Machiavelli The Prince Research Paper

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

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

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