Role of State in Platos Republic and Machiavellis The Prince - Research Paper Example

Research essay Name of the Student: Name of the Instructor: Name of the course: Code of the course: Submission date: The role of the state in Plato’s Republic and Machiavelli’s The Prince Introduction In the past, the definition of the state has been has been marred with extensive ambiguities with scholars from different schools of thought forwarding diverse definitions. Nonetheless, this paper will assume the definition forwarded by Max Weber who defined the state as a human community which is successful in claiming the monopoly of the legitimate utility of physical force within a particular territory (Mann, 112). This perception of the state has experienced extensive usage in contemporary political science among both scholars as well as practitioners in this realm of academia. The role of the state in the Platonic philosophy has some divergences as well as similarities with the Machiavellian philosophy. This can be attributed to different factors which influenced their perspectives but most notably is the environment in which both of these renowned scholars lived. It is imperative to first gain a summative brief into their distinctive historical context which will offer a comprehensive insight into their approach about the role of the state. Nicollo Machiavelli was born in May 3, 1469, a period of Italian renaissance, in Florence where he also lived. In his life, Machiavelli experienced chaotic times which were characterized by assassinations, robbery and rape. This was also a period when the city-states in Italy were under continuous threat from armies from diverse countries, a period which was completely different from the glory of ancient Rome. Given this unstable and violent background, Machiavelli, Machiavelli among other contemporaries of his time endured harsh and turbulent conditions which led him to believe that a Prince is obliged to use any possible means to restore order and peace in the state (Fuentes, 1). On the other hand, the exact place and time of birth of Plato is not concretely known but evidence from ancient sources show that he belonged to an influential and aristocratic family, born between 429 and 423 BC. Nonetheless, despite coming from an influential family, Plato experienced some harsh times during his middle life including being sold into slavery in Cyrene, a city which was at war with Athens where he almost died. The backgrounds of both Machiavelli and Plato greatly influenced their perceptions about the role of the state as evidenced in their renowned works, The Prince and Republic. This is expounded in the subsequent analysis. The role of the state In the Machiavellian philosophy, politics is not in any way concerned with nurturing virtues but with ensuring the survival and security, a view which differentiates him from Plato. According to Machiavelli, the state should be founded on fear of the prince and be used as a system of coercion. In this case, the state ought to use any means possible to derive obedience and submission from the citizens either through coercion any other means. This means is extended to any external entities where the state should use all its apparatus to guard its sovereignty from external threat. This is founded on the inference by Machiavelli that the prince ought to have only two fears, one from within which is related to his subjects and the other one from without on account of the external powers (Machiavelli, 88). This means that the state has a fundamental role of protecting itself from threats of external entities as well as other internal threats which might emanate from within its borders using any means at its disposal. On the other hand, Plato perceived good life as only being possible in and through a state. In this case, the society (state) is perceived as a natural institution whose sole existence is for the sake of good life. In this case, Plato perceived the aim of a good state as neither being freedom nor economic well-being but rather justice. Thus, the state has the role of maintaining and dispensing justice (the ideal form in the world of forms) to the citizenship as opposed to coercing the citizenship to submission as envisioned by Machiavelli Additionally, Plato recognizes the role of education which must be for everyone. In this case, education in philosophy and morality is the most imperative (the true and the good) which is more conducive in a good state. This culminated to the close correlation between justice and education by Plato where he inferred that if education fails to succeed in a good state, then there is bound to be fundamental compromise on justice with the nature of the power holders (Plato, 17). Secondly, Machiavelli perceives the state as having the role of solidifying the commitment of the followers towards a more cohesive and integrated statehood. In this case, the prince ought to create greater attachment with the followers whose excellent efforts may be encouraged through rewards or any other means that the prince deem fit. Additionally, the state has the role of getting allies from outside aimed at ensuring the security of the citizens. In this case, the fear from without (external threat) is only defended by the state having good allies and being well armed (Machiavelli, 88). Nonetheless, Plato in his work Republic is against the role of the state in acquiring external allies mostly from other states with different models of governance. This is epitomized by Plato (235) who determined that men who are brought in from outside as allies from another city which is subject to an oligarch by members belonging to one party, and other allies brought in by members of another party who come from a democratic state culminate in the state becoming ‘sick’ and do battle within itself. This is often without even the need of extra external influence and eventually the state become divided by faction. Thus, Plato is opposed to the role of the state acquiring allies from other states, mostly from those with different ideals of governance based on both the short and the long term impacts on the state. This is founded on the fact that the individuals and collectives from outside are bound to divide the state end eventually the members of this particular state will start in-fighting amongst themselves. In this case, Plato perceives the role of the state in running its own apparatus of governance without any external as being the most ideal way of attaining stability and cohesion. Lastly, Machiavelli perceives the state being central in conquering other states and exerting its dominion over the citizens. This is for various reasons including materials gain as well as diluting external threats. However, Machiavelli (20), noted that when these states have been conquered, they become accustomed to living under their own laws and freedoms. Yet, there are three courses of actions which ought to be undertaken by the prince who wish to hold them; to ruin them, reside there in person and allow them to live under their own laws. On the contrary, Plato is opposed to this role of the state which he perceives as being unjust. In borrowing from the Socratic tradition, Plato argues that such a role by the state which appears to be gentlemanly is only a product of a rich tyrant who views wealth as the goal and the best way to acquire it is through breaking all faith, seizing powers in his own city and conquering as many nations as possible (Plato, 325). To Plato, the engagement of the state in such action is a breach of justice and should not be supported. Nonetheless, both Plato and Machiavelli have several convergences on the role of the state. Firstly, Plato asserts that among the auxiliaries (soldiers) who are exclusively devoted to the conduct of war and who must also be philosophical in order to have the capability of discerning the true enemies of the state, Plato determines that this group must not possess any private property. In actual sense, members of this group ought to receive all their necessities from the citizens. This is founded on the fact that by allowing them to amass private property, they will soon become tyrants (Plato, 144). In this case, the state plays a key role of being a guardian of private property which this class is denied from possessing. Additionally, in regard to the community of wives and children, Plato also contends that in the two upper classes (auxiliaries and guardians), ought to not only have desist from private ownership of property but should also not have family life. In this case, the state has an imperative role of controlling the marriage relations of the citizens in these classes. This is founded on the rationale that if members of these classes are permitted to engage in such activities of amassing private property, women and children, they are bound to introduce grief and pleasure in their ranks which has the potential of causing faction amongst themselves (Plato, 144). Nonetheless, private property and family ought not to be abolished among members of the artisan class. Similarly, Machiavelli was opposed to the prince who governs the state amassing property, mostly from his subjects based on the potential of this act culminating in extensive hatred for the prince and subsequent disloyalty. This is revealed in Machiavelli (87) who determined that the prince is bound to become hated by becoming greedy and interfering with the property and women of his subjects. Thus, the prince ought to abstain from such rapacious actions. The above reality according to Machiavelli is founded on the fact that for as long as the property and honour of the subjects is not touched, they are bound to live contentedly and serenely. Subsequently, the prince will only have the obligation of dealing with the ambitions of a few people as opposed to the uproar of all the subjects which can easily and in diverse ways be kept in check (Machiavelli, 87). In this case, the state and the echelons of governance below the prince have an integral role of ensuring that the prince does not engage in rapacious actions which will culminate in discontentment of the subjects which can have the aforementioned implications. Conclusion The preceding analysis has expounded on the meaning of the concept of state, more specifically from the Weberian tradition. Additionally, it has noted that both Plato and Machiavelli who are renowned scholars and philosophers had divergences as well as convergences in regard to their perceptions of the role of the state. This was attributed the distinct nature of their historical context which influenced their approaches. The analysis has explored differences in perceptions on the role of the state between these two individuals and lastly the similarities in their views. Works cited Plato. The Republic of Plato, 2nd ed. Trans. Allan Bloom. New York: BasicBooks, 1968. Print. Fuentes, Carlos. ‘On leadership and Niccolò Machiavelli’. 2008. Web. 14th June, 2013. < http://www.revista-actuario.com/Publicaciones/Ago08/016.pdf>. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Florence: Antonio Blado d’Asola, 1532. Print. Mann, Michael. ‘The autonomous power of the state: Its origins, mechanisms and results’. Archives Europeennes de Sociologie, 25 (1984): 185-213. Read More

