Machiavelli Vs Socrates

359 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Compare and contrast machiavelli and socrates

Since the beginning of time, the concepts of good and evil have existed and human beings have struggled to find the balance between them. Evil is an abstracted word but can best be defined as something that contradicts morality. However, morals and the concept of what is right differs throughout time periods, societies, and individuals. According to Machiavelli, deception and immorality are justified in situations where the positives of the final outcome outweigh the negative acts that lead to it. In contrast, Socrates was a proprietor of justice and serenity in a society. Nevertheless, both Machiavelli and Socrates strove to please the public. While their ethics would vary, Machiavelli and Socrates would agree that it can be prudent

Show More
Related

  • Comparing and Contrasting Mirandolla and Machiavelli

    610 Words  | 2 Pages

    This compare and contrast essay will focus on the views of leadership between Mirandolla and Machiavelli. Mirandolla believes that leadership should not be false and that it should follow the rule of reason. He believes that leaders should strive for the heavens and beyond. On the other hand, Machiavelli believed that leadership comes to those who are crafty and forceful. He believed that leaders do not need to be merciful, humane, faithful or religious; they only need to pretend to have all these qualities. Despite both of them being philosophers, they have drastically different views on leadership, partially because of their views on religion are different. Mirandolla was very religious, and Machiavelli was a pragmatist, which means that he was not interested in religion.

    Read More

  • Comparison of Lao-tzu and Machiavelli

    726 Words  | 2 Pages

    author of Prince. They are both philosophers but have totally different perspective on how to be a good leader. While both philosopher’s writing is instructive. Lao-tzu’s advice issues from detached view of a universal ruler; Machiavelli’s advice is very personal perhaps demanding. Both philosophers’ idea will not work for today’s world, because that modern world is not as perfect as Lao-tzu described in Tao-te Ching, and not as chaotic as Machiavelli illustrated in Prince.

    Read More

  • Machiavelli Vs. King George III

    428 Words  | 1 Pages

    Machiavelli spoke of a balance between good and evil. "In actual fact, a prince may not have all of the admirable qualities listed, but it is necessary that he should seem to have them. Indeed I will venture to say that when you have them and exercise them all of the time, they are harmful to you; when you just seem to have them, they are useful. It is good to appear merciful, truthful, humane, sincere, and religious; it is good to be so in reality. But you must keep your mind so disposed that, in case of need, you can turn to the exact contrary".

    Read More

  • Machiavelli vs. Lao-Tzu

    284 Words  | 1 Pages

    Perhaps the most distinct differences between Machiavelli's and Lao-Tzu's are their beliefs in how a government should be run. Whereas Machiavelli writes about the qualities a prince should have while instilling a totalitarian government, Lao-Tzu strongly believes that one cannot have total control, so everything should run its course.

    Read More

  • 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

  • Does Aristotle’s Function Argument Offer a Convincing Account of the Human Good?

    1843 Words  | 4 Pages

    17, No. 3, p. 252-259. Urmson, J.O., (1988). Aristotle’s Ethics (Blackwell), ch.1. Wilkes, K.V., (1978). The Good Man and the Good for Man in Aristotle’s Ethics. Mind 87; repr.

    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

  • Comparing Machiavelli's The Prince and Plato's The Republic

    1784 Words  | 4 Pages

    Many people in history have written about ideal rulers and states and how to maintain them.  Perhaps the most talked about and compared are Machiavelli's, The Prince and Plato's, The Republic.  Machiavelli lived at a time when Italy was suffering from its political destruction.  The Prince, was written to describe the ways by which a leader may gain and maintain power. In Plato?s The Republic, he unravels the definition of justice.  Plato believed that a ruler could not be wholly just unless one was in a society that was also just. His state and ruler was made up to better understand the meaning of justice.  It was not intended to be practiced like that of Machiavelli's. Machiavelli, acknowledging this, explains that it is his intention to write something that is true and real and useful to whoever might read it and not something imaginary,"?for many have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have never been known or seen?(Machiavelli 375)."  Therefore, because one ruler is realistic and the other imaginary, the characteristics of Machiavelli's ruler versus Plato's ruler are distinctly different.

    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 Machiavelli and Hobbes

    1482 Words  | 3 Pages

    To be successful, one must have the appearance of virtuousness, but not necessarily be virtuous. At least, this appears to be true according to Niccolo Machiavelli's works. Machiavelli's idea of the virtuous republican citizen may be compared to Hobbes' idea of a person who properly understands the nature and basis of sovereign political power. Hobbes' ideas seem to suggest that most anyone can claim rightful authority as there is a belief in God, and one can under Hobbes, claim legitimate authority rather easily. There are few proofs. Machiavelli, on the other hand, takes a strong position and suggests specific criteria in terms of power. With Machiavelli, there is a sense of righteousness and fairness and while he does not sanction authoritarian rule to save man from himself, it is also true that Machiavelli puts a lot of faith in leaders also. In some respects, one can see that the two theorists agree yet Machiavelli’s proposed Political society is more feasible thus superior to that of Hobbes.

