More handpicked essays just for you.
Commentaries on Machiavelli's Prince
The meaning of the apology by Plato
Nicolo machiavelli the qualities of a prince
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Nicolo Machiavelli lived throughout the Italian Renaissance. He was a mid-level civil servant, and was not a high power authority. He wrote The Prince based on his research and dedication of time to looking at past princes and how effective they were. Socrates lived in Greece throughout the “Golden age” as a street teacher until he was finally prosecuted for poisoning the minds of the youth. The Apology was written by one of his prominent followers, Plato. Throughout The Prince and The Apology, there are contrasting ideas. The Prince, written by Nicolo Machiavelli, is about the characteristics that a good prince has. He further explains that a good prince does not actually have the traits he listed, the prince needs to appear to others to have …show more content…
He was sentenced to death and his last words were about accepting his “punishment” instead of trying to fight and deceive his way out of it. Three differences between The Prince and The Apology is the way the men believe one should act in times of desperation, how one should deceive, and how one appears to others. The first difference between two writers ideas is about how a person should act in times of desperation. Machiavelli stated, “…to be a great pretender and dissembler….” He believes a person, in this case a prince, should be a great “dissembler” or liar, especially in a time of desperation. For a prince, a time of desperation would be the threat of his empire being overtaken. In contrast, Socrates stated in The Apology, “you would have liked to hear me weep and wail, doing all sorts of things which I regard as unworthy of myself.” (1) Even in a time of great desperation, Socrates refused to pretend to act in a way the prosecutors wanted him to, even though it possibly meant escaping death. He feels if someone, particularly himself, were to pretend to feel and be something he is not, he would be unworthy to …show more content…
Machiavelli states in The Prince, “men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand”(paragraph 5) He is saying that people judge more on appearance rather than actions. This is why Machiavelli puts a strong emphasis on how a good prince should only “appear” to have good qualities, but does not actually have to have those qualities. On the other hand, Socrates said in The Apology, “I would like to spend my time there, as here, in examining and searching peoples minds, to find out who is really wise among them, and who only thinks that he is.” (page 2) Socrates says that he wants to see what people think, he does not judge people based solely on their appearance. Whether he is in Heaven or on earth, he wants to “examine and search[ing] peoples minds” because he knows someone may appear to be wise, but on the inside they actually are not. Socrates thought is different to that of Machiavelli’s because Machiavelli said a good prince should only appear to have good qualities because that is all people will see. Socrates said he wants to look deeper into peoples mind and thoughts to really understand a
Niccolò Machiavelli was a man who lived during the fourteen and fifteen hundreds in Florence, Italy, and spent part of his life imprisoned after the Medici princes returned to power. He believed that he should express his feelings on how a prince should be through writing and became the author of “The Qualities of a Prince.” In his essay, he discusses many points on how a prince should act based on military matters, reputation, giving back to the people, punishment, and keeping promises. When writing his essay, he follows his points with examples to back up his beliefs. In summary, Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince,” provides us with what actions and behaviors that a prince should have in order to maintain power and respect.
The main point that he is trying to get across is the question, “Is it better to be feared rather than loved?” and he explains very thoroughly in The prince his thoughts and views on this question and he says that “it is much safer to be feared than loved because ...love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails” (The Prince: Machiavelli). He also covers the topics of religion, morality, power, and of course politics.
(651). Machiavelli states that men judge more, ? with their eyes than with their hands.? And with this Machiavelli claims that, ? everyone sees what you seem to be, few people perceive what you are,?
The author of “The Apology,” Benjamin Jowett, supports his ideas of Socrates by explaining the judgmental views that were made towards Socrates. Socrates is forced to face the jury of Athens due to his gadfly role on the streets on Athens. The citizens of Athens were willing to tolerate persons who could give persuasive speeches and make great shows of rhetoric, but they had no room for Socrates, who was questioning and investigations threatened to undermine a public culture of conformity to traditional authority. Eventually, the practice of philosophy cost Socrates his life. “I would have you know, if you kill such a one as I am, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me,” Socrates states. Socrates thought that no good man could be harmed; as long as you are doing good then harm cannot affect you. Socrates was told he was the smartest man in Athens, which motivated him to go on the streets to prove he was not. The author proves this point by stating what Socrates says to the jury, “Here is a man who is wiser than I am but you said that I was the wisest.” Socrates went...
