For today’s reviewers, it is hard to understand the methods that Machiavelli put forward in order to design a more proper and stronger central government. Thus, resembling Galileo’s tragicomic fortune, Machiavelli’s ghost is also criticized as being inhuman, dictatorial and brutal. However, his purpose behind publishing ‘The Prince’, which was instigated after the circumstances of the 15th century in a divided Italy, was to show how to establish a strong and indestructible central state in a very realistic way. Niccolo Machiavelli, who can be described as a political scientist, was born in Florence in 1469, known as the period of Renaissance. Unlike other philosophers and scientists, he had a different approach to politics.
Noble lie, a concept introduced by Plato, is a fiction or untruth about a religious nature which mainly focuses on a lie told by upper class to protect or do what is best for society. This essay will discuss the concept of the noble lie from Plato/Socrates book the republic and how it is conducted merely in our everyday modern life by discussing Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal and the biggest political scandal, Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal. This essay will argue that Bill Clinton’s lie about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky was not noble but rather to his own personal interests and will also argue that the Watergate political scandal was a series of all illegal activities performed by Nixon’s administration. The essay will be divided into 3 sections. First section will explain how Plato and Socrates view the noble lie and how it is related to the case studies mentioned above.
Aristotelian logic, as it is commonly referred to in more modern times, is descriptive of the manner by which Aristotle equated premise to logic and reason; or muthos and logos. (XXXX – use Bobzein here) Muthos, or myth, and logos, or logic, were two central theories of ‘being’ (if you will). As was stated previously, Aristotle and the other Greek philosophers previously mentioned, lived within a polytheistic society—one where subscription to demi-Gods was expected…with a corresponding reasoning associated. (XXXX) For example, Zeus was the king of the Greek gods. To appease Zeus was thus to maintain favor, fortune and prominence: To oppose him or otherwise displease him was, essentially, unthinkable…or illogical.
What had started as a triumph of reason had turned into pure violence and the Aufklärer would have to modify its ideas and reach a new understanding of human reason. A political movement aimed towards the betterment of society through education and culture, many intellectuals like Immanuel Kant, Johann Fichte and Johann Herder and even Romantics like such as Friedrich Schlegel and Novalis saw themselves as belonging to the Aufklärer. They believed in the power of philosophy to transform the state but in their writings,
He also proclaims that “… academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. King explains the difference between unjust and just laws by telling of the moral affect each one has, the way the white majority used unjust laws to their advantage, and why King thought it was our civil duty to break unjust laws. What unjust laws will your conscience tell you to civilly disobey
Distributive justice is a recently used theory used by the political and ethical decision maker’s philosophers. According to the Samuel Fleischacker 's on his book “A Short History of Distributive Justice” he have mention that distributive justices is a product of 18th-century Enlightenment thought, and particularly of the claims of the radical French revolutionary. This idea was originated from the great Greek Philosopher Aristotle. However in this led the 20th century philosopher like Rawl 's, Nozick and others a foundation for debate on this issue. 1.1 Justices Justices is the quality of social institution.
These two questions were the main idea of the discussion between Socrates and his friends: Glaucon, Adeimantus, Polemarchus, Cephalus… Socrates asks the question of the definition of justice, each one of the interlocutors answers the question in his own way that, according to Socrates, reflects his own personality. One of the important definitions given was that given by Thrasymachus: he defines justice as the advantage of the stronger. “Now listen, I say that the just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger. Well why don’t you praise me? But you won’t be willing”.
Niccoolo Machiavelli is an Italian writer born in 1469 and one of the most influencing writers in the history of politics. Machiavelli finished writing his famous book “The Prince” in 1514, however, the book was published in 1532 after his death. Machiavelli wrote the prince as a guide for rulers to maintain and escalate their power, therefore, he was realistic and down to earth and instead of using ideal republics he spoke the truth of the human nature and how to survive the obstacles in order to become a great “prince”. Some people claim that Machiavelli is the devil and his book is evil full of fear and hatred, however, I firmly believe that Machiavelli’s theories are wisely balanced as he did not turn a blind eye on the importance of being
Plato was an Athenian philosopher, who founded the first academic institution in the western world, the academy and is well-known for paving the path for philosophy in western traditions. He was a student of Socrates’ and often used Socrates in the discussions of his dialogues, the myth of the cave being one of them. Plato was a believer of idealism. He believed that immaterial qualities are more real than empirical objects, which we can feel, see, and touch. In the myth of the cave, Plato paints us a picture of how we can be easily fooled by our senses, and of our original perceptions of the world.
In Book 1 of Plato 's Republic, Socrates and Thrasymachus engage in a passionate, and often acrimonious, conversation regarding the relationship between a ruler and those he or she rules. Their conversation raises substantive questions about both the nature and purpose of government and the motivations and roles of those who govern. The following will address these questions by 1) explaining both Socrates ' and Thrasymachus ' understandings of the ruler-ruled relationship and 2) addressing the merits of each argument and offering my own philosophical position on the matter. First, with respect to Thrasymachus ' position, he believes that rulers craft laws for their "own advantage," and he considers justice to be the "advantage of the stronger"