More handpicked essays just for you.
The differences between plato and machiavelli
Machiavelli and political science
Machiavelli and political science
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Plato vs. Machiavelli
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.
Plato's philosophy of government sees the State as a larger version of the individual, and the soul of an individual is comprised of three parts. Plato states that these three parts include the appetite, the spirit, and reason (167), and these parts have goals and desires that pertain only to them. For example, reason finds fulfillment in the study ...
... middle of paper ...
...gime seizing power or trampling their rights and stealing their possessions, they can live in a state of contentment, and even happiness. As for the populace's role in government, anyone can have an impact on the game of power if they know what to do and have the support to do it. Power is not restricted to one type of people or one class, but is "up for grabs" and waiting for the boldest to seize it. For Machiavelli, the people are more than just a mass to be divided and placed in a proper order, but a powerful force that must be considered and respected by the one who would rule over them. But for both Plato and Machiavelli, government seems to be a necessary and natural state under which humankind can operate and survive.
Bibliography:
Morgan, Michael L., ed. Classics of Moral and Political Theory. 3rd Edition. Indianapolis. Hackett, 2001.
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.
Although they share some similarities in ideology, these parallels are greatly overshadowed by the concepts in which Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli diverge. Their primary distinction lies within their view of human nature and it’s role in governing. Lao-Tzu maintains that if we promote a system of governing to the least possible extent, then human nature should manifest a favorable temperance and dictate the direction of society. In fact, Lao-Tzu asserts numerous attempts to illustrate his point that if leaders, “Stop Trying to control” (§ 57, 35), then there is no desire (§ 37, 24), he dwells in reality (§ 38, 29), and “the world will govern itself.” (§ 57, 35) Although this is an extremely optimistic and beneficial ideal, the main problem with Lao-Tzu’s entire philosophy is exactly that, it can only be viewed as a philosophy. Because it appears under the section entitled “Government,” I...
One of Plato's goals in The Republic, as he defines the Just City, is to illustrate what kind of leader and government could bring about the downfall of his ideal society. To prevent pride and greed in leaders would ensure that they would not compromise the well being of the city to obtain monetary gains or to obtain more power. If this state of affairs becomes firmly rooted in the society, the fall to Tyranny begins. This is the most dangerous state that the City become on i...
Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill present three distinct models of government in their works The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism. From an examination of these models it is possible to infer their views about human nature and its connection to the purpose of government. A key to comparing these views can be found in an examination of their ideas of morality as an intermediary between government and human nature. Whether this morality must be inferred from their writings or whether it is explicitly mentioned, it differs among the three in its definition, source, and purpose.
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.
Philosophy can be defined as the highest level of clarity and understanding human thought can aspire to. In some ways, Plato’s Republic can be compared to George Orwell’s book 1984. It may seem strange to compare the two, however they are quite similar. Plato writes from the Western philosophy, while Orwell tells of a totalitarian society where all free thought is banned. However, the two versions of government, one being a utopian government, and the other being horrific, contain certain connections that will be made clear over the course of this paper.
The existence of the city-state (polis) requires an efficient ruler. A community of any sort can possess order only if it has a ruling element or authority. This ruling principle is defined by the constitution, which sets criteria for political offices, particularly the sovereign office. Aristotle defines the constitution as “a certain ordering of the inhabitants of the city-state” (III.1.1274b32-41). It is not a written document, but an immanent organizing principle, analogous to the soul of an organism. Hence, the constitution is also “the way of life” of the citizens (IV.11.1295a40-b1, VII.8.1328b1-2). Here the citizens are that minority of the resident population who possess full political rights (III.1.1275b17–20). Once the constitution is in place, the politician needs to take the appropriate measures to maintain it, to introduce reforms when he finds them necessary,...
Plato vs. Aristotle How do we explain the world around us? How can we get to the truth? Plato and Aristotle began the quest to find the answers thousands of years ago. Amazingly, all of philosophy since that time can be described as only a rehashing of the original argument between Plato and Aristotle. Plato and Aristotle's doctrines contrast in the concepts of reality, knowledge at birth, and the mechanism to find the truth.
The Republic is the most important dialogue within Plato's teaching of politics. It deals with the soul, which, as we know from the beginning, at the level where one must make choices and decide what one wants to become in this life, and it describes justice as the ultimate form of human, and the ideal one should strive for both in life and in state. Justice as understood by Plato is not merely a social virtue, having only to do with relationship between people, but virtue that makes it possible for one to build their own regime and reach happiness.
Plato presents this to explain the diminished role of the philosopher in the government and express his grievances with the Greek democracy model. This is similar in some regards to the analogy of the chariot, when the horses of passion and appetite threaten to overtake the weaker horse of reason. The horse of reason is able to steer much like the navigator. However, it being the weakest horse, passion and appetite may lead the chariot astray in the pursuit of pleasure. (elaborate a little on their overlap, soul vs state? conclude more solidly)
Plato’s Republic introduces a multitude of important and interesting concepts, of topics ranging from music, to gender equality, to political regime. For this reason, many philosophers and scholars still look back to The Republic in spite of its age. Yet one part that stands out in particular is Plato’s discussion of the soul in the fourth book of the Republic. Not only is this section interesting, but it was also extremely important for all proceeding moral philosophy, as Plato’s definition has been used ever since as a standard since then. Plato’s confabulation on the soul contains three main portions: defining each of the three parts and explanation of their functions, description of the interaction of the parts, and then how the the parts and their interaction motivate action. This essay will investigate each segment, and seek to explain their importance.
Plato’s thoughts about power and reason are much different than Aristotle. Plato looked at the meaning of justice and different types of governments. Plato looked into four different types of governments
Plato supposed that people exhibit the same features, and perform the same functions that city-states do. Applying the analogy in this way presumes that each of us, like the state, is a complex whole made up of several distinct parts, each of which has its own proper role. But Plato argued that there is evidence of this in our everyday experience. When faced with choices about what to do, we commonly feel the tug of many different impulses drawing us in different directions all at once, and the most natural explanation for this situ...
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
Machiavelli: I gotta say, Plato, I really appreciate all you gave me to think about, but your account of the best citizen and the best city really is defective because we must take into consider that men are not good and that you must take into consideration that there is a distinct difference between the way men live, and how they SHOULD live, “And many have imagined republics and principalities that never have been seen or know to exist in reality. For there is such a difference between the way men live and the way they ought to live, that anybody who abandons what is for what ought to be will learn something that will ruin rather than preserve him, because anyone who determines to act in all circumstances the part of a good man must come to ruin among so many who are not good. Hence, if a prince wishes to maintain himself, he must learn how not to be good, and to use that ability or not as required” (Machiavelli 324).