“Once upon a time in a far away land” in every imagination, is the start of how a prince and a princess live happily ever after. The fairy tales come to mind when thinking about princes, how charming, intelligent admiring, and many more characteristics that the “idyllic” prince has in many minds like my own. The question is simply asked, “What makes the idyllic prince?” most of us think of someone who has high quality and very first class. Niccolo Machiavelli describes an ideal prince as someone who is in control and dominant. The ideal prince should understand warfare and statecraft. Machiavelli was born in Florence Italy in 1496. He served as an administrator and a diplomat in the Florence Republic, and was imprisoned at various points of his career. One of his notable positions was serving as a political advisor to the Borgia family. He knew many political leaders of Italy, particularly Cesare Borgia, who he wrote The Prince about. Machiavelli judges Gilgamesh as a prince based on his behavior, qualities, and characteristics that Machiavelli describes in The Prince and the behavio...
In The Prince, Machiavelli was addressing a monarchical ruler and offering advice designed to keep that ruler in power. He felt that Cesare Borgia was model for the perfect prince. He was able to give actual examples of how princes during his time ruled and how they failed or succeeded in doing so. Plato, in contrast was perhaps unrealistic. His ruler and state could only be used to better understand the meaning of justice. It could never be practiced in real life because he neglects the fact that everyone sins and fails to mention this in his ideal ruler and state.
“The Prince”, by Niccolo Machiavelli, is a series of letters written to the current ruler of Italy, Lorenzo de’ Medici. These letters are a “how-to” guide on what to do and what not to do. He uses examples to further express his views on the subject. The main purpose was to inform the reader how to effectively rule and be an acceptable Prince. Any ruler who wishes to keep absolute control of his principality must use not only wisdom and skill, but cunning and cruelness through fear rather than love. Machiavelli writes this book as his summary of all the deeds of great men.
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
Those who are known to use cunning and deceiving tricks to get ahead are often called Machiavellian. Yet, they can also be described as realistic and practical. Unlike Plato, Niccolo Machiavelli sees mankind as it truly is. Machiavelli knows what humans really want and he sees us for what we really are. Whether that be selfish, conceiving, ungenerous, or immoral, it is true. He shows us how to use all our qualities to better ourselves, and how that could better our society. Plato, on the other hand, wants to be a perfecter of good qualities, and doesn't acknowledge how our bad qualities can work for us. Ideally if we could all share the knowledge and goodness we have, society would be perfect, but why strive for perfection? Machiavelli better understands mankind and society as it is today, while Plato is simply ideological.
Whether Socrates is portrayed correctly or not, he certainly was a great man. His contribution to western thought cannot be denied. For even if his teachings were different from what they are known to be at present, his influence on Plato is immense. And so, it is no small matter to describe the tragic passing of such a man as Socrates was and remains for philosophy today. Yet in all the indignation which is expected to arise at the death of Socrates, the panache with which he departs is captured excellently in Plato's “Apology.” Specifically, at the end of the "Apology," Socrates makes a very important statement that has had great impact on philosophy ever since its original proclamation. The Stoics in particular have taken this to be the cornerstone of their ideology. The statement made is that "you must regard one thing at least as certain—that no harm can come to a good man either in his life or after his death,” (Plato 100). The following examination focuses therefore on a brief explanation of the circumstances which lead to this statement being made by Socrates, as well as a closer look at why he thinks this to be the case. It is assumed that this statement is true, and validation for that assumption is to be sought as well.
9. Machiavelli says the prince only has to seem good, not be good. Socrates insists that seeming is bad, being is good. Is it better to remain in the cave with Machiavelli, or see the light with Socrates? Write three pages for Machiavelli and against Socrates, write another three pages against Machiavelli and for Socrates.
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
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 uses classical sources to advise a prince on the best way to maintain power. He alludes to Plato’ Republic to illustrate how many men have attempted to advice princes “ A great many men have imagined states and princedoms such as nobody ever saw or knew in the real word, and there’s such a difference between the way we really live and the way we ought to live that the man who neglects the real to study the ideal will learn how to accomplish his ruin, not his salvation.” Machiavelli also makes various references to classical figures to demonstrate examples of princely leadership. Machiavelli’s classical allusions are indicative of the Renaissance as the renewed study of the ancient classics was an important element of the Renaissance. Machiavelli adopted classical ideas in the hopes that these examples could inspire improvements within Italy. Rafael Major supports this idea in “ A New Argument for Morality: Machiavelli and the Ancients.” He argues, “ Even a cursory survey of classical literature reveals that very little of The Prince can properly be called original.” More also reflects the Renaissance through his classical allusions. He uses his classical sources to criticize certain practices within Europe, while also offering solutions to these problems through the example of the classics. For example, he also alludes to
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.