plato vs machiavelli essay

The Document has moved here.
Plato and Machiavelli Plato and Machiavelli both wrote a Plato and Machiavelli both wrote about politics with a vision to an ideal society that might not appeal to many people today. Both see an ideal society as one involving some degree of despotic control, with plato talking of governance by an elite and Machiavelli describing the ideal Prince as a leader ruthless and decisive. Yet, the two visions are not morally equivalent. Plato in the Allegory of the Cave in The Republic emphasizes that the philosopher must return to the cave to understand the relationship between the ideal and its projection in this world. Plato's conception of the existence of Forms as the ideals of the imperfect objects and ideas of this world derived in part from the ongoing discussion in Greek philosophy over change versus permanence. The allegory also relates to issues of epistemology as to what we can know and how we can know it. The cave becomes the touchstone, the example that serves to demonstrate the relationship between the idea and the reality, between perception and reality, between the perfection of the idea and the imperfection of the reality. Plato is attempting to attain the ideal as much as possible by making this philosophical inquiry,, including an ideal state. Machiavelli, however, has accepted the idea that the individual will never attain perfection, and instead he has decided to remain in the cave and to accept the prevailing ethos and only to be more successful with it. The question is raised whether this means that Machiavelli has divorced political science from ethics or only redefined ethics in his own terms. An assessment of Machiavelli and his expression of this philosophy in The Prince has import for the world today, a world where the idea of realpolitik mirrors much of Machiavellian thought. Plato's Republic describes a society that is completely rational, based.
Bridging the Ancient and Modern: Thoughts on Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke Introduction Plato and Aristotle’s concerns in The Republic and Politics was understanding virtue and justice, and determining who was best fit to lead.In both cases, Plato and Aristotle were concerned about the political community at large, and about how morals and politics intersected.Nicolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke question this assumption to some extent, and relate their own concerns about good government, order, and human nature.This essay will contrast the works of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke with respect to their understanding of government.While many have argued that Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke make a clean break with the ancient philosophers, my contention is that some of the puzzles for Plato and Aristotle remained so for modern theorists.First, this paper will summarize succinctly the contributions of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke.Second, this essay will illuminate the differences between the three theorists.Lastly, the essay will explore the connections between ancient philosophy and modern philosophy. Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke: the Foundations of Modern Philosophy Machiavelli is generally seen as a transitional figure between the ancient and modern philosophers.Unlike Plato and Aristotle, however, Machiavelli was not concerned that government should be elevated to a “living moral force, capable of inspiring the people” (Machiavelli xvii).Machiavelli’s The Prince is more concerned with order than virtue, and thus morality is in some ways foreign.The Prince is an interesting work because it provides a blueprint for obtaining and maintaining power in a way that ancient works did not.Machiavelli’s writing is often characterized as “realistic” because it took the world for what it was – man as self-interested and calculating -- not for what it ought to be as.
Enter Your Search Terms to Get Started! Plato and Machiavelli Plato’s Republic and Machiavelli’s The Prince are each hugely important texts in the history of philosophy. Even though they were written approximately 1900 years apart, they represent two of the most valuable commentaries on political philosophy. They are of course, very different in their discussions of philosophy, yet some similarities are evident. Plato writes about philosophy through the mouth of Socrates, illustrating indirectly through a lengthy dialogue his own ideas and opinions. As a contrast to this method of narration, Machiavelli writes The Prince as a letter of personal advice to Lorenzo Medici. Within his work, Machiavelli makes numerous recommendations that have earned him the label of a heartless and cruel man. Plato, on the other hand, makes much of his discussion about the true nature of philosophy and the just treatment of all citizens. Despite numerous differences, Plato and Machiavelli each desire the rule of philosophers in their states, but while Plato approaches this with direct rule and education of philosopher-kings, Machiavelli appeals to manipulation and deceit in order to secure the rule of philosophers. Plato’s aim in his political state is for the greatest good of all people, through the best balancing of the natural elements on an individual and political scale. According to Plato, the human soul is comprised of the reasoning part, the spirited part and the appetites. The parallel elements within a city are the rulers, warriors and artisans. Only when these are ordered correctly will peace, justice, and long term prosperity prevail. If these are not balanced correctly, than a person will not lead a good and just life, and they will suffer because of it. The correct hierarchy is how it has been dictated, with the rational part controlling the spirit, and the spirit limiting.
1.302.319.9448, 1.888.342.5573 number of registered customers reached number of completed orders exceeded customers with more than 7 orders satisfactory rate is FREE Title Page OFF FREE Reference Page OFF FREE Formatting OFF FREE Revisions* OFF * up to original instructions Word count:275 words per page(double spaced) Font family,size:Times New Roman,12 Pt Margin:1 inch (2.54 cm).
1. Biography Relatively little is known for certain about Machiavelli's early life in comparison with many important figures of the Italian Renaissance (the following section draws on Capponi 2010 and Vivanti 2013) He was born 3 May 1469 in Florence and at a young age became a pupil of a renowned Latin teacher, Paolo da Ronciglione. It is speculated that he attended the University of Florence, and even a cursory glance at his corpus reveals that he received an excellent humanist education. It is only with his entrance into public view, with his appointment as the Second Chancellor of the Republic of Florence, however, that we begin to acquire a full and accurate picture of his life. For the next fourteen years, Machiavelli engaged in a flurry of diplomatic activity on behalf of Florence, travelling to the major centers of Italy as well as to the royal court of France and to the imperial curia of Maximilian. We have letters, dispatches, and occasional writings that testify to his political assignments as well as to his acute talent for the analysis of personalities and institutions. Florence had been under a republican government since 1494, when the leading Medici family and its supporters had been driven from power. During this time, Machiavelli thrived under the patronage of the Florentine gonfaloniere (or chief administrator for life), Piero Soderini. In 1512, however, with the assistance of Spanish troops, the Medici defeated the republic's armed forces and dissolved the government. Machiavelli was a direct victim of the regime change: he was initially placed in a form of internal exile and, when he was (wrongly) suspected of conspiring against the Medici in 1513, he was imprisoned and tortured for several weeks. His retirement thereafter to his farm outside of Florence afforded the occasion and the impetus for him to turn to literary pursuits. The first of his.