Machiavelli: What’s up, Plato. I see you are kicking back a few cold ones.
Plato: Yes, Indeed I am my good man.
Machiavelli: I gotta say, Plato, I really appreciate all you gave me to think about, but your account of the best citizen and the best city really is defective because we must take into consider that men are not good and that you must take into consideration that there is a distinct difference between the way men live, and how they SHOULD live, “And many have imagined republics and principalities that never have been seen or know to exist in reality. For there is such a difference between the way men live and the way they ought to live, that anybody who abandons what is for what ought to be will learn something that will ruin rather than preserve him, because anyone who determines to act in all circumstances the part of a good man must come to ruin among so many who are not good. Hence, if a prince wishes to maintain himself, he must learn how not to be good, and to use that ability or not as required” (Machiavelli 324).
Plato: Yes I understand where you are coming from, but I believe you have it twisted.
…show more content…
These are wealthy and poverty, since the one produces luxury, idleness, and innovation, while the other produces illiberality and wrongdoing as well as innovation” (Plato 117).
Machiavelli: Woah there, Plato. I don’t know if that's the right way to think about that. I believe that liberality, practiced in the right way, can be extremely effective. With this being said, “I assert that it is good to be thought liberal. Yet liberality, practiced in such a way that you get a reputation for it, is damaging to you, for the following reasons: If you use it wisely and as it ought to be used, it will not become known and you will escape being censured for the opposite vice” (Machiavelli
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.
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.
In the many sections Niccolo Machiavelli writes he constantly compares to extreme qualities, one of which is ideal, the other real. These extremes include love(ideal) vs fear, clemency(ideal) vs cruelty, generous(ideal) vs stingy, and integrity(ideal) vs lying. In comparing these different traits Machiavelli highlights the merits of opposing characteristics and (specifically)when it is effective to act in certain ways. He argues that a balance of both are vital as to prevent a prince from dipping too far into a pool of inescapable extremism. The following excerpts display the author’s contrast-centered style: “ Thus, it's much wiser to put up with the reputation of being a miser, which brings you shame without hate, than to be forced—just
Plato views the democratic state as a city “full of freedom and freedom of speech[,]” where its citizens “have the license to do [whatever they] want” and the right to self-determine. Plato however, sees this insatiable desire for freedom at the expense of neglecting everything else as the downfall of democracy. To clarify, a society that is staunchly protective of its equality and freedom will be particularly sensitive towards any oppositions that seem to limit them, to the point where it actively attempts to “avoid [obeying the law and] having any master at all.” Thus, “unless the rulers are very pliable and provide plenty of that freedom, they are punished by the city and accused of being oligarchs.” Since those in power fear the accusations of those being ruled, they become docile and submissive. On the other hand, those who are ruled are encouraged by their rulers’ meekness and, convinced of their inherent right to freedom, begin to behave as their own rulers. Thus, this blind chase for unconditional freedom will propagate disorder across the society, and eventually cause the people to see “anarchy [as] freedom, extravagance [as] magnificence, and shamelessness [as]
Written almost 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince” brings forward a new definition of virtue. Machiavelli’s definition argued against the concept brought forward by the Catholic Church. Machiavelli did not impose any thoughts of his own, rather he wrote from his experience and whatever philosophy that lead to actions which essentially produced effective outcomes in the political scene of Italy and in other countries. While Machiavelli is still criticized for his notions, the truth is that, consciously or subconsciously we are all thinking for our own benefit and going at length to achieve it. On matters of power where there is much to gain and a lot more to lose, the concept of Machiavelli’s virtue of “doing what needs to be done” applies rigorously to our modern politics and thus “The Prince” still serves as a suitable political treatise in the 21st century.
Machiavelli’s The Prince was written more than 500 years ago and it is “one of the most influential and controversial books published in Western literature.” (Article A) It was about Machiavelli’s political philosophies and the basic principles of what he believes a politician or “prince” should be. The three main ideas of the Prince were “Liberality and Stinginess”, “Cruelty and Mercy: Is It Better to Be Loved Than Feared, or the Reverse?”, and “How a Prince Should Keep Their Promises” and for the most part many of his concepts should or are already instilled in our government.
Niccolo Machiavelli stressed that “one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved…for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.” He felt that a true leader must be cunning and deceptive, winning the hearts of his people through power and influence. If he could not be liked, he could at least get by knowing he has intimidated these below him into submission. However rash or cruel this may seem, Machiavelli’s argument is not one to be countered easily.
Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. William E. Gladstone
Both Niccolò Machiavelli and Plato, in their works The Prince and The Republic (respectively), address the concepts of seeming and being in relation to political power and leadership, however they do so in two distinct manners. In the Republic, Socrates insists that seeming is bad, and being is good. Using a parable of people in a cave, he states that the only way to know the difference between what seems and what actually is reality is to experience it in its purest form, instead of through images. Machiavelli, on the other hand outlines the different ways that a prince could rise to power, and justifies any and all means that a prince could take. He states that a prince only has to seem good when it fits his purposes, not actually be good. He encourages an aspiring prince to be deceitful and conniving in order to gain and maintain power. Before concluding which political theorist is correct, it is interesting to examine whether it would be better to remain in the cave with Machiavelli or see the light with Socrates.
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...
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1969. Marra, James L., Zelnick, Stephen C., and Mattson, Mark T. IH 51 Source Book: Plato, The Republic, pp. 113-117. 77. The 77-106.
In the sixteenth century, there were three sets of socioeconomic statuses that one could acquire or be a part of, the clergy, the nobility, and the peasantry. The divide between these three generalized classes was far more complicated in reality that it seems, as socioeconomic classes consist of multiple branches. Nonetheless, it all essentially came down to two undeniable factions, the oppressors and the oppressed. Niccolo Machiavelli, being a mixture of the two due to his living situation while writing the book, gained a middle-ground which allowed him to achieve omnipotent intelligence that so many rulers normally lack, first hand experience of what it like to live both lives, one as a peasant and the other as a nobleman. This omnipotent
The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli isn't about one man's ways to feed his power hungry mindset through gluttony, nor is it just explaining altercations between a nation's states. This writing is regarding to how one's self-confidence can make them become powerful in a society and also, the way morals and politics differ and can be separate in a government. Originally, Machiavelli wrote The Prince to gain support from Lorenzo de' Medici, who during the era, was governor of Florence. As meant as writing for how a society should be run, this book has been read by many peoples around the world who want to have better knowledge of the perfect stability of beliefs and politics required to run a good civilization.
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
During the time 1469, a child by the name of Niccolo Di Bernardo Del Machiavelli was born .Some may know him as an Italian philosopher, humanist, or a evil minded fellow associated with the corruptness of totalitarian government. In Machiavelli’s home state Florence, he introduces the modern political theory. Hoping to gain influence with the ruling Medici family Niccolo wrote a pamphlet call The Prince (Prezzolini).