Plato vs. Machiavelli Essays

Plato vs. Machiavelli Essays Plato vs. Machiavelli Paper Plato vs. Machiavelli Paper Plats view of human nature can be seen when considering his view of the soul, which, according to him, Is comprised of three distinct parts; one of reason, one of appetite, and one of spirit. Ones inclination towards a particular part of the soul determines his place in society. The spirit-dominated soul is one of courage and bravery, therefore, these people are the soldiers in Flats ideal society. The workers or craftsmen are those with an appetitive soul, one that yearns to fulfill only lifes basic needs. Finally, we have the oils that are Inclined towards reason and these select few are those that Plato deems worthy of ruling. For Plato there Is no greater goal In life than the pursuit of knowledge. An intelligent man is just and therefore fit to preside over the state for he will always have the best interests of the state in mind. These characteristics are inherent in someone, they are not things that can be achieved or taught so the act of discovering what role each man is more apt to fill is the only task to be done. Then people are simply given the education needed to take on the duties they were meant o perform. In Flats mind the result of this Is a truly harmonious society where everyone strives to contribute to the success of society as a whole. This seems simple enough in theory but in reality in deprives humanity of any creativity, ambition, or any sense of self-worth. Machiavelli, a realist, presents a much different representation of human nature than that of Plato. In his opinion, man is both good and bad but when push comes to shove he will always choose what best serves his own Interests. This leads to Machiavellian construction of an Ideal prince, which Is one ho possesses virtue. According to Machiavelli, virtue Is the ability or skill with which becomes successful. As I have said, he should do what is right If he can: but he must be prepared to do wrong if necessary (Machiavelli, p. 55, 1994). This is the balance the prince must employ using virtue so as to allow him to achieve the best possible ends for both himself and the state. Machiavelli does not discourage the prince from engaging in amoral activities, however he does quite the opposite. For example, he promotes ruthlessness If It Is necessary to establish his power. However, Machiavelli advises that It be done all at once and as early In ones reign as possible. This Is so that it may quickly be forgotten and so the people may see that these acts were only done for their benefit and the preservation of the state. Machiavellian prince is much more concerned with his image and the perception the people have of him rather than the actual morality of his choices. If he engages in immorality for the right reasons and is able to retain the support of the populace then his actions are seen as both Justified and necessary. The necessity of a good prince Ills In his Utterance Ana conservation AT ten state as a wangle. I Nils Is conclave tongue a strong army that can both defend the state in times of attack and conquer surrounding territories when expansion is warranted. These are the ends that Justify any of the means taken by the prince in order to achieve them. Machiavellian prince is any man that possesses the virtue required to gain and retain power over the state. This is in stark contrast to Plats view of those who are qualified to be in power. Then, dont you see that in your city, too, the desires of the inferior many are untroubled by the wisdom and desires of the superior few? I do (Plato, p. 106, 1992). This undoubtedly conveys Plats belief that philosopher-kings are those that must lead fore they are the only ones fit with the wisdom to do so. They are seemingly forced into a position of power; they rule not because they choose to but rather to achieve the good and harmony of everyone, even the inferior many. In Plats work the founders and rulers of his society are an absolute necessity. A perfect society could not exist without them for then the responsibility of leadership would all to those unfit to lead. In Machiavellian case an ideal prince is something that is desired rather than something that is essential to the existence of a state. This is evidenced by Machiavellian entire purpose behind writing The Prince, which is to persuade Lorenz De Medici, who he sees as a potential prince, to unify the country of Italy which found itself in a condition of utter disarray. Machiavellian prince is necessary to facilitate an enduring, truly successful state but surely states can exist and experience reasonable amounts of success without such a prince. In terrorist, the only theory to have any true usefulness would be that of Machiavelli. Plats Utopia is simply an imaginary world that may work in theory but that is that only place in which it does. There is no practicality in it when you consider the real world and the true nature of people. The result, then, is that more plentiful and better-quality goods are more easily produced if each person does one thing for which he is naturally suited, does it at the right time, and is released from having to do any of the others (Plato, p. 45, 1992). It would surely be illustrious if people would ay into this acceptance of a given role for their lives as Plato proposes and live in such a way where their only goal would be to live out that role as best as possible for the betterment of society as a unit. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people are corrupt, envious, self-interested, and many times do whatever they can to improve their own situation regardless of the effect their actions have on the situations of others. Machiavelli recognizes these aspects of human nature and integrates them into the theory of governance that he constructs. He does this by first coking into history and learning from the successes and failures experienced by nations in the past. He recognizes that there is a degree of good and bad in everyone and the extent to which people perform in either direction is entirely up to them. People are by nature inconstant. It is easy to persuade them of something, but it is difficult to stop them from changing their minds. So you have to be prepared for the moment when they no longer believe: Then you have to force them to believe (Machiavelli, p. 20, 1994). This conveys Machiavellian appreciation of the fact hat people can be manipulated; especially by someone whom has the intelligence required to master the use of both good and evil to the point that it becomes an art. The evil in this case is the application of the force needed to keep the belief or support AT ten people. I nest are ten men, won more tales than not, Tina themselves in positions of power because of their somewhat cunning and deceptive nature that allows them to deceive others Just enough to gain their support while still presenting an image of themselves that is above reproach.

