Students Again

Survey of Political Theory Papers

 

Machiavelli: Teaching Lessons Learned from Other Teachers

 

Machiavelli has based his teachings in chapters six, eight, and eighteen of The Prince on other teacher’s actions. The first thing that needs to be made clear is who are the teachers that Machiavelli has based his teachings on? These teachers are previous leaders who taught their lesson through their actions during their period of acquiring and maintaining rule. Their lessons are teaching how to gain and keep power and how leaders should conduct themselves. This is an important lesson for future leaders to learn if they wish to succeed. These teachers provide valuable information on how to acquire a new principality, how a private individual can gain the principate, and how to act as a prince.

 

They way to acquire a new principality is through virtue and arms. Machiavelli argues that you should aim high to achieve success. The best way to aim high is to follow the teachings of previous successful leaders:

 

For since men almost always walk on paths beaten by others and proceed in their actions by imitation, unable either to stay on the paths of others all together or to attain the virtue of those whom you imitate, a prudent man should always enter upon the paths beaten by great men, and imitate those who have been most excellent, so that if his own virtue does not reach that far, it is at least in the odor of it. (Machiavelli 22)

 

Machiavelli is very clearly explaining that the best way to be successful is to imitate those that have already achieved success. The leaders that are to be imitated are leaders that have gained their principality through virtue. Machiavelli gives four examples of leaders that have gained their principality through virtue. Those four examples are Moses, Romulus, Cyrus, and Theseus. Moses gained his principality through the help of God and the oppressed Egyptians were “disposed to follow him as to get out of their servitude” (Machiavelli 23).” Romulus was not received in Alba because he was to become founder of Rome. Cyrus was to relieve the Persians from the malcontent they felt toward their empire. Theseus was able to display his virtue through the dispersal of the Athenians. All four of these examples were examples of leaders teaching a lesson. The lesson to be learned was that a new principality can be acquired through virtue:

 

Such opportunities, therefore, made these men happy, and their excellent virtue enabled the opportunity to be recognized; hence their fatherlands were ennobled by it and became very happy. (Machiavelli 23)

 

Machiavelli explains that it can also be learned that gaining the principality in this manner can be difficult, but can be held with ease. The difficulty arises with the promulgating of new orders. This creates difficulty with those who already had the old laws on their side and those who do not truly believe in new things until they have had adequate experience with them. The prince can handle these difficulties in two ways. The prince can prey which will always bring poor results and never accomplish anything or he can use force. If he relies on his own and uses force he will rarely endure peril. The consequence of being unsuccessful in dealing with these difficulties is difficulty in conducting his affairs. The prince must overcome this through virtue. If he overcomes this difficulty he will “be held in veneration, having eliminated those who had envied them for their quality, they remain powerful, secure, honored, and happy (Machiavelli 24).” Machiavelli also explains in his teachings a lesser example about the leader Hiero. Hiero was a private individual that became prince of Syracuse. The only element of fortune in his achievement was through the opportunity. The Syracusans were oppressed and had chosen him to be their captain. However, Hiero was of high virtue. He eliminated the old military and created a new one. This created a strong foundation for his principality. It was difficult to acquire the principality, but was easy to maintain. Machiavelli’s teachings about these leaders are that if the person acquiring a new principality does so through high virtue it will be easy to maintain their principality. However, the difficulty will lie in attaining the principality and promulgating new orders, but once that is successfully eviscerated the trouble should cease to exist.

 

The next lesson to be learned is how to gain the principality as a private individual. This can be achieved in two ways which are through crime or support from the citizens. In Machiavelli’s teaching he uses the examples of Agathocles and Liverotto’s actions to learn how a private individual can gain the principality through crime. Agathocles the Sicilian always kept to a life of crime. He turned to the military and once he rose through the ranks decided to become prince. He planned to hold the principality through violence. One morning he assembled the people and senate of Syracuse. Once assembled, at his order, his soldiers killed the senators and the richest people. After he had these people killed, “he seized and held the principate of that city without any civil controversy (Machiavelli 35).” Agathocles achieved this on the basis of virtue without virtue. This is where he was virtuous by entering and escaping dangers and without virtue through his cruelty and inhumanity. Another teaching by Machiavelli is through the example of Liverotto. Liverotto held a banquet for all the important men of Fermo. At the banquet the conversation became sensitive in nature and Liverotto suggested going to a private room. Once all the men arrived in the private room, hidden soldiers came out and killed them. After this took place, “[Liverotto] besieged the highest magistracy in the palace so that through fear they were compelled to obey him and to establish a government of which he was made prince (Machiavelli 37).” All the people that could have hurt him were dead which made him secure in his principate. The only reason, Machiavelli explains, his principate did not last longer than a year is because he was deceived by Cesare Borgia. However, in regard to Agathocles, how could he “live for a long time secure in his fatherland, defend himself against external enemies, and never be conspired against by his citizens (Machiavelli 37)?” This can be attributed to the concept of the good or bad use of cruelty. The good use of cruelty is when it is all carried out in one stroke. The bad uses of cruelty are those which are increased over time. Machiavelli explains that it is important that;

