Plato believes that ruling is a skill similar to sailing a ship since it’s irrational to have a janitor captain it, while an expert navigator is present to sail. Plato envisions a Philosopher King, who would study how to rule correctly through using the dialect on doxa to discover the logos of matters, therefore being able to rule with justice. The Philosopher King would take the mantle of power not because of ambition, but rather he would not want to be ruled by the doxa of others. In the Laws Plato depicts his ideal city, which includes very strict regulations to follow what’s correct, even marriage that it should be for the benefit of the state, not to please. Plato puts out an outline of the first election in a colony, but focusing on …show more content…
He goes against popular critiques towards Romulus’ murdering of his brother that was blamed by others for the uprising’s that occurred far later. Romulus displays great virtù in the eyes of Machiavelli, so even though he killed his brother, he looks at the outcome of it. Machiavelli sees that the Roman’s prospered greatly early on because and that’s because Romulus set up a senate, so he would no figuratively have absolute control and once he died, he did not select an heir, but rather left it up to the senate. Machiavelli views the virtù of Romulus allowing a senate to have control, therefore a form of popular sovereignty, to help establish the society, but then fortuna was also very favourable. Fortuna made Rome to go from kings, and then aristocrats to finally going to the people and in the eyes of Machiavelli it made the perfect republic. Machiavelli, once again goes against the popular opinion that Rome was made weak because of the people’s liberty, but rather for him that was its strength. The disunion of the plebeians and the nobles was fixed by this liberty, because it allowed laws to pass that made the citizens, not feel as though they were completely under control of the nobles. These fairer laws in Machiavelli’s opinion in fact made the populous feel as though they belonged to their current system, therefore helping have more active participants in war, because they all felt they had something to gain, or lose in it. Machiavelli views the people of a society as its most valuable asset, because if you have their loyalty they make the best fortresses and armies, instead of mercenaries, since they will have an attachment. Machiavelli supports popular sovereignty in society whether it be a tyrant, or republic, they’re important as he points out that Roman’s only started to fall, once they switched to tyranny, and forgoing the will of
In Plato’s reasoning he explains that everyone is born with innate qualifications that make them more fit than others for a certain occupation. He suggests that in this way each person’s function will be completed thoroughly. The same theory applies when deciding how the city with be ruled. Only people who possess superior traits will have the power to rule. These people will pertain to the highest ranking class of the state called the guardian class.
As in other areas of “The Republic,” Plato carefully outlines the delineations which form the basis for the types of rulers to be installed in the state. “Rulers” (legislative and udicial), “Auxiliaries” (executive), and “Craftsmen” (productive and fficacious) are the titles of the categories and are based, not on birth or wealth, but on natural capacities and aspirations. Plato was convinced that children born into any class should still be moved up or down based on their merits regardless of their connections or heritage. He believes the citizens of the State will support and benefit from such a system and presents the idea in the form of an allegorical myth.
First, Machiavelli’s method attempts to discard discussion of the “imaginary” political world and instead focuses on “real life” (Machiavelli 48). His end goal is to construct rubric for leaders to follow either to rule and unite (in this case Italy) in the Prince or create a powerful republic in the Discourses. His method is derived from comparing contemporary and historical events to illustrate and substantiate his argument. He is critical of how people interpret history (Machiavelli 83). He still believes that his ability to interpret and compare history is superior. Arguing that his methodological approach doesn’t just “chew” on history but actually “tastes” it (Machiavelli 83). Therefore we can understand that he justifies his method approach as not being akin to most because he possesses a much deeper understanding of history. Throughout his two books using ...
Titus Livius Patavinius was a patriot who believed in the "purer morality" of the Roman Empire and Republic that had sustained its existence for so long. He also saw, however, a gradual decline in morality and virtue over time as Roman society became richer and more prone to greed. As a result of this observation, he did not trust that any modern ruler would possess the moral integrity of the great leaders of the past, but perhaps if they read his book they could learn from the good examples and be warned by the bad ones. Machiavelli also agreed that history should be studied and applied to the present, but he believed that when people read Livy, they took “infinitely more pleasure in knowing the variety of incidents that are contained in [Livy’s writings], without ever thinking of imitating them.” In other words, Livy’s account of Rome was more of a glorified fairytale which no one could possibly use as a reference for solving current problems so he decided to write a commentary explaining what he believed to be the real reasons for the rise (and fall) of Rome. Both Livy and Machi...