Motives for Murder in Edgar Allan Poes The Black Cat

Motives for Murder in Edgar Allan Poes The Black Cat The Black Cat  shares many characteristics with Edgar Allan Poes The Tell-Tale Heart: an unreliable narrator, a brutal and inexplicable murder (two, actually), and a murderer whose arrogance leads to his downfall. Both stories were originally published in 1843, and both have been widely adapted for theater, radio, television, and film. For us, neither story satisfactorily explains the murderers motives. Yet, unlike The Tell-Tale Heart, The Black Cat makes extensive attempts to do so, which makes it a thought-provoking (if somewhat unfocused) story. Alcoholism One explanation that comes up early in the story is alcoholism. The narrator refers to the Fiend Intemperance and talks about how drinking changed his formerly gentle demeanor. And its true that during many of the violent events of the story, hes drunk or drinking. However, we  cant help but notice that even though he isnt drunk as hes telling the story, he still shows no remorse. That is, his attitude on the night before his execution isnt very different from his attitude during the other events of the story. Drunk or sober, hes not a likable guy. The Devil Another explanation the story offers is something along the lines of the devil made me do it. The story contains references to the superstition that black cats are really witches, and the first black cat is inauspiciously named Pluto, the same name as the Greek god of the underworld. The narrator deflects blame for his actions by calling the second cat the hideous beast whose craft had seduced me into murder. But even if we grant that this second cat, who appears mysteriously and on whose chest a gallows seems to form, is somehow bewitched, it still doesnt provide a motive for the murder of the first cat. Perverseness A third possible motive has to do with what the narrator calls the spirit of PERVERSENESS- the desire to do something wrong precisely because you know its wrong. The narrator posits that its human nature to experience this unfathomable longing of the soul to vex itself- to offer violence to its own nature- to do wrong for the wrongs sake only. If you agree with him that humans are drawn to break the law just because its the law, then perhaps the explanation of perverseness will satisfy you. But were  not convinced, so we continue to find it unfathomable not that humans are drawn to do wrong for wrongs sake (because were not sure they are), but that this particular character is drawn to it (because he certainly seems to be).    Resistance to Affection It seems to me that the narrator offers a smorgasbord of possible motives partly because he has no idea what his motives are. And we  think the reason he has no idea of his motives is that hes looking in the wrong place. Hes obsessed with cats, but really, this is a story about the murder of a human. The narrators wife is undeveloped and virtually invisible in this story. We know that she loves animals, just as the narrator supposedly does. We know that he offer[s] her personal violence and that she is subject to his ungovernable outbursts. He refers to her as his uncomplaining wife, and in fact, she doesnt even make a sound when he murders her! Through it all, she is unfailingly loyal to him, much like the cats. And he cant stand it. Just as he is disgusted and annoyed by the second black cats loyalty, we  think he is repulsed by his wifes steadfastness. He wants to believe that that level of affection is possible only from animals: There is something in the unselfish and self-sacrificing love of a brute, which goes directly to the heart of him who has frequent occasion to test the paltry friendship and gossamer fidelity of mere Man. But he himself is not up to the challenge of loving another human being, and when faced with her loyalty, he recoils. Only when both cat and wife are gone does the narrator sleep well, embracing his status as a freeman and looking upon [his] future felicity as secured. He wants to escape from police detection, of course, but also from having to experience any real emotions, regardless of the tenderness, he brags he once possessed.