 

Injuries must be done all together, so that, being tasted less; and that benefits should be done little by little so that they may be tasted better. And above all, a prince should live with his subjects… (Machiavelli 38)

 

The actions of the leaders in these examples teach that when a private individual acquires the principality through crime he must exert his cruelty in one stroke. He must also remain living with his subjects to exert greater control.

Machiavelli’s teachings now explain in what manner princes should keep faith. It has been shown by experience that those princes that have done great things are those who have taken little account of faith. It is the clever prince who is able to outwit other men that is successful. This teaches that there are two varieties of combat. The first is of laws which are proper to man. The second variety is with force which is proper to beast. Machiavelli explains that it is necessary for a prince to know both modes of combat:

 

To have as teacher a half-beast, half-man means nothing other than that a prince needs to know how to use both natures; and the one without the other is not lasting. (Machiavelli 69)

 

When a prince finds it necessary to use the beast mode of combat he should use that of the fox and the lion. The fox is able to sense a trap while the lion is able to instill fear in strong adversaries. Alexander VI was an example used by Machiavelli because he “never did anything, nor ever thought of anything, but how to deceive men, and he always found a subject to whom he could do it (Machiavelli 70).” Due to deceit it is not necessary for a prince to have all of these qualities, but it is imperative to appear to have them. If a prince appears to have these qualities he will appear merciful, faithful, humane, honest, and religious. To maintain his state a prince must often avoid these qualities so it is important to appear to have them. Machiavelli states, “[a prince] should not depart from good, when possible, but know how to enter into evil, when forced by necessity (Machiavelli 70).” It is important that a prince never says anything that is adversarial to these five qualities. This will make him appear, in sight and sound, to his subject to have these qualities. The most important quality to appear to have is religion. Most people judge by what they see. Therefore, if a prince always appears to be a man of peace and faith the majority will always lend support. The few who do not lend support will never expose themselves for fear of opposing the majority. Machiavelli advocates, by example, that a prince should be deceitful and strong. In maintaining these qualities he will make himself appear merciful, faithful, humane, honest, and religious. It is through this appearance that the majority of the people will honor and praise him. This will allow the prince to successfully maintain his state.

 

Machiavelli’s teachings about previous leaders show how those leaders can be considered teacher’s themselves through the lessons contained in their actions. Machiavelli makes this clear in his teachings about these teachers. Machiavelli’s teachings about these teachers convey the important message of acquiring and maintaining leadership. The intricate details to attain this success rely on acquiring new principalities through virtue and overcoming difficulties with arms, the private individual’s good use of cruelty in usurping a principality through crime, and how to be deceitful to successfully maintain the principality.

 

Works Cited

 

Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998.

 

 

Ancient Political Theory Papers

 

Plato’s Apology of Socrates

 

Compare and contrast what Socrates says he did in response to the Delphic Oracle (20d – 24b) with his activities as a gadfly (29c – 32a). Are these accounts of Socrates’ activities consistent? If you think they are consistent, explain briefly how they work together to accomplish Socrates’ goals. If you think they are not consistent, identify the inconsistencies and consider briefly what questions they raise about or insights they give us into Socrates’ way of life.

One part of Plato’s Apology of Socrates is the defense speech of Socrates. During Socrates’ defense speech he explains what he did in response to the Delphic Oracle with his activities as a gadfly. In this defense speech it is evident that many inconsistencies occur.

 

The first inconsistency is in regards to the importance or unimportance of human wisdom. In Socrates’ examination of the men of Athens, with the intent of proving the Oracle wrong, he realizes that human wisdom is unimportant:

 

For those present on each occasion suppose that I myself am wise in the things concerning which I refute someone else, whereas it is probable, men, that really the god is wise, and that in this oracle he is saying that human wisdom is worth little or nothing… Socrates, has become cognizant that in truth he is worth nothing with respect to wisdom. (23a – 23b)

 

However, when Socrates is explaining his activities as a gadfly human wisdom is portrayed as being very important because it leads to virtue. Socrates explains that, “not from money does virtue come, but from virtue comes money” (30b) and that he had “been set upon the city by the god, as though upon a great and well-born horse who is rather sluggish because of his great size and needs to be awakened by some gadfly.” (30e) In the story of the Oracle, human wisdom is unimportant because humans are equally wise or unwise, but in Socrates’ activities as a gadfly the use of wisdom in awakening the public is important. Socrates is awakening the public by persuading virtue. This is important because it makes the city of Athens a better place. This is a contradiction.

