Machiavelli The Prince Research Paper

1512 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Critically examine the principles of machiavelli in 'the prince

Carina Armas
The Examined Life 150
5/10/15

Is Machiavelli a philosopher? Why or why not?

In order to determine whether Machiavelli is a philosopher one must ask themselves what is a philosopher? Philosophy is about yearning for wisdom. A person cannot yearn for something if he already has found it. Therefore a real philosopher is a person who continues to ponder the questions that he is dealt with. A real philosopher enjoys the yearning for wisdom. Using the two sources, Machiavelli's The Prince translated by Harvey C. Mansfield and The Republic of Plato translated by Alan Bloom, I have concluded that Machiavelli is a not a philosopher. There is a huge difference between the two men. Socrates encourages you to come up with your own …show more content…

In The Prince, he tries to convince the reader that he has found all the answers. He discourages anyone to think deeply about his reasoning because they might realize his flaws and consequences. To begin with, Machiavelli and Socrates have conflicting views on the purpose of the virtues. Machiavelli defines virtues as the qualities in which are admired by others. These virtues include piety and compassion. He reveals this idea to us in book 15. The title is Of Those Things for Which Men and Especially Princes are Praised or Blamed. In book 15 he talks about certain virtues and how they should be utilized by a prince. He says, "But since my intent is to write something useful to whoever understands it, it has appeared to me more fitting to go directly to the effectual truth of the thing than to the imagination of it" (Machiavelli, 61). Here Machiavelli is taking the readers by the hand and assuring them that they don't have to think. He has the answer to the meaning and usefulness of these virtues. We the come to find out that the virtues only matter if they are necessary. He reveals this when he says, "...if he wants to maintain …show more content…

What they don't know is that this idea was already out in the world. In fact, Thrasymachus is the person who shares this "end justifies the means" ideology with Machiavelli. Thrasymachus suggests that a ruler or the stronger party, makes laws in his own interest and the weaker party, have to obey these laws. In order to prove his point he demonstrates the example of a farmer, "Because you suppose the shepherds or cowherds consider the good of the sheep...other than their masters' good and their own" (343b). He is communicating that framers don't make cows fatter for the good of the cows just as rulers don't make laws for the good of the people. Farmers who are kind to their animals would never eat meat. Therefore, a farmer is only a successful farmer if they can use their animals for profit. Thrasymachus reveals his life view according to this principle. Justice, he says, is a virtue for the fools. People only lead good lives because they are afraid to do otherwise. On the other hand, people who commit injustice are much better off, he gives the example of men who participate in business affairs unjustly (343e). Thrasymachus reveals a theory of human nature. He believes that people are only out for themselves and will only do what benefits

Show More
Related

  • Thrasymachus Vs Socrates Justice

    1226 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Republic is a text that encompasses many subjects, such as education, philosophy as well as politics. While this tome delves deep into these important subjects, the main question has remained the same for centuries, “What is justice?” In book 1 there are three interlocutors that assert that they have the knowledge of what justice means; however, it is Thrasymachus that is the main interlocutor of the first book of the Republic. Thrasymachus claims that he knows the true foundation of what justice is: “justice is nothing other than what’s advantageous to the stronger”. (338c) Socrates examines Thrasymachus claim and takes his time to explain Thrasymachus’ premises.

    Read More

  • Thrasymachus' Perspective on Human Nature

    1305 Words  | 3 Pages

    Thrasymachus' perspective of human nature is that we all seek to maximize power, profit and possessions. He gives the argument that morality is not an objective truth but rather a creation of the stronger (ruling) party to serve its own advantage. Therefore definitions of "just" and "unjust", "right" and "wrong", "moral" and "immoral" are all dependent upon the decree of the ruling party. Thrasymachus argues that acting "morally", in accordance with the ruling party, benefits the ruling party, while acting "immorally", injures the ruling party and benefits oneself.

    Read More

  • Plato and Thrasymachus: Differing Philosophies on Morality

    1011 Words  | 3 Pages

    Thrasymachus was a rhetorician whose orator skill were praised by Dionysus of Halicarnassus as “pure, subtle, and able, to speak either with terseness or with an abundance of words” (Guthrie, 1969, p. 167). Thrasymachus believed, as most Sophists do, that justice was a hindrance to an individual’s genuine interest: wealth, power, and pleasure. Thrasymachus conveys that justice is the interest and advantage of the stronger or “might makes right” (Plato, The Republic, 380 B.C, pp. 338d-339a). Thrasymachus felt that conventional morality be worn as a garment to conceal the egoist and self-centered motives underneath. Justice is nothing more than convention that serves the interests of lawmakers and if one wants justice, gaining power instead of appealing to an absolute standard of morality is the way. It is here that Plato’s theory and Thrasymachus’s demurring seemingly reach an

    Read More

  • Thrasymachus's Definition Of Justice

    931 Words  | 2 Pages

    The book acknowledges various interpretations of justice. It is established that justice is something that all humans should strive towards. In book I “The Republic of Plato” Thrasymachus claim that those who have power acquire the ability to set benefits for themselves. He states

    Read More

  • Human Nature and Moral Theory in Plato’s Republic

    1916 Words  | 4 Pages

    This refutes the conclusion of Thrasymachus' argument; the facet of human nature that drives us to power does not solely rest on a desire to commit immoral acts. Further examining Premise 2 of Thrasymachus' Argument shows that Thrasymachus could only give a defense that is circular with the conclusion of the argument. The only viable route he could use to support the claim is to say that acting immorally injures those people superior to oneself, thus making one more superior than he was before. However, this argument is circular because the desire to become superior is a premise to acting immorally, and acting immorally is a premise to desiring to become superior (Thrasymachus' Argument).

