Plato Vs Machiavelli

Machiavelli argues the perfect prince will be both feared and loved by his people, and if unable to be both he will make himself feared and not hated. Machiavelli believes it is much safer to be feared than to be loved because people are less likely to offend and stand up against strong characters, also people are less concerned in offending a prince who has made himself loved. Accordingly, Machiavelli believes generosity is harmful to your reputation and the choice between being generous or stingy, merciful or cruel, honest or deceitful, should only be important if it aids the prince in political power. All in all, Machiavelli believes the ruler must be a great deceiver and do what is essential to uphold power over the

Lao-Tzu was an ancient Chinese philosopher and writer. He is known as the author of the Tao Te Ching, the founder of philosophical Taoism, and a god in Taoism and traditional Chinese religions. Niccolò Machiavelli was a writer of the Renaissance period. They are both philosophers that have completely different perspective on how a country should run and how the leaders should act. While both philosophers’ writing can be very useful to the government in some ways. The leader should not be cruel or mean to the people but should know when to tough. The big difference is how they disagree most strongly on how a government should run and how they believe in war. They also disagree on when mercy should be given and how the money they own should be spent. Neither one of the ideas that they have for the government will work for the world today, because the world is not as good and peaceful as Lao-tzu describes in Tao-Te Ching, and not as chaotic or mean as Machiavelli says in The Prince.

The Age of Absolutism was a period of prosperity in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries. While at this time many countries had absolute rulers, these rulers were able to make a lot of progress in advancing their nations. These rulers are some of the greatest rulers these countries have ever had and helped lead to the prosperity of this era.

What exactly is a good leader and how should they be? In the readings, by Christine de Pizan The Treasure of the City of Ladies and another by Niccolo Machiavelli The Prince. They both talk about how a prince and a princess should act upon their people. For Pizan she talks about how a princess should be kind hearted and accepting towards her people. She should act like this sho that they will help her whenever she is need. Then for Machiavelli he talks about how a prince should show no fear instead for him to show that he is the one with power. That a prince's people should fear him. Both authors go on to talk on how their people react based on the prince and princesse act. The authors then go on to explain how they should view and run their people. Both authors also reflect the fact that the way their people are going to act towards them is mainly based off of how they treat them. The authors go into how gender plays a big role on how they should act upon their people and how their people should accept them. There are many factors that go towards one being a good leader or a bad leader. That is what exactly the authors Pizan and Machiavelli explained in their readings.

What is justice? This is the crucial question that Plato attempts to answer in his dialogue, The Republic. He conjures up an allegory that justice can be found in a person, and a person can represent a city. Thus, his entire dialogue focuses on this ‘just’ city and the mechanics of how the city would operate. His dialogue covers a myriad of topics about justice in addition to the human soul, politics, goodness and truth. In his discussion over how the citizens should be educated and how to control their knowledge, the question of the ethical and realistic expectations of the city. However, the problem, or downfall, of Plato’s city is its foundation. A foundation of lies. Plato’s web of lies, falsehoods and manipulation make the entire city

Plato believes that people are inherently good and they will do what is morally right and just for society. They will earn their right to power and ensure fairness for all to prevent the tyrants from trying to take control. Plato mentions three main arguments regarding

Plato regarded justice as the true principle of social life. Plato in his day found a lot of evil in society. He saw unrighteousness rampant and injustice enthroned.

Bossuet taught that royal power is absolute, and the will of the people is united in the king. He stated that “without his absolute authority, the king could neither do good, nor prevent evil.” This showed that Bossuet believed that the absolute power of the king led to the well-being of his subjects (D-2). Similarly, much of Machiavelli’s beliefs coincided with Bossuet’s teachings. In his book, The Prince, Machiavelli offered his opinion on how an effective ruler should govern over his or her subjects. The main point made by Machiavelli was that men are inherently bad, so a leader must rule in a way that takes this into account. He taught that because of man’s ungratefulness, it is safer to be feared than loved (D-4). This shows that Machiavelli believed that the power and success of a country will lead to the prosperity of its inhabitants. Both influential people believed that a country prospers the most under absolute power.

In the book he looks at the historical aspects of what has happened and uses them to establish his main points. After going through what we were assigned to read, I gathered that the two most important aspects that a prince should have is knowledge and flexibility in the area of morality. Knowledge allows him to be smarter than his populace, knowing when not to be good, and the ability to combat certain cases. Being morally flexible allows him to be able to handle the ends justifying the means. It also should be noted that he believed that power is the only thing that matters and how to hold that power. Machiavelli has clearly started a lot of thought on how the school of Realism operates. Though his view on humans and some of his methods may be extreme, The Prince and the Discourses shows a lot of insight on what do if a prince wants to hold his power and what action should be done to do

