Comparing Machiavelli's Apology And Crito

Machiavellian is a term that the greater population associates with deceit, manipulation, and hunger for power. In contrast, the word Socratic illustrates a nature that is reliant on aconstant questioning of society to bring about knowledge that the entire world should understand. Niccolo Machiavelli gives his definition of what a successful ruler would look like in his renowned work, The Prince and readers can infer Socrates notions towards leadership in Plato’s works, Apology and Crito. Machiavelli’s and Socrates’s time in the political limelight differed by approximately 1900 years, but they both existed in times that were plagued by war and government transition. Although, these similar conditions did not lead to a set of common ideals …show more content…
He analogizes fortuna with a great river that can rise up and destroy land and crops, but this can be controlled by a ruler with enough foresight to control the flood (Machiavelli 91). Fortuna responds to the prince that is bold enough to reach out and seize the opportunity, showing that brashness is better than a logic in most cases (Machiavelli 94). Virtú works in opposition to fortuna, which shows that Machiavelli is only leaving half of the prince’s action up to chance. The other half is guided by his drive, among other qualities that are necessary to maintain his state. Socrates would be incredibly skeptical of the flexible moral disposition that allows a prince to act outside of general ethics and morals caused by a prince’s virtú. Socrates would believe that a ruler should not be so quick to abandon the moral code that has guided his previous decisions. This is made evident in Crito when Socrates refused to abandon the principles that originally guided him even at the face of death (49b). Socrates may have been wrongly accused or corrupting the youth through his attempts to embarrass public officials as a way of education, but he will not choose to escape simply because an act of fortuna has presented itself. The prince, in Socrates’s eyes, would be weak and unjust for abandoning his own beliefs solely at the face of adversity to …show more content…
The end goal for Socrates was to have a leader that condones an environment where the government protects the inquiry of wisdom, the presence of justice, and education. Machiavelli end goals were solely based in the maintenance and acquisition of power and the welfare of the prince, while individuals were given little concern. Although Socrates would have had large concerns with Machiavelli’s style of absolute governance, both philosophers present critical knowledge that have allowed political scientists throughout time and in the present, and will continue to do so in the future, to better understand the notion of power politics and the importance of