 

Another inconsistency is that Socrates, through his own volition, decided to prove the Oracle wrong while claiming his activities as a gadfly were induced by the gods. After the Oracle answered that Socrates was the wisest, Socrates “went to one of those reputed to be wise, on the ground that there, if anywhere, [he] would refute the divination.” (21c) On Socrates’ own free will he decided it was important to prove the Oracle wrong by finding a wiser man. During Socrates’ activities as a gadfly he states that he “has simply been set upon the city by the god.” (30 e) Socrates deemed it important to prove the Oracle wrong because he knew that he did not know anything even though the Oracle claimed he was the wisest.  However, during his activities as a gadfly Socrates makes it seem as though the gods are responsible for sending him on his quests.

 

A final inconsistency shows that Socrates did things that were a benefit to him even though he claimed to be doing service for the people of the city.  Through Socrates’ examinations of the people that were held to be wise he gains a reputation for being wise: “this is the examination, men of Athens, from which…I got this name of being wise.” (23a) This gives Socrates the claim to being a better man than other Athenians. Socrates uses this in the attempt to persuade the jury of Athens not to condemn him to death under the guise that it is for the people: “for know well that if you kill me, since I am the sort of man that I say I am, you will not harm me more than yourselves…So I, men of Athens, am now far from making a defense speech on my own behalf.” (30c – 30e) If Socrates had succeeded in avoiding death that would have definitely been to his own benefit.

 

During Socrates’ defense speech explaining what he did in response to the Delphic Oracle with his activities as a gadfly many inconsistencies can be exposed. These inconsistencies raise questions about Socrates’ way of life. According to Socrates, is human wisdom important? Does Socrates serve the gods revered by Athenians? Is Socrates more concerned with the well-being of the city rather than his own well-being? Is Socrates a virtuous man? Some of these questions probably lead to the conclusion that Socrates was a very clever man. It may also be said that Socrates had the intention of helping Athens by making the people the best they could be. However, Socrates was not going to straightforwardly tell the people of Athens how to achieve virtue; they would have to work for it. These questions can be argued in many different directions according to how one perceives Plato’s Apology of Socrates.

 

 

Aristotle’s The Politics

 

Choice #1: Based on your reading of book I of the Politics, examine Aristotle’s statement that “every city is by nature.” What does the statement mean? What arguments does he offer as he explores this statement? What conclusion does he reach?

The statement “every city is by nature” is central to Book I of Aristotle’s The Politics.  In order to understand what Aristotle meant by this statement, many ideas must be analyzed.  Some of the ideas that must be explored include the purpose of a city, the definition of a city, and how the city comes into being.  Further analysis will uncover concepts such as man as a political animal, slavery, household management, business expertise, and household rule.  These concepts must be analyzed for arguments supporting or discrediting that “every city is by nature.”  Once the information derived from these analyses is completed, Aristotle’s conclusion to the statement “every city is by nature” will become clear.  It will be shown that “every city is by nature” means that families, the first partnerships motivated by natural inclination, evolved into the pursuit of virtue and happiness which is the key to a city by nature.

 

The subject of The Politics is centered on Aristotle’s concept of the city or political partnership.  In developing this concept, Aristotle explains the purpose of the city: “It is clear that all partnerships aim at some good, and that the partnership that is most authoritative of all and embraces all the others does so particularly, and aims at the most authoritative good of all.  This is what is called the city or the political partnership.”[1] Aristotle defines the political community as a partnership rather than by the laws followed or the power structure.  The citizens of a political community are partners and equally pursue the common good.  In relation to the city it is the most authoritative or highest good.  Aristotle’s meaning of authoritative or highest good is ingrained in the concept of virtue and happiness of the citizens.  The purpose of the city is to make it possible for the citizens to attain this virtue and happiness.  In achieving virtue, which is individual excellence, each citizen is reaching their natural best for the city.  The pursuit of virtue by all individuals is paramount in the defining of a city.