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...
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.
In Plato' "ideal" model of a city; he chose an aristocratic form of government, describing it as the rule of the most strong, wise and intelligent. In his system people are robbed of their basic rights to live as a primitive human being. People had no right to choose what they want to be after they are born; their occupation is chosen for them by the "philosopher king." He chooses one's job after assessing one's talent in a variety of areas. ...
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
Machiavelli’s The Prince was written more than 500 years ago and it is “one of the most influential and controversial books published in Western literature.” (Article A) It was about Machiavelli’s political philosophies and the basic principles of what he believes a politician or “prince” should be. The three main ideas of the Prince were “Liberality and Stinginess”, “Cruelty and Mercy: Is It Better to Be Loved Than Feared, or the Reverse?”, and “How a Prince Should Keep Their Promises” and for the most part many of his concepts should or are already instilled in our government.
Some may take this to mean a completely different thing, such as thinking that Machiavelli believes that the end justifies the means, that a leader should lie to the people, and that a ruler has to rule with force. In actuality, Machiavelli means no such thing. He says that there are times when the common good outweighs the means, and the morality of a ruler’s actions. He also says that you cannot be loved by everyone, so try to be loved and feared at the same time, but of the two, choose to be feared.
As he begins to conclude, Machiavelli states that the prince: “should think about avoiding those things which make him hated and despised.” (Mach 48) Although these lack any withstanding moral values, they are effective in the sense that they better serve their purpose. Machiavelli was seeking to display a way to hold political power by any means possible not a utopian state. This may mean malicious acts, imprisonment, and torture, or it may mean the utilization of power to achieve a common good. Machiavelli doesn’t elaborate on this. He concentrates on a realistic approach towards government, as he remains concerned with the establishment and protection of power.
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
In Kelley, Machiavelli briefly mentions the books of Titus Livius, which gives him the opportunity to express his own views on the government of the state. Machiavelli's model republic was that of the Roman commonwealth, the most successful and enduring example of popular government. He acknowledges three kinds of government, the monarchial, the aristocratic, and the democratic. He then goes on to mention that there are six kinds of government, three of which are bad, and three good in themselves. However, he believes the three bad government will result in the fall of the good. Machiavelli constantly reminds us of his preference towards a republican form of government and his admiration for the Roman Empire. He insists on establishing a government with the political will ...
Machiavelli argues in chapter 5 that the key to taking over a free state is initially to destroy it. By destroying the city, Machiavelli believes that the citizens will have no choice but to follow the direction of the new prince. He goes deeper to say that if a prince who occupies these cities does not destroy it, he risk the probable outcome of a rebellion. This rebellion is brought fourth by the tradition held by the citizens and the memories of the former way of government. The second step is to live there in person to establish loyalty and the third step is letting the people live by its own laws, but establish a small government who is loyal to you to keep it friendly. Chapter 6 gives us some insight on what Machiavelli feels leadership is. Leaders, he explains, are followers too in many ways. All leaders are imitating great rulers in history. A leader who really wants to achieve glory, does so by his own prowess, meaning by his own talent. Anyone can inherit a kingdom, but not anyone can rule it with natural leadership. This kind of leadership is what makes great leaders in history such as Moses or Cyrus. Chapter 7 explains that a leader should not try to buy his subjects. If a prince buys his subjects they will only temporarily be loyal. A prince needs to eliminate his enemies and do so all at once. Even if a prince does not succeed in ruling by his own prowess in his lifetime, he is still setting a good foundation for future princes which is just as important. Chapter 8 explains the level of evil that should be done in order to rise to power. He gives us clear insight of the pros and cons of obtaining power by evil means and how to use evil in ways of benefit. Machiavelli was a man of manipulation.
In conclusion, Plato draws all the elements of his perfect city-state and started it by the kings. Those kings have to understand the good, because all the achievements of society will rely on them. Therefore all the evidence and Plato’s information of philosopher king will be useful for uniting people.