Urbanismul grec a inceput in secolul V i.e.n., marea epoca a Greciei, dar abia mai tarziu s-a conturat un sistem real al acestuia, bazat pe principii precum asezarea strazilor in unghiuri drepte. In secolul IV i.e.n. preocuparea pentru arta de a fauri orase a crescut si au inceput a fi numiti magistrati pentru a pune in aplicare anumite principii urbanistice. Aristotel afirma ca Hippodamus din Milet – cel caruia scriitorii antici ii atribuie numele de pionier in planificarea urbana – a conceput un oras ideal care sa fie locuit de 10.000 de cetateni (barbatii liberi), in timp ce populatia totala ar ajunge la 50.000 de locuitori. El a studiat problemele functionale ale oraselor si, ca urmare, a impartit cetatenii in trei clase: soldati, artizani si gospodari, iar pamantul l-a impartit in sacru, public si privat. Conform “Politicii” lui Aristotel, prima conditie necesara unui stat ideal este populatia. Nu doar numarul cetatenilor conteaza, ci si capacitatea lor de a rezolva cum trebuie treaba din oras. Teritoriul ar trebui sa fie suficient de mare pentru a asigura viata libera si tihnita, dar nici chiar atat de mare incat sa intretina luxul. El ar trebui sa fie greu accesibil inamicului, usor de parasit pentru locuitori: ca si populatia, el ar trebui sa poata fi cuprins dintr-o singura privire. Aristotel a considerat ca orasul – si nu imperiul – este forma superioara de care este capabila in general cetatea greceasca. Orice ansamblu mai mare era pentru el un simplu trib sau o congregatie prost inchegheata de oameni. Pe parcursul istoriei, orasele-state si-au dovedit incapacitatea de a face fata unor agregate sociale mai mari si mai puternice. Cat priveste proprietatea privata asupra pamantului, fiecare cetatean trebuie sa aiba o f... ... middle of paper ... ...le politice pe teorii mai profunde si fundamentale, metafizice sau etice. Orice comunitate este formata in vederea unui anumit folos si statul, care este comunitatea suprema si atotcuprinzatoare, trebuie sa tinda catre folosul suprem. Conform lui Platon, orasul ideal trebuie sa fie unul iluminat, bazat pe cele mai inalte principii universale. Doar indivizii care sustin aceste adevaruri, care pot sa le protejeze si pot conduce orasul. Daca virtutea este cea mai importanta pentru individ, ea trebuie sa fie primordial si pentru stat, care este o totalitate de indivizi. Aristotel a preluat mult din filosofia lui Platon, dar l-a si criticat pentru natura sa excesiv de idealista. A considerat ca Republica lui Platon nu ar putea niciodata sa existe. Cu toate acestea, lucrarea lui Platon nu s-a vrut a fi niciodata un manifest politic, ci o lucrare asupra filosofiei morale.
Plato. Republic. Trans. G.M.A. Grube and C.D.C. Reeve. Plato Complete Works. Ed. John M. Cooper. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997.
Plato. “Republic VII.” Trans. G.M.A. Grube. Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy From Thales to Aristotle. Comp. and ed. S. Marc cohen, Patricia Curd, and C.D. C. Reeve. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1995. 370-374
Plato. The Republic. Classics of Moral and Political Theory. 2nd ed. Michael L. Morgan. Indianapolis : Hackett Publishing Company, 1996. 32 - 246.
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.
Niccolio Machiavelli (Born May 3rd, 1469 – 1527 Florence, Italy.) His writings have been the source of dispute amongst scholars due to the ambiguity of his analogy of the ‘Nature of Politics'; and the implication of morality. The Prince, has been criticised due to it’s seemingly amoral political suggestiveness, however after further scrutiny of other works such as The Discourses, one can argue that it was Machiavelli’s intention to infact imply a positive political morality. Therefore the question needs to be posed. Is Machiavelli a political amoralist? To successfully answer this it is essential to analyse his version of political structure to establish a possible bias. It would also be beneficial to discuss and compare another philosopher’s account to the nature of politics, and in this instance I have chosen the works of Plato in particular The Republic, establishing a comparison to define whom has the more convincing argument and why?
In a work written by Machiavelli called The Prince, there are many ideas he believes should be part of a government. The United States today is a Federal Republic. This means that it is a “federation of states that have a republican form of government”. Being a republican government means that the power of the country lies with the people and their elected representatives. This essay will be tackling the topic of whether or not the ideas that Machiavelli stated should or should not be implemented into our own system of government today.
