Likewise, Plato’s philosopher king also uses the same concept but calls it “Justice” or “Good.” Similarly, to Machiavelli, who needs his Prince to have virtù to lead the people, Plato necessitates that his king use philosophical knowledge and emphasize justice to guide the unenlightened masses towards a just and stable society as well. When Socrates discusses the allegory of the cave, he remarks how when rulers must descend “to the general underground abode” where the masses “reside,” the ruler “will see a thousand times better than [the inhabitants of the cave]…because [the ruler has] seen the truth about things admirable and just and good” (Plato 520c). Plato believes that by seeing beyond the cave, and understanding the situation he exists in, the leader will have the appropriate ability to bring foresight and intelligence when making difficult decisions. While Plato’s and Machiavelli’s means of educating, changing and legitimizing political communities differ, the two philosophers share the same goal of using the benevolent dictators’ attained knowledge to lead the masses and their governments to prosperity and good fortune.
It’s
…show more content…
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
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.
There is no easy solution to our moral quandrums (another much discussed idea in the Discourses. Machiavelli’s daring, his awareness of unadorned reality, his honesty and anti-hypocrisy, his republican commitment can help us, if we are able to grasp the essence of his politics and his ethics, also in this very complex and problematic stage of human development.
Perhaps the most distinct differences between Machiavelli's and Lao-Tzu's are their beliefs in how a government should be run. Whereas Machiavelli writes about the qualities a prince should have while instilling a totalitarian government, Lao-Tzu strongly believes that one cannot have total control, so everything should run its course.
Machiavelli discusses assertive and bold ideas in “The Prince,” revealing his radical and courageous nature. His treatise is deceptively self-soliciting, because he disguises his extreme notions behind a veil of feigned expertise. His frank approach makes him appear confident and deserving of the utmost respect; however, he cautiously humbles himself by pouring immense flattery for the ruling prince into his work and, in doing so, assures protection for himself and his notorious ideas.
Machiavelli is undisputedly one of the most influential political philosophers of all time. In The Prince, his most well-known work, he relates clearly and precisely how a decisive, intelligent man can gain and maintain power in a region. This work is revolutionary because it flies in the face of the Christian morality which let the Roman Catholic Church hold onto Europe for centuries. Machiavelli's work not only ignores the medieval world's ethics: The Prince suggests actions which oppose the four most basic of Christianity's Ten Commandments.
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 in his famous book “The Prince” describes the necessary characteristics for a strong and successful leader. He believes that one of the most important characteristics is to rule in favor of his government and to hold power in his hands. Power is an essential aspect of Machiavelli’s theory, and a leader should do whatever it takes to keep it for the safety of his country because “the ends justifies the means.” To attain and preserve the power, a leader should rather be feared than loved by his people, but it is vital not to be hated. As he states, “anyone compelled to choose will find far greater security in being feared than in being loved.” If a leader is feared, the people are less likely to revolt, and in the end, only a threat of punishment can guarantee obedienc...
An effective leader is one that understands that a society must evolve and revolutionize, in order to meet the needs of the state that are of immediate concern. As a society we are able to build off prior knowledge of once existing methods of living, and adjust them to meet current demands. Both Thomas Hobbes, and Nicolo Machiavelli’s concept, and perception of an ideal sovereign remains present in current forms of government. Machiavelli’s ideas in The Prince indicate that it is simple for any civilian to gain, and maintain power
Machiavelli believed that, ethics and morality were considered in other categories than those generally known. He does not deny the existence of, but did not see how they can be useful in its traditional sense as in politics and in the government of the people. According to Machiavelli, a man is by nature a political angry and fearful. Machiavelli had no high opinion of the people. It is assumed that a person is forced to be good and can get into the number of positive features, such as prudence and courage. The prince can only proceed gently and with love, because that would undermine the naivety of his rule, and hence and the well-being of the state. He thought that, the Lord must act morally as far as possible, immorally to the extent to
Philosophy can be defined as the highest level of clarity and understanding human thought can aspire to. In some ways, Plato’s Republic can be compared to George Orwell’s book 1984. It may seem strange to compare the two, however they are quite similar. Plato writes from the Western philosophy, while Orwell tells of a totalitarian society where all free thought is banned. However, the two versions of government, one being a utopian government, and the other being horrific, contain certain connections that will be made clear over the course of this paper.
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.
To be successful, one must have the appearance of virtuousness, but not necessarily be virtuous. At least, this appears to be true according to Niccolo Machiavelli's works. Machiavelli's idea of the virtuous republican citizen may be compared to Hobbes' idea of a person who properly understands the nature and basis of sovereign political power. Hobbes' ideas seem to suggest that most anyone can claim rightful authority as there is a belief in God, and one can under Hobbes, claim legitimate authority rather easily. There are few proofs. Machiavelli, on the other hand, takes a strong position and suggests specific criteria in terms of power. With Machiavelli, there is a sense of righteousness and fairness and while he does not sanction authoritarian rule to save man from himself, it is also true that Machiavelli puts a lot of faith in leaders also. In some respects, one can see that the two theorists agree yet Machiavelli’s proposed Political society is more feasible thus superior to that of Hobbes.
Machiavelli asserted that people should be left alone to support the ruler, while Plato argued that government needs to interfere with people to make their lives virtuous. Machiavelli’s Prince is oriented to maintain his power, while Plato’s philosopher king cares for his people not his own power.
Plato and Aristotle both established important ideas about politics and their government. The general idea these two men wrote about were tyranny and the rule of law. What the rule of law is stating is that no one is immune from the law, even the people who are in a position of power. The rule of law served as a safeguard against tyranny because laws just ensure that rulers don’t become more corrupt. These two philosophers explored political philosophy and even though they didn’t agree on much they’re impacts are still around the world today.
Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato were two of the most influential and knowledgeable ancients in our history. Their contributions and dedication to science, language and politics are immensely valued centuries later. But while the two are highly praised for their works, they viewed several subjects entirely differently, particularly education practices, and human ethics and virtue.