This means is extended to any external entities where the state should use all its apparatus to guard its sovereignty from external threat. This is founded on the inference by Machiavelli that the prince ought to have only two fears, one from within which is related to his subjects and the other one from without on account of the external powers (Machiavelli, 88). This means that the state has a fundamental role of protecting itself from threats of external entities as well as other internal threats which might emanate from within its borders using any means at its disposal.

On the other hand, Plato perceived good life as only being possible in and through a state. In this case, the society (state) is perceived as a natural institution whose sole existence is for the sake of good life. In this case, Plato perceived the aim of a good state as neither being freedom nor economic well-being but rather justice. Thus, the state has the role of maintaining and dispensing justice (the ideal form in the world of forms) to the citizenship as opposed to coercing the citizenship to submission as envisioned by Machiavelli Additionally, Plato recognizes the role of education which must be for everyone.

In this case, education in philosophy and morality is the most imperative (the true and the good) which is more conducive in a good state. This culminated to the close correlation between justice and education by Plato where he inferred that if education fails to succeed in a good state, then there is bound to be fundamental compromise on justice with the nature of the power holders (Plato, 17). Secondly, Machiavelli perceives the state as having the role of solidifying the commitment of the followers towards a more cohesive and integrated statehood.

In this case, the prince ought to create greater attachment with the followers whose excellent efforts may be encouraged through rewards or any other means that the prince deem fit. Additionally, the state has the role of getting allies from outside aimed at ensuring the security of the citizens. In this case, the fear from without (external threat) is only defended by the state having good allies and being well armed (Machiavelli, 88). Nonetheless, Plato in his work Republic is against the role of the state in acquiring external allies mostly from other states with different models of governance.

This is epitomized by Plato (235) who determined that men who are brought in from outside as allies from another city which is subject to an oligarch by members belonging to one party, and other allies brought in by members of another party who come from a democratic state culminate in the state becoming ‘sick’ and do battle within itself. This is often without even the need of extra external influence and eventually the state become divided by faction. Thus, Plato is opposed to the role of the state acquiring allies from other states, mostly from those with different ideals of governance based on both the short and the long term impacts on the state.

This is founded on the fact that the individuals and collectives from outside are bound to divide the state end eventually the members of this particular state will start in-fighting amongst themselves. In this case, Plato perceives the role of the state in running its own apparatus of governance without any external as being the most ideal way of attaining stability and cohesion. Lastly, Machiavelli perceives the state being central in conquering other states and exerting its dominion over the citizens.

This is for various reasons including materials gain as well as diluting external threats. However, Machiavelli (20), noted that when these states have been conquered, they become accustomed to living under their own laws and freedoms. Yet, there are three courses of actions which ought to be undertaken by the prince who wish to hold them; to ruin them, reside there in person and allow them to live under their own laws. On the contrary, Plato is opposed to this role of the state which he perceives as being unjust.

Read More