Socrates And Machiavelli

1295 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Machiavelli the prince power

“The Similarities of Socrates and Machiavelli” Socrates is one of the most famous Greek philosophers to have ever trolled in this world, not to mention the man was brilliant. He comes from ancient Greece and lived around the time of 400 B.C. He was quite a unique man; reason being is that he never wrote his own work. Socrates had a student by the name of Plato that documented all his findings and theory’s. This is where the book The Apology resides from. This book was the final words of Socrates before he met his final fate of execution because he was found guilty for corrupting the minds and morals of the youth. Then we have Machiavelli, who was a political scientist who wrote the very famous book by the name of The Prince. The Prince is …show more content…

Socrates believed the knowledge of mankind was very limited and people only believed what they were forced to believe. He also pointed out the fact that if a person’s beliefs were challenged they would label that person a liar. Even in Socrates last moments before his execution he could have maneuvered his way around it because he was that clever. However, he took pride in what he taught to the youth and accepted his fate. He believed that his teachings were the truth and he was nothing short of an honest man. Socrates felt excitement about the afterlife and what awaited him after death. He sought after the true judges that he felt were upright in their earthly life as he was. Socrates yearned for more knowledge and understanding and he felt he would gain that amongst the heroes that had also met their fate unfairly. As he said, “I am willing to die ten times over if this account is true”. This means that even in his afterlife he still felt the need to examine people and see them for what they truly were. Machiavelli was also, quite an intelligent and clever man. The Prince is a deceitful book, and teaches a man how to be persuasive and clever in order to obtain power. Machiavelli principles on how to gain power can be perceived as evil. However, they are not evil at all. His principles are the reason every political leader up until this time, have gained the throne of power. …show more content…

Socrates stood by the words that a man should always be honest and good. As Socrates was close to his execution he said the famous words of, “It is not a lack of arguments that has caused my condemnation, but a lack of effrontery and impudence, and the fact that I have refused to address you in the way which would give you most pleasure”. When, he said these words it showed his true character. In society most people would scream and wail and lie until the end to escape death, but not Socrates. Socrates remained humble and passionate to himself even at the end. Socrates believed that this is how all men should have presented themselves with grace, with dignity, and most of all with honesty. It could seem that many people feared Socrates because of the fact that he was so blunt and truthful. However, Socrates left this world knowing he was the best person he could possibly be. Machiavelli on the other hand, believed that a man should have appeared to be merciful, faithful, humane, religious, and upright even if this is not what they truly were. As a political leader a man must obtain these virtues. Machiavelli was stern on these qualities because these are the qualities the public looks for in a political leader. Machiavelli clearly states that, “For this reason a prince ought to take care that he never lets anything slip from his lips that is not replete with the

Show More
Related

  • Socrates and Socrates: A Philosophical Pair for the Ages

    2098 Words  | 5 Pages

    In Walter Mosley’s Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned, the reader is introduced to Socrates Fortlow, an ex-convict who served twenty-seven years for murder and rape. Fortlow is plagued by guilt and, seeing the chaos in his town, feels a need to improve not only his own standards of living, but also those of others in Watts. He attempts this by teaching the people in Watts the lessons he feels will resolve the many challenges the neighbourhood faces. The lessons Fortlow teaches and the methods by which he teaches them are very similar to those of the ancient Greek philosopher for whom Fortlow was named: “‘We was poor and country. My mother couldn’t afford school so she figured that if she named me after somebody smart then maybe I’d get smart’” (Mosley, 44). Though the ancient Greek was born to be a philosopher and Fortlow assumed the philosopher role as a response to the poor state of his life and Watts, both resulted in the same required instruction to their populations. The two Socrates’ both utilize a form of teaching that requires their pupil to become engaged in the lesson. They emphasize ethics, logic, and knowledge in their instruction, and place importance on epistemology and definitions because they feel a problem cannot be solved if one does not first know what it is. Socrates was essential in first introducing these concepts to the world and seemed to be born with them inherent to his being, Fortlow has learned the ideals through life experience and is a real-world application in an area that needs the teachings to get on track. While the two men bear many similarities, their differences they are attributed primarily as a result of their circumstances provide the basis of Fortlow’s importance in Watts and as a modern-...

    Read More

  • Socrates, Aristotle, and Glaucon

    547 Words  | 2 Pages

    Plato’s character in “The Ring of Gyges” is trying to convey certain points about human nature and wisdom. In Glaucon’s fictional story, Gyges is a shepherd who stumbles upon a mysterious ring which allows him the power to become invisible. Gyges eventually gives up his lowly life as a shepherd and becomes an authoritative and crooked dictator due to the power of the ring. Glaucon’s main point in this story is that people are inherently immoral and will look out for themselves over the good of others. Due to his assumption about the nature of the human race Glaucon proclaims that in order to keep human’s from causing damage to others our social order should emphasize a government that will contain their constituents. Glaucon’s proposed social order became the building blocks of the social contract theory of government; “People in a society mutually agreeing not to harm one another and setting up sanctions when they do,” (Caste, 2014).

    Read More

  • Plato vs. Machiavelli

    1692 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Machiavelli and Rousseau's Views on Human Nature and Government

    558 Words  | 2 Pages

    Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity, when a state is in need of its citizens, there are few to be found.” In his writings in The Prince, he constantly questioned the citizens’ loyalty and warned for the leaders to be wary in trusting citizens. His radical and distrusting thoughts on human nature were derived out of concern for Italy’s then unstable government. Machiavelli also had a s...

