Plato and Machiavelli - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 3 Words: 1031 Downloads: 3 Date added: 2019/08/08 Category People Essay Level High school Tags: Niccolo Machiavelli Essay Did you like this example? The way Plato the Republic and Machiavelli viewed leaders are similar The Prince and The Republic are books that are written in description of their authors. They explain what is expected of men in their lives. Both of the authors share major ideas, but there are also differences between the two. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Plato and Machiavelli" essay for you Create order In The Prince and The Republic, telling the truth was not recommended. Plato and Machiavelli treat the revolutionary leader in the same vein, essentially prescribing different leaders through the same process. They each find their respective society fundamentally lacking in political efficacy, and thus seek to reestablish their conception of the political cycle. They also both ascribe to their leaders the understanding of pervasive metaphysical forces, and advocate similar treatments of knowledge, and presentations of public image. Event though the book has different authors, they still had similar characteristics.The Prince, was written to describe the ways by which a leader may gain and maintain power. Machiavelli developed that rulers would have to ignore the lofty ideals of politicshonesty, justice, honor, generosity, and so onand adopt whatever means necessary to gain and maintain power. That quote describes how telling the truth was denied. Machiavelli demanded The Prince, to be followed if a person wanted to be a successful leader and overpower others. Machiavelli believed as a ruler, it was better to be widely feared than to be greatly loved. Machiavelli knew that to obtain both would be difficult so fear was chosen over Love. The Republic was written by Plato who believed in Metaphysics . Plato was also the teacher of Aristocracy. Plato believed that the soul of a human is eternal. He asserted that the soul is immortal due to it withholding the truth . Platos book is all about justice and how So crates seeks to show that it is always in an individuals interest to be just, rather than unjust. Socrates states that when a man nears the end of his life, he reflects on the past and fears of the punishments he may suffer from in the afterlife. The books differ in numerous of ways.The books of Machiavelli and Plato were similar. Though the differences in the two books outweighed the similarities.Their ideas ranged from educating the leaders to sustain their rule to men in reality. The books these leaders have written are still influencing todays leaders. World leaders are practicing the ideas from these books in particular . The way to do specific things from the books should remain assertive in modern day society .In the Prince Machiavelli is giving advice to a ruler in order to keep that ruler in power.Plato and Machiavelli both were philosophers.Plato and Machiavellis differences shine through the similarities that they have.hey are polar opposites. Plato is the classic champion of the idea of discovering the Ideal state before having any further plan of action; at least that is how he proceeds in his most famous and influential book, The Republic.It is not a coincidence, I think, that all of Platos philosophy, whether correct or not, is very focused on finding the ideal in any situation. So, in theory, a chair is a chair because it partakes of some ideal chair that exists in the world of Forms, or Ideas.Machiavelli, at least in The Prince, is the classic philosopher of real politick. He states that it is his business to inquire how great rulers and states come to be in the first place, and that the question of being a good ruler is more an ethical, not a political-philosophy question. So, in The Prince, there are only the successful and the unsuccessful. Machivelli wants to know: What works?If anything, he pays too little attention to ideal conduct. It would be interesting to interview him if he lived into the 20th Century, and ask him what he thought of Hitlers politics so successful in the beginning, but utlimately leading to the near-destruction of his country!!!Plato defines a virtuous city as one where each individual does what he does best for the interests of the common good and where the ruler is a philosopher king, this in turn leads to the manifestation of justice. It is relevant to clarify that the definition of virtue, common good and justice is different for each author.Plato and Machiavelli differ from methods of obtaining knowledge.Plato used more or reasoned approach while Machiavelli used an empirical approach. While Plato was aiming for definitions and conclusions Machiavelli was looking for results. Machiavelli lived during the 16th century, amidst a deteriorating, corrupt and totalitarian, form or government. His masterpiece, The Prince, was written in an attempt to influence Lorenzo The Magnificent, in the hope for a position in the public office. The Prince is therefore mainly a political paper Machiavellis method is strictly inductive and his principles are purely practical, not moral. Plato is thought to have written The Republic around 380 B.C. Plato lived in Athens during the post- Peloponnesian War period. His views are shaped by Socrates and the after war political and moral atmosphere. Plato wanted to fight the Sophist belief that morality was only an idea created and imposed by the rulers of societies upon their subjects. Plato also wanted to combat the widespread belief that there is no such thing as objective truth. Plato in the Republic sets out to define what the virtue of justice is and why a person should be just.Plato and Machiavelli had different views on human nature that ultimately shaped their thinking.Plato believed that an individual has an immortal soul and a body that is a constant hindrance to the soul to acquire true knowledge.Cruel actions by the prince should be done at once, and quickly. Then the p rince should slowly reward his people with benefits so that the cruel actions may be forgotten. For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them last longer.Cruelty, therefore, will not seem like it is committed everyday and people will soon forget if they are reassured with benefits.