Talk Philosophy to Me Society has long been preoccupied with outlining what makes a good leader, and how exactly a government should be organized. Philosophers have offered a plethora of options, ranging from all extremes. Two of the most famous proposals, the concepts of Plato and Machiavelli, remain relevant and challenged to this day. Both men challenge the ideals of the other, their premises varying wildly and assumptions contradictory. In The Republic, Plato creates a world that is ruled by a “philosopher king” whose justification for ruling lies in understanding, morality, and justice, as exemplified in the Allegory of the Ships. In contrast, Machiavelli reveals the traits and steps required to be “prince” in his letter The Prince, …show more content…
The allegory likens the search for the captain of a ship to the election of a political leader, and points out the inherent faults societies come across in choosing leaders. Targeting specifically the democratic regime, the Allegory of the Ship illustrates what happens when voting is used as a selection vehicle. It becomes evident immediately that the ignorance of the voters leads them to favor candidates based off arbitrary traits. The voting body first favors the person displaying the most charisma, a skilled saxophone player, mistaking their alluring personality as talent or uniqueness. This is a classic error in democracies, and the result of such shallow elections selects inept leaders that harm the state, and in the allegory, the ship. Following the charismatic but incompetent leader, the second form of captain that may take control is one that acquires it through force. People who attempt to gain power this way rule through fear, and run the ship like a war body. Every issue becomes a basis for battle, often times political problems are “solved” through violence. Both of the first leaders are not suited for the position of captain, or as a political leader, and their ineffectiveness will end in the inevitable failure of the ship, and in life, a government. The astronomer, who has been ignoring the entire election …show more content…
Looking at the Allegory of the Ship through the lens of Machiavelli the entire premise of the work becomes barbaric. Plato would say that the best leader is the one who understands the most, Machiavelli does not concern himself with such using but rather says the man that can lead, and that should lead, is the one with the ability to hold a principality. According to Machiavelli there are only two ways to gain a principality outside of establishing a new one, and these are through fortune or through virtue. Contextually, virtue to Machiavelli has no correlation to morality but is the ability to have and hold a principality. To gain a principality through fortune occurs when one inherits a government, for that person did not work for the right to rule. Rather, the ruler from inheritance was fortunate enough to be born into the correct family. In contrast, getting a kingdom through virtue requires force and skill, one must be strong and supported by enough people to conceivably hold power in a realm. Here one can see how the Allegory of the Ship would end differently through the eyes of Machiavelli. he would not believe that a man who did not put in effort and ignored the proceedings of the elections would ever be able to become captain, for that person would have no support. Regardless of the knowledge of the star gazer, it is the man who took the ship
Over the course of history, power in the hands of new leaders and how new leaders deal with power have been deeply analyzed topics; however, as Abraham Lincoln once said, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” In the idealistic novel A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur’s Court by Mark Twain, the nature of power and rule directly reflects many of the ideas presented in the philosophical and non-fiction novel The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli. These two writings intertwine authoritative concepts including new leaders taking up residence in the new state, defending the weak, rising to supremacy through fear, and never avoiding war to delay controversy.
Niccolò Machiavelli was a man who lived during the fourteen and fifteen hundreds in Florence, Italy, and spent part of his life imprisoned after the Medici princes returned to power. He believed that he should express his feelings on how a prince should be through writing and became the author of “The Qualities of a Prince.” In his essay, he discusses many points on how a prince should act based on military matters, reputation, giving back to the people, punishment, and keeping promises. When writing his essay, he follows his points with examples to back up his beliefs. In summary, Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince,” provides us with what actions and behaviors that a prince should have in order to maintain power and respect.
Maurizio Viroli, author of “How to Choose a Leader,” used Machiavelli’s principles to explain how modern leaders should be chosen. It can be assumed that Viroli would not embrace Machiavelli’s principles as a guide if he believed Strauss’s argument that Machiavelli was a teacher of evil. Viroli points out that Machiavelli’s life dream was to share the information contained within the pages of The Prince. He argued that Machiavelli would only give the best of council in his endeavor to teach others the knowledge it took him his entire life to obtain . If this were not the case, Viroli argues that Machiavelli’s contributions would have long since been disregarded. Machiavelli provides
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
To begin with, Machiavelli’s “The Prince” laid out the foundation of what absolute rulers should be. Machiavelli thought that princes should be well educated in war since he would then have the power to stop uprisings. “The quickest way to lose a state is to neglect this art [war]; the quickest way to get one is to study it. Thus a prince who knows noth...
Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.