His mindset was simple. to manifest dismay and use the overwhelming power as a dictator. His intentions are clear, and his words are powerful. With a combination of rhetorical devices, a symphony of teachings are made and preached. Machiavelli is a strong advocate to use fear to herd together the common man, he begins his argument by asking a simple question, “ Here the question… safer than to be loved”. He utilizes hypophora, a method utilized by writers to hook readers on with a question which sets him up for his claim. The use of hypophora is like an alley-oop, the player that passes the ball to the dunker is the question which sets up the other player for a dunk. After instilling the question of whether it is better to be loved or feared Machiavelli lead the idea into our forethought, then he answers the question which immediately severances our time for thought on the question. By reply to the question right after, Machiavelli pitches the idea to the heirs of these imperiums, providing a higher prospect of them accepting that ideology as an answer. Machiavelli has such confidence that fear is much safer to be loved. He believes that by utilizing fear, the common men that will easily betray dare not to ever turn their backs for fear of death. For the terror of their common and worthless lives to their merciless tyrant. That sentence provides the main idea for the rest of his book, it helps prove his point by giving us the straight forward answer to the premise of the book. That sentence is a claim to Machiavelli boldly follows by and will not falter to an opposing idea. Machiavelli persistently elaborates on the idea that fear is powerful motive that is not to be reckoned with, he starts to state the fault in the common man. Machiavelli states “ For it is a good general rule… the danger is remote,”. Machiavelli here utilizes the rule of thirds, and partially inductive

In Machiavelli’s book, The Prince, he maintains a harsh perspective on reality. His advice on how to maintain power leaves no room for compassion or generousity. While some may believe that these are qualities of a good person, Machiavelli believes these qualities lead to the downfall of rulers. He acknowledges that, in reality, it is impossible for someone to have qualities of a good person and simultaneously a good ruler. Machiavelli’s realistic outlook causes him to emphasize that it is better to maintain power through fear, rather than compassion. Despite this, he notes that a ruler must avoid his people hating him. A hated ruler possesses no power since the people hold the power. Therefore, a ruler can be miserly, unfaithful, and ruthless, but they must appear to be the opposite. Machiavelli concludes that it is important for a ruler to balance his reputation and his actions, which I agree with, however others may argue that a ruler can posses both qualities.

He urges those in power that if they “ want to keep their post must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires” (863). His ideas are actually showing that people in power remain so because they have the ability to do good but avoid doing so. Public policy is based on principles, yet politicians don’t create public policies that can do good for the people because they fear loss of power. In this case he is utilizing public policy to protect his power and therefore defending his personal interest. Furthering claims, he asserts “Since a prince cannot use this virtue of liberality in such as to become known for it unless he harms his own security”(865). Accordingly, we see that politicians avoid uses of virtue or in other words principles for his own interest which include his own security. Finally, Machiavelli describes a point of view that those in power take on the nature of humans. To rather be safe and protect their interest Machiavelli shows that politicians corrupt principles we base public policy on by stating “ For it is a good general rule about men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, liars and deceivers, fearful of danger and greedy for gain”(866). In sum, Machiavelli depicts politicians taking different points of view on principles therefore public policy in

Everyone has a perspective of their own about the government whether it be good or bad. Ancient Greek philosopher Plato and English philosopher John Locke both discuss the topic of government in their literatures. In the Republic by Plato, Plato introduces this concept of a just city. In this city, he believes that the older and wisest person(s) should rule as they are very knowledgeable. Everyone is born innately different according to Plato. Only those who are born with true philosophical understanding can rule. In the Second Treatise by John Locke, Locke addresses the state of nature, which is essentially equality and freedom. Even though people have liberty, they still need to obey natural laws. On the contrary of Plato’s just city, Locke believes that absolute authority is not a civil government. A civil society is where the majority rules. In the conclusion of this paper, I will have illustrated that Plato’s government view is more valid than of Locke’s.

Further, that because fortune owns everything except for reason we should not be dependent on then things that fortune loans us. Boethius believes that happiness is contentment that come from reason and peace of mind. Contentment is the only true happiness we can have because it involves reason and we own it. Reason is the source of getting through bad things. Contentment is self sufficiency that goes along with reason making one self governing. Purpose of politics for Machiavelli in the purest way is preservation. Furthermore, Machiavelli thinks that politics and morality do not go together. You don’t need to be a good person to be a good leader and that being a good person actually increases your chance of failing as a leader. He believes that attempting to become a better person and trying to make the people in the city better can neglect the true reason preservation. Also, believes that morality can distract you and that it doesn’t prepare you for the chaos in nature and

Renaissance means rebirth. The Renaissance was a time of renewal as well as of chaos in Europe since it was still recovering. More and more ideas of the ideal prince emerged, as there are many different city-states. One of the most noteworthy political philosophers of the sixteenth century was Niccólo Machiavelli whose book, The Prince, a political handbook for rulers, has brought him recognition. It can be seen that his ideas on politics and overall inspiration for the book mainly came from his views of the political problems that were taking place. However, three years later, in 1516, Erasmus wrote The Education of a Christian Prince, a less popular yet conveys another aspect to the genres of the princes. The Education of a Christian Prince