Comparing Machiavelli's The Prince And The Republic
Prince is the Philosopher King outside Kallipolis
Most people believe Niccolò Machiavelli’s “The Prince” and Plato’s “The Republic” are completely different and share opposite ideas. However, if carefully examined, one can find some similarities between Machiavelli’s Prince and Plato’s Philosopher king. To understand this, first we should find out who are The Prince of Machiavelli and The Philosopher King of Plato.
1) Who is the Philosopher king
Philosopher kings are the rulers of Plato’s ideal state, Kallipolis. In Kallipolis, there are three kinds of people, guardians (philosopher kings), producers and auxiliaries. The philosopher kings are the people who understand the Forms, are educated and capable of ruling the state. They are also …show more content…
Wisdom is the capability to rule a state. Courage indicates what to fear and what not to fear. Moderation is needed to control “appetite” and Justice is achieved when every person does what he or she was meant to do. All the virtues are interconnected and everyone has Justice and Moderation at fullest, Wisdom and Courage to some extent. However, Philosopher Kings should have all these cardinal virtues to rule their state justly.
3) Who is the Prince
On the other hand, Machiavelli describes his Prince a little different. The prince is in the center of the state and is the most important figure. His job is to keep his princedom, secure it and not let others take or destroy it. Machiavelli describes many types of Princes, some who got their princedom from their parents, others acquired it only because of good fortune, and yet some princes were clever and cunning enough to get their state by their own powers.
4) …show more content…
Machiavelli also mentions that even if it is not possible to have all the virtues the prince at least should not indulge in his vices and he should be able to limit himself, show himself from the best perspective and “imitate” to have the virtues he does not have. This is very similar to Plato’s moderation (temperance) in the aspect that the prince should have his limits and not get carried away by vices. The imitation of a virtue is also very similar to the concept of “noble lie”. Plato descries noble lie as a lie that is done ultimately for the good of people and state and only guardians are allowed to use that. In Prince’s case, the imitation can be the same as the noble lie, a lie that is necessary to keep the strong image of the Prince, thus not letting people think he is cruel or incompetent. It is necessary for the sake of the state.
Plato indicates that when a person does more than one thing, he cannot be as good at any of them as he would have been doing only one. It means that if you are a soldier, you should only be a soldier. That is the definition of Justice for Plato; everyone does whatever he or she were meant to do, and nothing
Most people believe Niccolò Machiavelli’s “The Prince” and Plato’s “The Republic” are completely different and share opposite ideas. However, if carefully examined, one can find some similarities between Machiavelli’s Prince and Plato’s Philosopher king. To understand this, first we should find out who are The Prince of Machiavelli and The Philosopher King of Plato.
1) Who is the Philosopher king
Philosopher kings are the rulers of Plato’s ideal state, Kallipolis. In Kallipolis, there are three kinds of people, guardians (philosopher kings), producers and auxiliaries. The philosopher kings are the people who understand the Forms, are educated and capable of ruling the state. They are also …show more content…
Wisdom is the capability to rule a state. Courage indicates what to fear and what not to fear. Moderation is needed to control “appetite” and Justice is achieved when every person does what he or she was meant to do. All the virtues are interconnected and everyone has Justice and Moderation at fullest, Wisdom and Courage to some extent. However, Philosopher Kings should have all these cardinal virtues to rule their state justly.
3) Who is the Prince
On the other hand, Machiavelli describes his Prince a little different. The prince is in the center of the state and is the most important figure. His job is to keep his princedom, secure it and not let others take or destroy it. Machiavelli describes many types of Princes, some who got their princedom from their parents, others acquired it only because of good fortune, and yet some princes were clever and cunning enough to get their state by their own powers.
4) …show more content…
Machiavelli also mentions that even if it is not possible to have all the virtues the prince at least should not indulge in his vices and he should be able to limit himself, show himself from the best perspective and “imitate” to have the virtues he does not have. This is very similar to Plato’s moderation (temperance) in the aspect that the prince should have his limits and not get carried away by vices. The imitation of a virtue is also very similar to the concept of “noble lie”. Plato descries noble lie as a lie that is done ultimately for the good of people and state and only guardians are allowed to use that. In Prince’s case, the imitation can be the same as the noble lie, a lie that is necessary to keep the strong image of the Prince, thus not letting people think he is cruel or incompetent. It is necessary for the sake of the state.
Plato indicates that when a person does more than one thing, he cannot be as good at any of them as he would have been doing only one. It means that if you are a soldier, you should only be a soldier. That is the definition of Justice for Plato; everyone does whatever he or she were meant to do, and nothing