In this paper I am going to argue that Plato's political philosophy illustrated in The Republic is preferable to Niccollo Machiavelli's in The Prince. Between the political worlds of Plato and Machiavelli, as one of "the masses" the choice is clear that living in Plato's world would be preferable, due to the fervent idealism of its leaders and its focus on the good of the community. While Machiavelli's ideal principality centers around serving self-interest and deceiving the citizens. The comparison between these two works has often been simplified as the battle of "idealism vs. realism". Though that summary does not do the debate justice, in this case Plato's idealism is what should entice "the masses" to live in The Republic. This theory of "idealism" stems from the pursuit of knowledge, which Plato further explains through his use of metaphors including: The Allegory of the Cave and The Analogy of the Sun (Plato 514b-515e).
These both touch upon how people have been shielded from the real world and the need for a light to be shined to open up this realm to those of us who haven't found their way out of the dark, so to speak. While the masses ourselves cannot reach this point on our own, the rulers of this created republic, specifically referred to as Philosopher-Kings, can be the ones to guide the people in the right direction to where society should ultimately be. Though the people often are not born with ability and/or have not trained long enough to attain the higher understanding the Philosopher-Kings have, the masses and society as a whole benefits from being led by leaders who have prepared to take on their positions as head of the republic by completing all the stages of training that will give...