Comparing Machiavelli's The Prince And The Republic
The stability and security of a people, via government, isn't easy. For centuries, the concept of a perfect union, and the characteristics of an ideal ruler have taken over the philosophical dialogue. Two leading men in this arena of political thought are Niccolo Machiavelli (author of the practical and quasi-immoral treatise, The Prince) and Plato (author of the philosophical and Utopian-like dialogue, The Republic.) While both men transformed the nature of political philosophy, most readers consider their respective quests for an ideal leader to resurrect the glory and stability of a better state, to be different. Such dissimilarities are apparent in everyday political. In modern lexicon, the term “Machiavellian” is “the employment of cunning
…show more content…
To best explain the character of their societies, an examination of the people played an important role in both works, and the philosophers’ adverse thoughts towards human nature were shared. In The Prince, Machiavelli famously stated that men are “ungrateful, fickle, dissembling, anxious to flee danger, and covetous of gain” (Machiavelli, The Prince 66). In fact, Machiavelli explains that the people’s disposition is so bad that they require leadership so that they won’t be led astray, because “a crowd is useless without a head” (Machiavelli, Discourses xx). The Italian philosopher’s grievances against the ineptitude of the people are solidified when he illustrates their simplicity and easy propensity to be deceived. According to Machiavelli, the people make judgments based on appearance and rhetoric, they are “misled by the false appearance of good, [so, the populace] often seeks its own ruin and brings to the republic endless dangers and disasters” (Discourses xx). Plato’s has a similar sentiment when he writes, “had [the people’s] corruption been complete, their complete injustice would have made them incapable of achieving anything” (Plato, 36). Plato corroborates Machiavelli’s viewpoint in the idea that without the help of moral strength, the
To best explain the character of their societies, an examination of the people played an important role in both works, and the philosophers’ adverse thoughts towards human nature were shared. In The Prince, Machiavelli famously stated that men are “ungrateful, fickle, dissembling, anxious to flee danger, and covetous of gain” (Machiavelli, The Prince 66). In fact, Machiavelli explains that the people’s disposition is so bad that they require leadership so that they won’t be led astray, because “a crowd is useless without a head” (Machiavelli, Discourses xx). The Italian philosopher’s grievances against the ineptitude of the people are solidified when he illustrates their simplicity and easy propensity to be deceived. According to Machiavelli, the people make judgments based on appearance and rhetoric, they are “misled by the false appearance of good, [so, the populace] often seeks its own ruin and brings to the republic endless dangers and disasters” (Discourses xx). Plato’s has a similar sentiment when he writes, “had [the people’s] corruption been complete, their complete injustice would have made them incapable of achieving anything” (Plato, 36). Plato corroborates Machiavelli’s viewpoint in the idea that without the help of moral strength, the