The conflict between the optimal outcome and reality has long been a source of contention in the political domain. In this sense, some renowned philosophers have constructed envisioned situations for the betterment of the society upon which their whole body of work is based and their entire ideologies. Notwithstanding, several academics, like Machiavelli, have previously voiced doubt over the plausibility of such utopian governments. His famous saying the end justifies the means has long been a topic of constant discussion. In divergence, Plato’s notion of validation of achievement has since been celebrated by many. The two thinkers believe that an ideal state exists and that this perfect state functions as the fundamental objective of human civilization. Nevertheless, the contrast between the two idealists did not mean that Machiavelli’s idea was heinous compared to Plato’s. Instead, it was just a difference of seeking incongruence questions and ideas since both scholars’ ideas were conquered in some instances, as encompassed in this discussion.
The discrepancy between Plato and Machiavelli about objectives stems from the fact that Machiavelli’s signifiers prepare the way for the ultimate goal, which is unavoidably terrible. Thus, he favors procedural fairness in governance above fundamental justice, disconnecting the connection between politics and morality. Modern politics becomes petty as a result of this moral disengagement. He added that they convened to create laws and punish those who broke them. Therefore, this position emphasizes the need to regain the philosophical component of morality in political debate to attain fairness.
Nevertheless, based on Plato, the solitary concept of virtue can provide a republican with actual justice and operational justice and the power to defend human liberty from governmental intrusion. According to Machiavelli’s political philosophy, Plato’s political view is a compromise between the best and most pragmatic possibilities. While Plato’s political theory emphasizes ethical values as the city-major state’s objectives, he also believes that the flawless must be accomplished in reality in order to be considered legitimate. According to him, reconciling the gap between ideal and reality is necessary for the development of a political philosophy capable of guiding the Greeks in their quest for liberty.
Regarding education, Machiavelli did not concentrate on how to educate citizens to establish competent institutions and the reverence of rights and liberties. A skill set is required to enhance sound performance in the relative duties, and the guardians should be trained to prevent war through physical training and music. Hence, nothing of this nature interested me. Machiavelli’s perspective was entirely focused on the prince’s authority, who should master the skill of utilizing both love and force when required. The consequences of this secular politics are incapable of providing moral or spiritual instruction to various classes since this is not the goal of their guide. Since individuals are compelled to violate the law, the city probably lacked a strict sense of justice, as the prince does not believe in moral equality and uses it only when required. To foster justice, the prince must feel in and cherish the ultimate truth; otherwise, ethics would deteriorate so that fairness would vanish.
However, Plato believes education is the city’s fundamental obligation since, minus it, people cannot consider what justice, morals, goodness, and evil are. So the leader must embody these principles and inspire others to do so. In this way, the virtues are vital in education so that everyone understands what they are doing in the city. Individuals should first be educated on how to rise above the apprehensions and defend the city’s borders with a Republican army. While the duties of auxiliaries vary from those of guardians, the lower class employees are considered subject to their whims.
Following that, in The Laws, Plato takes a distinct approach to the notion of democracy. He contends that there are two main types of the constitution: monarchy and democracy, which are mutually exclusive. He argues that the optimum form of government incorporates elements of two types of constitutions to construct a constitutional monarchy. As has already been noted, Plato is a vocal opponent of democracy and condemns it throughout his writings. Yet, in the Laws, he summarizes what he views to be the contrasting constitutions, democracy, and monarchy, to develop a constitutional monarchy philosophy that he calls a constitutional monarchy. Once again, his technique of inquiry informs his perspective of democratic institutions. He begins with the democratic political system, then examines its opponent, the monarchical system, and then synthesizes the two to get closer to an ideal.
