtained power through luck or fortune. Machiavelli felt it was better for a Prince to be feared rather than loved, because fear is more permanent. This implies that he felt fear is
In times of war, violence, political upheaval, and uncertainty, revolutionary thinkers often emerge to question how rulers can be effective, and what responsibilities they have to the people they rule. Socrates, who fought in the Peloponnesian war and lived during the thirty Tyrants period questioned authority. He challenged societal norms; and tried to change the values of the public. Machiavelli, lived during the fragmented 15th century Renaissance period, wanted to change and reconstruct political organization, and he came up with a new morality on how to judge the state. Socrates and Machiavelli were both revolutionary figures of their times, however this is not to say they had synonymous views.
Socrates was an idealist who was more concerned with how things should be; Machiavelli was a realist, focusing on things as they were, rather than as they would be in a perfect world. Socrates believed that men were innately good and Machiavelli believed men were innately evil. Socrates would view Machiavelli’s concept of a Prince in a much different light because of …show more content…
Machiavelli believed that in order to achieve success in public life, a Prince must know when and how to do what no good person would do. This can be seen when Machiavelli writes, “Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires.” This demonstrates his belief that in public life, the only way to measure a ruler’s success was the praise or blame of the citizenry (Prince, 44). Machiavelli’s Prince would not care about public opinion as long as they obtained power through luck or fortune. Machiavelli felt it was better for a Prince to be feared rather than loved, because fear is more permanent. This implies that he felt fear is