Aurelius Vs Machiavelli

Though the span of human history is short in comparison to the world, it is yet rich and expansive and, as social creatures, the questions surrounding our sociological interactions are in a constant flux of questioning and answering. Numerous cultures and multiple leaders, religions, ideologies and philosophies span across the globe from a time long before the written word was invented through the past (approximately) six thousand years of recorded human history. As in nearly all social structure, leaders are necessary for the survival of the group: security, direction, and order. The eclectic and varying opinions, ideas, and experiences of multiple individuals from multiple societies results throughout history in extremely different and often

In all of these texts, it is plain that no great leader ever acts contrary to the whole good of the state—whether or not the people or individuals might feel that their leader’s actions are for the good of the state or community. This is the most palpable and prominent definition of a true or good leader common to all three texts, as well as many exterior texts dealing with similar issues. Unlike Machiavelli, however, both Plato and Marcus Aurelius understand that the citizens are ultimately necessary and a part of the working republic and society as a whole: one emphasizing unity, the other, individual importance of each citizen. Rashana Kamtekar eloquently outlines this paradime by maintaining that “While Plato emphasizes the unity of sentiment in the ideal city, Marcus emphasizes the citizen's being a functional part of the whole city: just as this matter would not be a limb at all without the body of which it is a part, so too, this human individual would not be what he is without a city of which he is a part.” Machiavelli, on the other hand, seems to tend toward the idea that all of the people are sheep, and the leader is the shepherd, leading them for his own gain. However, Machiavelli still realizes that the shepherd must have the utmost concern for the welfare of his flock if he is to gain

Though the manner of intellect may vary, often greatly, for each philosopher, they all understand that a strength, ability, and prudence of mind is utterly necessary to be a successful leader. To some degree, Machiavelli admired Marcus Aurelius, though he seems to imply great impatience with Plato, namely due to his seeming impracticality and un-useful idealism. Sharon Krause potently conveys Machiavelli’s sentiments: “Philosophers who could not effect the republics of their dreams, according to Machiavelli, have led people to their destruction. For him too the powerless philosopher is deficient as a philosophic exemplar—that is, one who is concerned with the truth. Machiavelli’s teaching appears to be shaped by an understanding of harsh necessity, which requires a prince act decisively…The Prince contains only one mention of the word ‘philosopher’ or a form of it, that is to describe the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, who was also a man of action.” However, Machiavelli understood that men of action also had to be men of intellect, and that action could not be blindly carried out. He clearly admired the Greek Odyssian character of both strength and cunning. Where Plato prefers truth and wisdom, Machiavelli prefers ambition and guile. Marcus Aurelius erred more with Plato on this issue, preferring personal virtue in order to maintain a virtuous state, to seek truth, forgive