    Read More

  • Machiavelli vs. Lao-Tzu

    284 Words  | 1 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Socrates: A Revolutionary Philosopher Who Posed a Threat to the Government and Society

    638 Words  | 2 Pages

    Socrates was a revolutionary thinker. He brought new ideas and processes of thought to Athenian society and his work still has its place in the world today. However during his time, his ideas were not always thought of as a good thing. Many viewed him as a corrupting influence on other people and accused him of forcing his ideas upon others. Perhaps most frequently the center of controversy was his thoughts on theocracy and piety as seen in the Plato’s Euthyphro. Socrates also appears at the butt end of Aristophanes’ comedy Clouds, where he is satirically ridiculed and seemingly corrupting the youth of Athens in his school, the Thinkery. Although virtually completely seen as a positive influence now, in ancient times, Socrates may have done more harm than good for his society.

    Read More

  • Erasmus Vs Machiavelli

    876 Words  | 2 Pages

    In The Prince, Machiavelli separates ethics from politics. His approach to politics, as outlined in The Prince, is strictly practical. Machiavelli is less concerned with what is right and just, and instead with what will lead to the fortification of the government and the sustainment of power. Machiavelli believed that a ruler should use any means necessary to obtain and sustain power. He says, “…people judge by outcome. So if a ruler wins wars and holds onto power, the means he has employed will always be judged honorable, and everyone will praise them” (Machiavelli, 55). According to Machiavelli, the ends of an action justify the means (Machiavelli, 55). His motivation for these views in The Prince was the reunification of the Italian city-states (Machiavelli, 78-79). Machiavelli wanted Italy to return to its glory of the Roman Empire (Machiavelli 78-79). Some of the beliefs of Machiavelli could be perceived as evil and cruel, but he found them necessary. Machiavelli was not concerned with making people happy. His purpose was outcome and success, and in his opinion, the only way to be successful was to be realistic. These views of Machiavelli could classify him as one of the earliest modern

    Read More

  • Similarities Between Plato Machiavelli And Lao Tzu

    1641 Words  | 4 Pages

    He says “For everyone can see but few can feel” (Machiavelli 24), meaning that people can see the “good” but not know that it is really an appearance. People are easily accepting of what they are shown and believe these things to be truths. Machiavelli’s point of view is; if people are easily fooled into believing things, then why must a leader truly be good if he can simply appear to be good. Machiavelli says in verse 24 of The Prince, “Ordinary people are always deceived by appearances and by the outcome of anything.” According to Machiavelli, it is very important to not be hated by the people, it is much better to be feared than hated. He gives three points of instruction to avoid being hated and prevent conspiracy against him: “You do not deprive them of their property or their honor,” do not be considered “ changeable, frivolous, effeminate, cowardly, or irresolute,” and “he should maintain himself in such a way that no man could imagine that he can deceive or cheat him” (Machiavelli

    Read More

  • The Apology of Socrates: Guilty or Innocent?

    943 Words  | 2 Pages

    Plato. "The Apology of Socrates." West, Thomas G. and West, Grace Starry, eds. Plato     and Aristophanes: Four Texts on Socrates. Itacha, NY: Cornell University Press,  1997

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast John Locke And Machiavelli

    1447 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Comparing the Concepts of Seeming and Being in Relation to Political Power and Leadership in The Prince and The Republic

    2993 Words  | 6 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Apology and the Republic

    925 Words  | 2 Pages

    Socrates was a renowned philosopher in the ancient Grecian times. His peak was around the Peloponnesian War, when the Spartans defeated the Athenians and ended the Golden Age. The reason Socrates is one of histories most famous philosophers is largely due to Plato's writings. Two of Plato's famous works include The Apology and The Republic, both written about Socrates' views about the so called "wise philosophers" of his time. The two works hold unique views about government, as well as opening the eyes of the Grecian people to the world as they knew it.

    Read More

  • Machiavelli The Prince Rhetorical Analysis

    2082 Words  | 5 Pages

    In general, he feels that men are "ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers." "They shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours. They would shed their blood for you ? but when you are in danger they turn against you." Machiavelli basically has little respect for the people, and he feels as though they have not earned much either. He uses this as justification for the use of fear in order to control people. He also feels that men are "wretched creatures who would not keep their word to you, you need not keep your word to them." This sense of fairness justifies breaking one?s word to men. Machiavelli also writes about how hard it must be for a prince to stay virtuous. He concludes that with so many wretched men around virtue is hard to create in oneself. "The fact is that a man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous." Overall, Machiavelli is very pessimistic about the abilities of the people. He feels that after examining people through history, his conclusions of wretched men are

    Read More

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

    1365 Words  | 3 Pages

    Machiavelli’s advice to princes directly correlated to his view on human nature. He believed that every common man was born evil and selfish. That did not stop him, however, from saying that humans many show instances when they exhibit generosity and wholeheartedness. He does tell princes, however, not to count on the few occurrences that may happen, and he says, “It is necessary to be a prince to know thoroughly the nature of the people, and one of the populace to know the nature of princes”. He is saying is that it is imperative that a prince knows the natural human nature, that each and every human will become more self-interested than interested in the good of the state. If he is ignorant to that fact, his kingdom/area of rule will deteriorate simply because he believes in the citizens that occupy it. He does believe, however, that with the right training, a human being can be molded (with the help of the state, of course) and he says, “Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many.” Although he believes that people cannot change themselves for the good, he does think that the state and military can shape humans for the better, but there will always be

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Plato And Machiavelli

    947 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about Socrates And Machiavelli

Open Document