How would Plato respond to Machiavelli on fooling others that one is just but in reality he's not?

He did so in more than one book.

If you are just, your soul is well ordered. If you are not, your soul is pushed in different directions by your different desires.

Why do people unironically take Plato seriously today? He's been utterly BTFO by everyone since Aristotle

plato looks like sam hyde if he hadn't JUST himself

Christians

This

If you guys wanna know something interesting, Aristotle was rediscovered before Plato was in medieval Europe. So while Aristotle chronologically came after Plato, the theologians who adopted each began first with Aristotle.

Machiavelli was telling people that everyone lies and whatever the other guy says to you that you can count on him breaking his word if it is inconvenient to keep it. Plato holds humanity to a higher standard - Pagan Greek view is that lies by their very nature are evil and the true Gods Who are All-Good hate ALL evil... Machiavelli basically has everyday view of people in the Renaissance and this view held today and probably even by nearly everyone in Plato's day...

By Zeus, you are right!

>He's... you know, kinda dead
join him then faggot

It's not the first chapter. Its the entire book, maybe except the last chapter where he critiques Homeros

Except you forget how Christianity started

Didn't Plato say justice was whatever the people in power said it was anyway?

Yes, but the most powerful are powerful because they're virtuous and good.

good post

Isn't this just a perversion of might makes right?

Is one right by Zeus or because of Zeus?

Well, depends on how you read the Republic. If you ask me, the feverish city can never be just, but that's a fairly idiosyncratic view

Read book 2 and 3 of the Republic, nigger.

Zeus is used as authority
It would be made right by Zeus
Because there can be an Authority after Zeus or above Zeus, and they could have a different view, and they would not see you made right Because of Zeus, who no longer has authority but they would see you instead made right by Zeus as in that authority-subject relationship.

It is. In Socrates's argument with Thrasymachus in book 1, Socrates's argument is right only if Thrasymachus is right; Socrates is "right" because he was stronger than Thrasymachus, meaning the substance of his argument was perhaps wrong. Book 1 ends with Socrates dissatisfaction at the argument.

Hard to say. Honestly, I'm not sure he'd disagree much with Machiavelli. The defense of the just man in the Republic is demanded by the brothers Glaucon and Adeimantus, both of whom put some constraints on Socrates's argument. At one point, talking with Adeimantus about the guardians, it becomes clear that they won't necessarily be happy, which is bizarre when you recall that demonstrating that thesis was the point of developing the city-in-speech.

One thing you'd have to work out is what Machiavelli means by just; is it related to the just behavior demanded by Christianity? Is it following the laws?

What's the noble lie: the thread

yes this is basic knowledge if anyone has read plato. My question is did Machiavelli really mean to put forth a theory of justice? My understanding is that Machiavelli does not dwell on justice or morality too much, instead focusing on the nature of politics. I guess his views could be inferred, but I hardly see the value in comparing the two.

I think they can be compared insofar as Machiavelli almost demands comparison by way of contrasting himself with the ancients (it might be worth pointing out that of the Greek philosophers, he refers to Xenophon more than Plato and Aristotle combined in the Prince; the former's Education of Cyrus and Hiero might be the best texts to confer).

As for justice and whether Machiavelli meant to thematize it, I think you're right that he seems to want to focus elsewhere. Part of what would have to be determined is his intention in writing; later thinkers like Diderot and Rousseau thought he meant to expose the princes for what they are in a lowkey way. It's certainly true that the Discourses have a kind of disdain for the elites who are most likely to become or work with princes. But on the other hand, he seems to mean that principalities can be desirable in certain political circumstances, such as that of Italy at the time. Now, whether he thinks justice has any place here greater than in needing whoever's in charge to appear just is an open question (for me at least); he might seem to be in contest with the ancients, but in his letter to Vettori, he seems to take them very seriously, and presumably he includes Plato and Aristotle, "idealists" as they may be in that. All I mean to say is that if he doesn't intend to put forward a theory of justice, he might nonetheless take it seriously in a private capacity.

Sometimes it looks as though if the Prince were to follow his instructions, that you'd end up with a much more moderated figure than the out and out despot people imagine he would have supported.

What do you mean?