On the other hand, Machiavelli departs from Plato’s ideas and technique, which define his view of democracy. Machiavelli’s philosophy is not always a dimension of reality, and semantics is the notion of actuality. While his approach and ontology are progressive, they are not directed toward a specific goal. He argues that man’s behaviors are determined by their free will only in part. Instead, Machiavelli urges people to aspire a bit oblivious to what would be anticipated to accomplish their objective. Thus, it boosts one’s chances of success, particularly given his perception of the future as unpredictable. Additionally, he asserts that when men do this, they may use their virtue to combat uncertainty. It relates to his view of democracy: since the future is unpredictable, kings cannot simply develop plans in isolation from the population.
On the same note, Plato is more concerned with its durability than whether a political philosophy is valid. He detailed the perfect constitution and lifestyle for the majority of city-states during his political career. In this respect, most people do not have a sort of education that demands all-natural abilities and assets based on chance, nor a flawless constitution, but rather laws in which the majority of cities may engage are the most critical factors to take into account. In other aspects, this stands in contrast to Machiavellian conceptions of heaven as a place reserved for the superior intellects. Plato may be called the inventor of pragmatic politics when it comes to political philosophy.
However, the fact that in some instances, the two philosophers conquered in ideas; for example, both Machiavelli and Plato believe in continuous political and social progress, requiring a competent leader to start a new cycle. According to Plato, there is only one kind of virtue in political structure, namely the proper rule of the philosopher-kings, but an endless variety of evil. Plato’s portrayal of subordinate sorts of governance in a historical series starts with the Republic and gradually fades away. A legitimate rule, according to Machiavelli and Plato, needed an inventive person who was beyond the structure he constructed. Further, according to Machiavelli, governance decays through time as it moves between people and the masses, ultimately succumbing to a more significant foreign force. Thence, a state sinks into turmoil; one person must renew the cycle, not by democracy or republic. Machiavelli explains this necessity by citing historical precedents, except when structured by one man, no republic or kingdom is founded or rebuilt successfully. Plato and Machiavelli both concentrate the weight of liberation on one leader, dubbed the founder-hero. In order to advance not his interests but the public good, the hero-founders must each descend in turn and dwell with others in the cave. Hence, it means that their laws are designed to promote the general benefit of society, not the welfare of any one group. Thus, one of the deemed hero founders is required to recreate a stable society from the ruins of its final deterioration.
Moreover, it symbolizes the height of ethical standards and morality. According to Plato, pleasure is ultimate and self-satisfying, and it is attained via the completion of the capacity for action. Further, he accentuates that the greatest and best good is the accomplishment of the science or art that has the most authority of all, which is the science of statesmanship. Yet, the political ideal is fairness; justice, as in politics, is a common benefit. As a result, it is evident that Plato’s politics of righteousness encompasses a diverse set of concepts and interpretations. In regards, to political morality, for example, it is the science of attaining enjoyment for the public, in opposition to Machiavelli’s violent and unethical regime. The ideal case scenario is one in which politics is motivated by a desire for justice, which is the only criterion of government efficacy, rather than by a passion for power, as Machiavellian philosophers believe.
Likewise, contrasting and comparing Plato’s and Machiavelli’s views on citizenship may guide us in determining what constitutes appropriate political ambitions. According to Machiavelli, man’s potential to engage in politics is contingent upon the state of the society in which he lives. While the essence of man’s nature is relatively steady, humanity is an ungrateful and voracious race. Thus, within the Republic’s social conditions, humankind is capable of making an excellent contribution to political life. While Plato argues that the metropolis is, humanity’s most sovereign and encompassing union and that man is inherently a city dweller. As a consequence, the objective of free men’s citizenship is to participate in the political process. Additionally, the Aristotelian political theory maintains that those unable to engage in the benefits of a political union are either gods or animals in terms of their social niche.
Similarly, Plato asserts that humans must be equipped with logical and religious traits. Thus, people may better understand acceptable political goals by opposing and comparing Plato’s and Machiavelli’s ideal citizen notions. Conversely, citizens under Plato’s government and Machiavelli’s Republicans are capable of adhering to and supporting the law and lobbying for legislative change. Additionally, they are capable of engineering, performing extraordinary creative feats, and campaigning for the state’s interests.