The ship analogy presents three metaphors encircling the political system of old Athens. The captain is at the helm by virtue of his ownership of the ship rather than his seamanship. The crew desires his position because they desire the prestige and power associated with ownership and are confident in their own seamanship. However, they misinterpret the captain's position at the helm to represent naval ability. In reality, the navigator who reads the stars and interprets weather patterns to guide the ship is the real naval talent. Since the crew assumes that power equates ability they cannot understand the role the guide plays and thus fatally dismissing the navigator's role aboard the ship. If the crew disregards the navigator (which they inevitably will, thinking them useless) the ship will be unable to run smoothly and serve it's proper
Machiavelli’s book The Prince could be considered a guideline for anyone, who possesses both “virtue” and “fortune”, interested in becoming a ruler over a group of civilians. The Prince acts as guideline by providing both the do’s and don’ts one should act on. If such are executed correctly one will not only gain power over a group of people but also maintain power for as long as one wishes. Machiavelli not only provides a list of steps one must follow in order to successfully maintain power but also same provides examples of those who didn’t do such things and as a result lost their power. In chapter 26 Machiavelli takes a moment to reference Italian princes and why they lost their principalities, something very important since Machiavelli
Human Nature in The Prince by Machiavelli and Utopia by Thomas More It is difficult to determine Niccolo Machiavelli?s and Thomas More?s view on human?s nature. Each took a different approach to the topic. Through Utopia, Thomas More attempted to change man?s thinking by creating an ideological society. Niccolo Machiavelli, through The Prince, attempted to teach man how to deal with human nature.
One of Plato's goals in The Republic, as he defines the Just City, is to illustrate what kind of leader and government could bring about the downfall of his ideal society. To prevent pride and greed in leaders would ensure that they would not compromise the well being of the city to obtain monetary gains or to obtain more power. If this state of affairs becomes firmly rooted in the society, the fall to Tyranny begins. This is the most dangerous state that the City become on i...
Many people in history have written about ideal rulers and states and how to maintain them. Perhaps the most talked about and compared are Machiavelli's, The Prince and Plato's, The Republic. Machiavelli lived at a time when Italy was suffering from its political destruction. The Prince, was written to describe the ways by which a leader may gain and maintain power. In Plato?s The Republic, he unravels the definition of justice. Plato believed that a ruler could not be wholly just unless one was in a society that was also just. His state and ruler was made up to better understand the meaning of justice. It was not intended to be practiced like that of Machiavelli's. Machiavelli, acknowledging this, explains that it is his intention to write something that is true and real and useful to whoever might read it and not something imaginary,"?for many have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have never been known or seen?(Machiavelli 375)." Therefore, because one ruler is realistic and the other imaginary, the characteristics of Machiavelli's ruler versus Plato's ruler are distinctly different.
In “The Prince”, Niccolo Machiavelli conveys a new perspective of governing a state that is majorly differential from humanists of his time. Machiavelli believes that most people are self-invested and affections for other people can be won or lost. He states that people generally try to avoid “affliction or oppression”. He states that although people can be very trustworthy at prosperous times, people will turn on you; people will become profit driven, deceitful, and also selfish. People will admire honor, courage, and generosity, but most people do not foster those virtues. Ambition thrives through the people who has risen up in power, but most people are satisfied with where they are now, so they don’t care as much to improve
Niccolo Machiavelli was a political philosopher from Florence, Italy. The period that Machiavelli lived in was the "rebirth" of art in Italy and rediscovery of ancient philosophy, literature and science. He wrote The Prince, in which he discusses the proper way of living as a prince. His ideas, which were not viewed as beneficial at the time, were incredibly cynical and took time for the rest of the population to really catch onto the ideas. Machiavelli’s view of human nature was that humans are born evil, and while they can show good traits, and the common man is not to be trusted. Unlike Confucius, Machiavelli believes that human nature cannot be changed, and unlike Plato, where Plato believes in humans as social beings. Each respected view
Notwithstanding the two philosophers’ different views on abstract concepts, Machiavelli’s virtù to fortuna is comparable to Plato’s Justice to Good. Each philosopher grants his ruler with a specific trait that deviates from the leader’s acquired knowledge of abstract concepts. Under their beliefs, the best ruler is the one who conforms to this virtuous trait--for Plato, Justice (Plato 519b-c), and for Machiavelli, virtù (Machiavelli, Prince 29). These traits then extend to a multitude of characteristics that define the careful instruction both philosophers laid out and that will allow the leader to directly change society into a worthy political
Through his many years of experience with Italian politics Machiavelli wrote “The Prince”; a how-to guide for new rulers. We are given descriptions of what a leader should do to effectively lead his country. A leader should be the only authority determining every aspect of the state and put in effect a policy to serve his best interests. These interests are gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. Machiavelli’s idea is that a ruler should use a variety of strategies (virtues) to secure his power. Machiavelli lists five virtues that a ruler should appear to have; being compassionate, trustworthy, generous, honest and religious. A ruler should possess all the qualities considered good by other people.