It Is Better to Be Ruled by a Philosopher King Essay

If unmatch adapted wishes to undefiled unrivalleds nous and murder enlightenment, thence it is definitely punter for that iodine to be radiation patternd by a philosopher-king however, if ones main(prenominal) goal in deportment is to live happily and securely with come in worries, then it is arguably better for that one to be come upd by a prince. One should, however, look for to perfect ones soul rather than seek for happiness and protection alone, hence, it is better to be ruled by a philosopher-king.This paper allow rootage lay out the reasons why one should be governed by either a Machiavellian prince or a philosopher-king, and point out that the contrastive benefits between the two patterns depends on the different qualifys of priorities in a citizens life. Then, the paper ordain suggest why one should keep an eye on the values on a lower floor the rule of a philosopher-king rather than that under the rule of a prince. Finally, it get out odor at some co unter argument, consider and assert why the thesis is still superior.If ones main wish is to live happily and securely, then it might be better for that one to be ruled by a Machiavellian prince, since a Machiavellian princes main goal as a ruler is to secure his state. The perfect prince would appear to be merciful, faithful, kind-heartede, honest, and religious, only go through how to enter into evil, when forced by necessity to maintain his state. Consequently, the nation invigoration under this prince would benefit in the peace that comes with his reign.Moreover, the people ar extra to lease whatever mercantile goals they want, so long as they do not violate the laws of the prince. The prince is alike neither rapacious and a usurper of the property and the women of his subjects nor is he trying to maintain a name for kindness so much that he burden the people extraordinarily, to be morose with taxes. Hence, the people living under a princes reign will enjoy a suff icient life with stability, security and freedom to pursue their materialistic wants.If ones seek to perfect their souls, to come out of the cave and into the sunshine, then life under the rule of a philosopher-king is pattern. Under the rule of a philosopher-king, the king will try to turn the whole soul until it is able to study that which is and the brightest things that is, namely, the one we call the good. To do this, one must first rid of feasting, greed, and early(a) such pleasures that one had been hammered at from childishness, and then turn to look at true things. The philosopher-king, whose visions and knowledge is true and wise, will help educate the people by changing theirs needs, try to redirect it appropriately. A life under a philosopher-king will benefit ones soul rather than ones materialistic life. It is obvious as explained previously that the key to the desirability of the two different systems, one under the Machiavellian prince and one under the philos opher-king, lies in how the people prioritize what they look for in life hence, different sets of values will be fit by different political systems.Thus, at first look, it seems impossible to meet which system is better because they are based on completely different sets of values. However, as one set is arguably better to pursue than the other, consequently, one political system will be more than desirable than the other. The set of criteria in question is that under the rule of the philosopher-king. It is better for a somebody to pursue a knowledgeable, true, and rational life that a philosopher-king promises to provide than a materialistic and secure life alone that the Machiavellian prince promises.First, it needs to be pointed out that Machiavelli also seems to see there is of little value for a prince to pursue materialistic desires, unless it arranges a bigger purpose, such as the accomplishment of abundance of either men or money serves to put unneurotic an adequate ar my and fight a battle against whoever comes to attack them. Machiavelli seems to criminate that a prince seeks not just great power, but also seeks to be more glorious, excellent, and virtuous than ordinary men.He states that as a commander, a prince should earn no other object, nor whatever other imagination, nor take anything else as his contrivance but that of war and its order and discipline and when a prince have thought more of amenities than of arms, he has lost his state. This seems to imply that a prince should not seek trivial contentment, but only that of commanders and as a leader, a prince should desire to be esteemed, feared, and loved, and avoid to be viewed as variable, light, effeminate, pusillanimous, irresolute. Hence, Machiavelli seems to say that even though not ein truthone has im relegateialitys, thus, those who do will rise and drive princes while the sleep will be ruled over, it is desirable that one should aspire to become a prince, seek deservi ngnesss, prove ones excellence with his prudence. Socrates, hence, also seems to agree with Machiavelli that one should seek more in life than the ecstasy of ones instinctive desires. However, Socrates disagrees with Machiavelli on two points. First, Socrates disagrees that only a few has virtues but everyone is fitted of achieving more in life but rather everyone is capable of pursuing virtues.Second, he believes that there is only the virtue of reason that, unlike others that arent there beforehand but are added later by habit and practice, has always been there intrinsically intimate of everyone. He states that this virtue never loses its power but is either useful and beneficial or useless and harmful, depending on the way it is turned. Socrates, thus, might argue with Machiavelli that the virtues that he assigns for the perfect prince are derivatives of this single virtue of reason, which is forced to serve evil ends. Hence, the perfect prince is capable of horrid things, but still very clever to maintain his image.Socrates perhaps can conclude that the prince described by Machiavelli is a case where the virtue of reason is turned to the wrong way. Thus, Socrates reasons that everyone is capable of pursuing this virtue of reason, and hence, capable of greatness, but they need guidance and preparation to turn around from darkness to light. Machiavelli then might agree that everyone might be capable of greatness, but he still disagrees as to why any person with the virtue of reason should not become a prince to eclipse others, but agree to be governed by the philosopher-king.Now, assume that Socrates model of the piece soul is correct and sufficient it might give an answer to this problem. Socrates reasons that a humans soul consists of three dissolves, a human who represents our virtue of reasons, a king of beasts which represents our beastly power and aggression, also courage and nobility, and a multicolored beast with a ring of many heads that it can work and change at will which represents our various desires, some from gentle, some from creature animals. With the previously established argument that Machiavelli and Socrates may agree that the satisfaction of materialistic desires holds little value, hence, the scenario that the multicolored beast is in control can be eliminated, and so, the argument may be narrowed down to Machiavelli wanting the dreadful and courageous king of beasts to dominate, while Socrates remains that the rational human should be in control.The initial description of the lion seems to match the dominant characteristics of that of the Machiavellian prince however, as Machiavelli says himself, a prince needs both natures of man and beast, since one without the other is not lasting. The prince, hence, is still governed by both the man with virtue of reasons and the lion with courage and nobility. He uses the virtues of reason to acquire other virtues to become a prince, but he is still driven by the instinct of the shocking lion to achieve glory and conquer others.As the human is the high hat part of a human soul it is still exceed to have the human part be in control over the bestial parts, because then, the entire soul settles into its best nature, acquires moderation, justice, and reason. Thus, people should seek to achieve this state of the soul where the human part is in control, it then takes care of the multicolored beast as farmer does his animals, and tends to the lion so that the lions nature becomes his ally. This exercise of goodness of the soul is the last thing to be seen, and it is reached only with difficulty. Hence, the people will want and need the help of a philosopher-king. Since a participatory man like a city ruled by a democracy, and similarly with the others, the life under the rule of a philosopher-king will be similarly to the life which the philosopher-king rules himself. He will ensure by laws or otherwise, that his subject citizens wil l be the slave of the philosopher-king who has a divine ruler deep down himself. A philosopher-king does not wish to enslave the people to act upon from them, but only to help nurture and bring out the best of the people. When the people are ready, are equipped with guardians and ruler similar to the philosopher-king, then the people will be set free. It will be ideal for everyone to be ruled by his own divine reason within himself. In conclusion, it is better to be ruled by a philosopher-king because one should goes after the values that the philosopher-king promotes.That is, one should find the virtue of reasons, and by the power of this virtue and the help of the philosopher-king, pursue the ideal balance of the soul, where the human part governs his consciousness and reins in the beasts. The Machiavellian prince is still governed by both the lion and the human, and he lets the people indulge themselves in their desires, hence, the prince is not the best plectrum of ruler, for himself and for his people alike.