    Read More

  • Thrasymachus and Socrates

    771 Words  | 2 Pages

    The debate between Thrasymachus and Socrates begins when Thrasymachus gives his definition of justice in a very self-interested form. Thrasymachus believes that justice is only present to benefit the ruler, or the one in charge – and for that matter any one in charge can change the meaning of justice to accommodate their needs (343c). Thrasymachus provides a very complex example supporting his claim. He states that the man that is willing to cheat and be unjust to achieve success will be by far the best, and be better than the just man.

    Read More

  • The Republic - Book 1 - Theme Of Justice

    2360 Words  | 5 Pages

    Traditionally justice was regarded as one of the cardinal virtues; to avoid injustices and to deal equitable with both equals and inferiors was seen as what was expected of the good man, but it was not clear how the benefits of justice were to be reaped. Socrates wants to persuade from his audience to adopt a way of estimating the benefits of this virtue. From his perspective, it is the quality of the mind, the psyche organization which enables a person to act virtuously. It is this opposition between the two types of assessment of virtue that is the major theme explored in Socrates’ examination of the various positions towards justice. Thus the role of Book I is to turn the minds from the customary evaluation of justice towards this new vision. Through the discourse between Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus, Socaretes’ thoughts and actions towards justice are exemplified. Though their views are different and even opposed, the way all three discourse about justice and power reveal that they assume the relation between the two to be separate. They find it impossible to understand the idea that being just is an exercise of power and that true human power must include the ability to act justly. And that is exactly what Socrates seeks to refute.

    Read More

  • Machiavelli VS Robert Greene

    1258 Words  | 3 Pages

    What would you do if you discovered a secret that can make your life better? Not just any ordinary secret, but a special one that would tell you how to gain power/ control over others and maintain it. Would you share it with others? Well that’s what writers have been sharing for centuries; yet many of us are still unaware. The very concept of Power is extremely important especially since we the people can give it to others but never ourselves. Well two contemporary authors in regards with the subject of power are Niccolo Machiavelli, and Robert Greene. Although generations apart, both are very influential writers that have had an ever lasting impact on human history through their works. Machiavelli with his the Prince, and Greene with the 48 Laws of Power. Although Robert Greene as an author surfaced quite recently in 1998; however, the amount of notoriety he carries has quickly earned him a spot on the list of influential authors. Though both books are subjected towards attaining and maintain power; however, they differ highly in its targeted audiences, and the manifestation of major themes. Such as Machiavelli, in The Prince mainly addresses the methods of achieving power in the political world by highly favoring rationality while disregarding moral ethical values. Thus exemplifying the famous phrase of “the end justifying the means”. Whereas Greene, on the other hand also addresses similar issue; however, he does it in a way that exposes the inner workings of the power struggles taken place in everyday situations. Overall, I believe that upon reflecting on the works of Robert Greene, and Niccolo Machiavelli one can clearly trace back resemblances and distinctions with each other. However, I’m consider that the reasoning behind ...

    Read More

  • Erasmus Vs Machiavelli

    876 Words  | 2 Pages

    Another great contrast between the sources is in the basis of philosophical thought. Philosophical ways of thinking moved from idealism to modern realism throughout history, and the beginning of this movement into realism became apparent in the Renaissance. This shift in beliefs is expressed by the idealistic views of Erasmus and Vergerius and the realistic views of Machiavelli. Erasmus is extremely idealistic in his description of a perfect ruler who leads a life similar to Christ (Erasmus). He stresses the importance of virtue and morality, as the highest goods for a ruler to uphold (Erasmus). The ruler depicted by Erasmus is dedicated to doing what is right and just (Erasmus). It is the belief of Erasmus that doing what is right is doing

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Plato And Machiavelli

    947 Words  | 2 Pages

    Notwithstanding the two philosophers’ different views on abstract concepts, Machiavelli’s virtù to fortuna is comparable to Plato’s Justice to Good. Each philosopher grants his ruler with a specific trait that deviates from the leader’s acquired knowledge of abstract concepts. Under their beliefs, the best ruler is the one who conforms to this virtuous trait--for Plato, Justice (Plato 519b-c), and for Machiavelli, virtù (Machiavelli, Prince 29). These traits then extend to a multitude of characteristics that define the careful instruction both philosophers laid out and that will allow the leader to directly change society into a worthy political

    Read More

More about Machiavelli Vs Socrates

Open Document