Niccolò Machiavelli is very well known as an important and influential Italian historian, politician, philosopher, and writer during the Renaissance. His book, Discourses on Livy, is a discussion regarding the classical history of early Ancient Rome, although it uses contemporary political examples and strays far away from the subject of Rome at times. It is presented as a series of lessons on how a republic should be started and structured. Most importantly, it constantly brings up the idea of corruption and corrupt people, which is not surprising because we all desire things and search for the simplest way to obtain it, even though the easiest way to obtain something might be a corrupt way.
Paul, S. (2012). Kautilya and Machiavelli Views on state and politics: A Comparative analysis. Indian Streams Research journal, 1-4.
...ver, according to Machiavelli, these short-comings are justified since they preserve the state’s overall goal. In addition, if administrators at both local and national levels act in accordance with the state, this preserves the functionality of society as a whole. Not acting in accordance with the will of the state causes turmoil to erupt and a chink within the everyday businesses of life. Thus, it is consideration of these points that Machiavelli’s philosophy would purport that the tyrannical grip of the state ought to reign supreme in contemporary society.
The Republic is a political, and a work dealing with what traits or virtues one must have, as its whole purpose is to show that the one cannot be separated from the other. Politics is nothing more than the attempts of man to put order or disorder in his social life or regime. Th...
The Republic is an examination of the "Good Life"; the harmony reached by applying pure reason and justice. The ideas and arguments of Plato center on the social settings of an ideal republic - those that lead each person to the most perfect possible life for him. Socrates was Plato's early mentor in real life. As a tribute to his teacher, Plato uses Socrates in several of his works and dialogues. Socrates moderates the discussion throughout, as Plato's mouthpiece. Through Socrates' powerful and brilliant questions and explanations on a series of topics, the reader comes to understand what Plato's model society would look like. The basic plan of the Republic is to draw an analogy between the operation of society as a whole and the life of any individual human being. In this paper I will present Plato’s argument that the soul is divides into three parts. I will examine what these parts are, and I will also explain his arguments behind this conclusion. Finally, I will describe how Plato relates the three parts of the soul to a city the different social classes within that city.
Aristotle and Niccolò Machiavelli were two great minds from completely different times, both having rather different views on the world, that touched on many similar points throughout their respective works Politics and Machiavelli’s various writings. This occurred because Machiavelli was illustrating his positions directly against Aristotle’s theories, which allows for an interesting comparison between the two’s opinions on a variety of issues. While Politics is more of a discussion for the populous and The Prince was specifically made as a sort of guidebook for the future ruling class, they can still be compared based upon their similar topics of discussion regarding political goals and the opposing points that need to be avoided. This combined with The Discourses, which was an analysis of the Roman republic and why it was so successful, provide a rather comprehensive view of Machiavelli’s core beliefs. The concept of differing worldviews is key to understanding the similarities and differences between the two as they come from very different basic places of opinion when regarding the overall goal of politics. Aristotle came from a position of lofty, boarding on impractical, goals with the effort of creating the concept of the good life for its citizens, in which they could expand and flourish. Machiavelli on the other hand worked on a much more practical scale of thought, focusing on concepts of gaining power, and control, while maintaining stability as the main goals of participating in politics. Both however stated a vast array of necessary requirements for achieving the best political scenario along with opposing points to avoid, and in turn theories on how to distinguish between the two. In this paper, these two great poli...
In political thought, there have been many people that have progressed political theory. Nicolo Machiavelli and John Locke are two of those famous individuals. The research here will be focused on them. Each Machiavelli and John Locke support a different political theory. At first, the background and relevant contexts will be discussed. Each person has written something that has influenced modern political thought. Nicolo Machiavelli’s The Prince and John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government. Liberalism contained in Locke’s work will be explored in addition to the realism contained in The Prince. These two writings were chosen because they are opposite of each other. Locke’s Second Treatise of Government helped influence and set the foundations for liberalism, and Machiavelli’s The Prince did the same for classical realism. Kenneth Waltz and Neo-realism will be the framework in which the two documents will be analyzed. The objectives are to analyze the authors’ contributions to political theory: liberalism and realism. The connections to modern political theory and Neo-realism will be discussed. John Locke’s work can almost be seen as a response to Machiavelli’s Prince and previously established political thought. Machiavelli came before John Locke, missing John Locke by almost 125 years.
Plato’s thoughts about power and reason are much different than Aristotle. Plato looked at the meaning of justice and different types of governments. Plato looked into four different types of governments
Niccolo Machiavelli was a philosopher, statesman and the leading political theorist in the late 1400s early 1500s. He is often referred to as the “father of modern political theory” (Nederman, 2009). His book The Prince (2011) had such an influence its’ theories are still in practice today. This paper will prove Machiavelli is not a Visionary leader nor is he ethical through his theory as written in his book the Prince, and its relevance through personal experience. Let’s begin by discussing Machiavelli’s visionary leadership.