|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Plato and Machiavelli are the philosophers who address the issues of state, rulers etc., in their well-known works “The Republic” and “The Prince”. However they are completely different in that Plato’s “The Republic” is more prescriptive and Machiavelli’s “The Prince” is more descriptive. In other words, Plato writes about “what ought to be”1, whereas Machiavelli writes about “not what ought to be, but what is”2. The former in his work “The Republic” attempts to create an imaginary, ideal state the head of which will be himself. ... What they have in common is that both of them advocate the use of lies and myth to maintain order and control. So, are the justifications and utility for these lies similar or different in “The Republic” and “The Prince”? ...
In this paper I will first try to compare and contrast Plato and Machiavelli’s justifications for using lies and myths. ... However let me cite the exact words of Socrates from “The Republic” in order to show his point more clearly, “…So now they [citizens of commonwealth] must think of the land they dwell in as a mother and nurse, whom they must take thought for and defend against any attack, and of their fellow citizens as brothers born of the same soil”3. ...
Unlike Plato’s myths and lies Machiavelli’s lies and justifications for them are more realistic, because he takes them from real life.
Approximate Word count = 1186
Approximate Pages = 4.7
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|