 

Aristotle’s reasoning for why the city comes into being is based on history.  This shows two different reasons for a city’s creation.  The two reasons for a city’s creation rely on “persons who cannot exist without one another.”[2] The first situation in which this is the case is that of a male and female for the sake of reproduction.  The second situation is that of “the naturally ruling and ruled, on account of preservation.”[3] In the second situation, Aristotle is referring to slavery.  What Aristotle means by using the term “preservation” is that the naturally ruling master and the naturally ruled slave need each other in order to survive; this an arrangement in which slavery benefits both the slave and the master.  In both situations, the people involved are formed to create a household.  The creation of the household has the purpose of tending to the needs of daily life.  In a household, the family is only large enough to meet daily needs and allow for reproduction.  Over time families expand and come into contact with other families.  This is achieved through events such as marriage.  Eventually, after a number of families come into contact, villages are formed.  Villages are considered to be superior because they are more self-sufficient than families.  The creation of villages allows people to specialize in many areas such as building or medicine.  This is not possible in the smaller unit of a family.  The result is that the people in villages are able to live more comfortable lives through access to more goods and services.  When a number of villages come together the formation of a city occurs.  Aristotle explains that a city is not just a big village, but is altogether different: “The partnership arising from several villages that is complete is the city.  It reaches a level of full self-sufficiency, so to speak; and while coming into being for the sake of living, it exists for the sake of living well.”[4] In essence, the founders of cities created them for the sake of living more comfortable lives, but cities are unique because it creates the possibility for the people to live well.  For Aristotle, living well means to lead a life of happiness and virtue and by doing so individuals meet their natural best for the city.  According to Aristotle, it is necessary to live in a city to become completely human.  Aristotle promulgates this when he states, “he who is without a city through nature rather than chance is either a mean sort or superior to man[5]…one who is incapable of participating or who is in need of nothing through being self-sufficient is no part of a city, and so is either a beast or a god.”[6] In this part of the text, Aristotle is showing that people becoming part of a city are becoming what they are naturally supposed to become: “For just as man is the best of the animals when completed, when separated from law and adjudication he is the worst of all.”[7] Without living in a natural city, a city that creates opportunity to live well through happiness and virtue, it is not possible for people to reach their natural best.  A city by nature is directly linked to natural purpose for humans.  This creates the context in which the city “is prior by nature to the household and to each of us.”[8] Aristotle compares an individual’s relationship with the city to the relationship of a part of the body to the whole body.  Aristotle states, “if the whole is destroyed there will not be a foot or a hand.”[9] In making this statement, Aristotle shows, through analogy, that a hand is not able to survive without a body just as an individual is not able to survive without being attached to a city.  The city is by nature because the first partnerships, families, are motivated by natural inclination: “Every city, therefore, exists by nature, if such also are the first partnerships. For the city is their end, and nature in an end…the city belongs among the things that exist by nature, and…man is by nature a political animal.”[10]

 

Nature explains how people are brought together in cities and the concept of man as a political animal explains how people are able to live together.  The concept of man as a political animal is rooted in the similarities and differences between man and animal:

 

Man is much more a political animal than any kind of bee or any herd animal is clear.  For, as we assert, nature does nothing in vain, and man alone among the animals has speech…speech serves to reveal the advantageous and the harmful and hence also the just and unjust.  For it is peculiar to man as compared to the other animals that he alone has a perception of good and bad and just and unjust and other things of this sort; and partnership in these things is what makes a household a city.[11]

 

Humans are similar to animals in that they live in groups and are different in that they have the ability to use speech.  Aristotle’s version of speech goes further than the mere ability to speak; it includes the concept of reason.  The purpose of speech, as allocated by nature, gives the ability to communicate that which is beneficial or harmful.  This ability shows what is bad or good, unjust or just.  This knowledge makes it possible for people to live together.  It also allows for the incorporation of justice into the living of a virtuous life.  Although nature brings people together it does not provide everything we need to live together.  People must figure out how to live together through the use of speech and reason.  Through speech and reason, the discovery of justice and creating of laws make it possible for the community to survive and for individuals to live virtuous lives.  In discovering justice and living according to laws an atmosphere is created for the success of the political community and the growth of individual virtue and happiness.  Without the city and justice, people are at their worst.  Just the same, people are at their best when they are made complete through proper city living.  The pursuit of virtue is the most important part of the city.