    Read More

  • Thrasymachus and Socrates

    771 Words  | 2 Pages

    Thrasymachus’s definition of justice is incoherent and hard to conceptualize within the context of the debate. What remains unclear is Thrasymachus’s ideal definition of justice. At first, Thrasymachus definition of justice after passage 338c remains disputable. Justice, Thrasymachus states, “… is simply what is good for the stronger” (338c). Therefore, on its own, this statement could infer that, what can benefit the stronger is just and therefore can be beneficial to the weaker as well. Therefore Thrasymachus definition can be taken in different contexts and used to one’s discretion. Additionally, Thrasymachus changes his definition of justice multiple times during the discussion. Thrasymachus states t...

    Read More

  • Justice In Plato's The Republic

    999 Words  | 2 Pages

    Upon the summation of the debate between Polemarchus and Socrates, Thrasymachus enters into the fray. He states that justice “is nothing other than advantage of the stronger” (Republic 338c), and also that the greatest life is that of perfect injustice, to be found in the life of a tyrant. This definition leaves no room for the common good because it creates a life of compet...

    Read More

  • Machiavelli's The Prince: Still Relevant after All These Years

    2155 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Plato's Response to Thrasymachus' Immoralist View of Justice

    1494 Words  | 3 Pages

    Initially Thrasymachus states that Justice is ‘nothing else but the interest of the stronger’. Cross and Woozley identify four possible interpretations; the Naturalistic definition, Nihilistic view, Incidental comment, and the more useful Essential analysis. The ‘Essential Analysis’: “An action is just if and only if it serves the interest of the stronger,” with Thrasymachus stating the disadvantages of Justice and advantages of Injustice. This leads to problems with the stronger man, is it merely the promotion of self-interests? If Justice favours the interests of the stronger, is this simply from the perception of the weak with morality not concerning the stronger? Cross re-formulates Thrasymachus’s view as ‘Justice is the promotion of the ‘strongers’ interest’, therefore both weak and strong can act justly in furthering the strongers interests. However, complication occurs when we understand that Justice is another’s good: “You are not aware tha...

    Read More

  • Analysis of Thrasymachus' Argument in The Republic

    651 Words  | 2 Pages

    Thrasymachus starts off by stating his conclusion: justice is the advantage of the stronger. He then gives Socrates two premises that he uses to arrive at his conclusion first that rulers of cities are stronger than their subjects and second that rulers declare what is just and unjust by making laws for their subjects to follow. Since justice is declared by the stronger then it must surely be a tool for the stronger.

    Read More

  • Thrasymachus Vs Hobbes

    678 Words  | 2 Pages

    Thrasymachus’s main argument is that, “Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger” (338c). In other words, Thrasymachus believes justice is advantageous to the stronger because those who behave justly are disadvantaged, and the strong who behave unjustly are advantaged. In his sense injustice is more profitable than justice because it allows people to enjoy benefits they would not obtain if they were to act just.

    Read More

  • Thrasymachus Definition Of Justice Essay

    523 Words  | 2 Pages

    Thrasymachus defines justice as the advantage of the stronger. “I say justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (338c). Thrasymachus explains how rulers are the most powerful people in the city, who make the laws, which are just therefore making the rulers the stronger. He explains that rulers make laws that will benefit themselves; whether this means they make laws that are just depends on the type of ruler. “democracy makes democratic ones, tyranny tyrannical ones…” (338 10e), he is saying that if one is democratic their laws will be fair and just but if not they will make unfair rules and therefore be unjust. Thrasymachus explains that the reason he thinks that justice is the advantage for the stronger is because the people who rule cities have more power than everyone else and therefore determine what the rules are and what is just.

    Read More

  • Machiavelli The Prince Review

    1269 Words  | 3 Pages

    Machiavelli goes on to explain the various principalities and princes. He creates an outline for the rest of the book during this explanation. To become a prince, he says that there is no way any normal person can become one, as the way this is acquired is either by hereditary means or is appointed to by the state itself.... ... middle of paper ...

    Read More

  • Human Nature In Plato's The Prince By Niccolo Machiavelli

    1365 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Morals and Ethics in The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli

    1279 Words  | 3 Pages

    In The Prince, Machiavelli attempts to completely decouple the actions of a good ruler from personal ethics. Machiavelli begins to do this by first establishing what he believes human nature to be Machiavelli argues that numerous traits that are innate among humans. Among these, Machiavelli argues that people are generally self-interested, but that their affections for others can be won and lost. They tend to remain happy so long they avoid affliction or oppression. He also argues that they might be trustworthy in prosperous times, but they can turn selfish, deceitful, and profit-driven in adverse times. They admire honor, generosity, courage, and piety in others, but most do not pursue these virtues in their own life. Finally, Machiavelli argues that ambition is found in those who have achieved some power, but most common people are satisfied with the way things are and therefore do not yearn to improve on the status quo. People will naturally feel obligated after receiving a favor or service, and this bond is usually not broken capriciously. Nevertheless, loyalties are won and lost, and goodwil...

    Read More

More about Machiavelli The Prince Research Paper

Open Document