Human Nature In Plato's The Prince By Niccolo Machiavelli

1365 Words3 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 …show more content…

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 …show more content…

That means that they rely on other people to live fully. Although they are born with necessities like food and shelter, their needs are best fulfilled when they interact with others. Machiavelli, on the other hand, does not believe that people need others to survive, especially princes. In fact, Machiavelli states, “Men intrinsically do not trust new things that they have not experienced themselves” So, since men, by nature, are scared of new things, then how would they go out and interact with people they don’t know? It would be impossible for someone scared of new things to interact with new people, so both respective ideas cannot exist at the same time. Also, Plato puts a lot of emphasis of the human soul, and the different parts of someone’s soul. Within the soul, each person has the ability to reason, spiritedness, and his own personal appetites. However, Machiavelli does not directly mention the ability for humans to show their own ability to reason; he believes that they can only truly show their arrogant and greedy side of their nature for a long period of time. Both Machiavelli and Plato have similar thoughts regarding the predetermination of a person, where a certain human being is chosen at birth what they will be, or how they act. It is how they are selected that they both disagree on. With Plato, he believes that humans are chosen at birth regarding what they will be like, but they have the ability to reason and

Open Document