 

After Aristotle describes the city, he discusses how the household and its basic forms of justice and nature are applicable to the city.  This discussion includes the idea of whether slavery is just or not.  Slaves are described as coming from one of two sources.  Slaves were either created through defeat in war or through birth.  Aristotle states, “human beings who are naturally suited to be ruled but unwilling – this sort of war being by nature just.”[12] In relation to the city, it is understood that the economy relied on slavery.  Without slaves for the purpose of labor, men would be unable to pursue a more philosophical lifestyle.  In Aristotle’s discussion of the justness of slavery, he explains why slavery is beneficial for both the master and the slave:

 

Those who are as different [from other men] as the soul from the body or man from beast – and they are in this state if their work is the use of the body, and if this is the best that can come from them – are slaves by nature…For he is a slave by nature who is capable of belonging to another – which is also why he belongs to another – and who participates in reason only to the extent of perceiving it, but does not have it.[13]

 

This reiterates the importance of reason which a slave by nature does not have.  Slaves by nature are not capable of governing their own lives and need someone to tell them what to do.  They should be told what to do by someone who has the ability to fully reason.  In this case, labor is the proper use for a slave.  This arrangement is beneficial for both the master and the slave; the slave receives the instruction they need to live while the master is free from labor and able to pursue a political and philosophical life.  This freedom for the master allows for being as virtuous as possible which, as previously mentioned, was the most important part of the city.  In this line of thought, slavery further demonstrates how the city is by nature.  Aristotle continues discussing the household, but now turns to the topic of expertise in household management.  During this discussion the expertise of managing a household versus the expertise in business is explored.  Household management is an important aspect of both a household and a city because of the need for food, clothing, and other essential things.  Since the household is by nature, household management is also by nature by default.  Therefore, household management leads to a city by nature.  On the other hand, business expertise is possibly harmful.  Aristotle does not view business expertise as natural, but “arises through a certain experience and art.”[14] With expertise in business “there is held to be no limit to wealth and possessions.”[15] This is potentially harmful because people who pursue wealth without limits are not living a life of virtue and genuine happiness.  Business expertise leads some people to “proceed on the supposition that they should either preserve or increase without limit their property in money. The cause of this state is that they are serious about living, but not about living well; and since that desire of theirs is without limit, they also desire what is productive of unlimited things.”[16] For Aristotle, wealth is reserved for managing a household and the development of virtue.  Moneymaking for the sole purpose of moneymaking is beneath the virtuous man.  Aristotle illustrates this in a story about Thales the philosopher.  Thales used his knowledge of astronomy to predict the olive harvest.  He then purchased olive presses with the knowledge of a bountiful harvest.  When the harvest arrived, Thales made a great deal of money selling his olive presses, “thus showing how easy it is for philosophers to become wealthy if they so wish, but it is not this they are serious about.”[17] Intellect, which could be used to amass wealth, should be used to better humanity.  This dichotomy between household management and business expertise deals with the division between virtue and non-virtue in relation to money.  The evidence supporting the virtuous relationship to money, household management, lends further evidence to a city by nature.

 

Aristotle provides another argument supporting that “every city is by nature.”  For this argument, household rule is explored.  This discussion deals with the proper forms of rule over women and children.  Aristotle classifies these forms of rule as a natural hierarchy: “For the male, unless constituted in some respect contrary to nature, is by nature more expert at leading than the female, and the elder and complete than the younger and incomplete”[18] Aristotle is eluding to the idea that it is natural for the male to rule.  However, the difference of male rule over female and child versus master rule over slave is that “the slave is wholly lacking the deliberative element; the female has it but it lacks authority; the child has it but it is incomplete.”[19] This seems to lead to the idea that a male should treat a female as an equal as much as possible, but the male should always have ultimate control within the household.  A male’s superiority over a female is rooted in nature through a natural hierarchy.  This natural hierarchy helps to support Aristotle’s claim that the city is by nature.

 

“Every city is by nature” means that families, the first partnerships motivated by natural inclination, evolved into the pursuit of virtue and happiness which brings people to their end goal.  This end goal is the attainment of reaching a personal best.  This evolution begins with households, then villages, and then cities.  Aristotle explains how man as a political animal contributes to his personal best through speech and the ability to reason. Man as political animal allows for communication about concepts like justice which shape the household and the city.  The concept of justice brings about the discussion of slavery.  A discussion that determines a slave by nature and the master both achieve their personal best through their relationship.  Then, household management versus business expertise provides another argument for living well in a city by nature.  Aristotle’s final argument regards the natural hierarchy of household rule leading to a city by nature.  All of these arguments contain the concepts that lead to a city that is rooted in nature.  The city exists by nature because it comes out of ancient natural associations.  The city serves as these natural associations end because only the city attains self-sufficiency.