What do you think?
Rate this book
Socrates Meets
Socrates Meets Machiavelli: The Father of Philosophy Cross-Examines the Author of the Prince
There is no better way to understand our present world than by exploring the Great Books written by the great minds that have made it. There is no better way to study the beginning of modem political philosophy than by studying its foundations in Machiavelli's The Prince. There is no better way to study the Great Books than with the aid of Socrates, the philosopher par excellence. What if we could overhear a conversation in the afterlife between Socrates and Machiavelli, in which Machiavelli has to submit to an Oxford tutorial style examination of his book conducted by Socrates using his famous "Socratic method" of cross-examination? How might the conversation go? This imaginative thought-experiment makes for both drama and a good lesson in logic, in moral and political philosophy, in "how to read a book", and in the history of early modern thought. Thus this book is for readers looking for a thought-stretching "good read" and for use in college classes in logic, philosophy, ethics, po
- GenresPhilosophyPolitics
173 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2003
About the author
Peter Kreeft
191 books1,111 followersPeter Kreeft is an American philosopher and prolific author of over eighty books on Christian theology, philosophy, and apologetics. A convert from Protestantism to Catholicism, his journey was shaped by his study of Church history, Gothic architecture, and Thomistic thought. He earned his BA from Calvin College, an MA and PhD from Fordham University, and pursued further studies at Yale. Since 1965, he has taught philosophy at Boston College and also at The King’s College. Kreeft is known for formulating “Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God” with Ronald K. Tacelli, featured in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics. A strong advocate for unity among Christians, he emphasizes shared belief in Christ over denominational differences.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
July 13, 2017
Exceptional presentation of Machiavelli, his arguments, and the arguments against him. Funny in some parts too, especially when Machiavelli starts sulking. The refrencing of contemporary cultural icons by Socrates would, without fail, make me crack a smile. It was also interesting to read the historical facts that would invalidate Machiavelli's arguments.
If anything, I would only criticize the apparent excessive bias of Socrates and the ending.The original Socrates at least tries to sound unbiased (although I would agree he is not) but he manages to take down others by simply questioning them. In this book I can count more than one instance where Socrates makes a claim that is not the result of the questioning, although these claims are reasonable from my perspective. Stylistically this was only faintly off putting. It was also disappointing, since a win In the traditional Socratic manner would have been incredibly more impressive. Yet, it might be more off putting to those of non-Christian persuasion or of Machiavellian bent since usually the claims are from the perspective of a newly Christened Socrates. Also the ending was very abrupt. While I agree with Socrates, again I feel it was more like a powered take down of Machiavelli because the book just had to end somehow. Kreeft makes use of the ultimate reality that all will die and that God exists (which needs no discussion in the book since they are in purgatory) to unravel Machiavelli at the end. Which doesn't make sense since I thought we had established that Machiavelli though himself as an agnostic/atheist(even in purgatory). Socrates's words at the end shouldn't have had much impact. There were other minor contradictions within Machiavelli's words and what was brought up (for example he once agreed with Socrates that his principles could be used in businesses, and then he says that the principles weren't made to be used in businesses, but I digress)
The book was also slightly repetitive. While it would help people learn the topics more, it still became boring. Even Machiavelli seemed to take note of the lull and complained that Socrates "wasnt getting to the point fast enough" (Im paraphrasing).
However, it's still a useful read if you want to crack The Prince open.
If anything, I would only criticize the apparent excessive bias of Socrates and the ending.The original Socrates at least tries to sound unbiased (although I would agree he is not) but he manages to take down others by simply questioning them. In this book I can count more than one instance where Socrates makes a claim that is not the result of the questioning, although these claims are reasonable from my perspective. Stylistically this was only faintly off putting. It was also disappointing, since a win In the traditional Socratic manner would have been incredibly more impressive. Yet, it might be more off putting to those of non-Christian persuasion or of Machiavellian bent since usually the claims are from the perspective of a newly Christened Socrates. Also the ending was very abrupt. While I agree with Socrates, again I feel it was more like a powered take down of Machiavelli because the book just had to end somehow. Kreeft makes use of the ultimate reality that all will die and that God exists (which needs no discussion in the book since they are in purgatory) to unravel Machiavelli at the end. Which doesn't make sense since I thought we had established that Machiavelli though himself as an agnostic/atheist(even in purgatory). Socrates's words at the end shouldn't have had much impact. There were other minor contradictions within Machiavelli's words and what was brought up (for example he once agreed with Socrates that his principles could be used in businesses, and then he says that the principles weren't made to be used in businesses, but I digress)
The book was also slightly repetitive. While it would help people learn the topics more, it still became boring. Even Machiavelli seemed to take note of the lull and complained that Socrates "wasnt getting to the point fast enough" (Im paraphrasing).
However, it's still a useful read if you want to crack The Prince open.
December 25, 2025
Interesting fictionalized account of Socrates questioning Machiavelli’s work in The Prince. It’s a clever and easy-to-read dialogue the systematically works through Machiavelli’s main contribution to political philosophy.
Worth reading for someone who is interested in philosophical dialogue, but doesn’t have a significant background in it.
Worth reading for someone who is interested in philosophical dialogue, but doesn’t have a significant background in it.
July 1, 2012
Witty Peter Kreeft writes engaging and thought-provoking dialogue.
March 18, 2019
A wonderful cross-examination of Machiavelli's philosophy. Socrates looks through Machiavelli's The Prince and points out multiple logical contradictions. It was as entertaining as it was profound.
Just one nit-pick: the song was "She's Always a Woman", and it was by Billy Joel, not Mick Jagger.
Just one nit-pick: the song was "She's Always a Woman", and it was by Billy Joel, not Mick Jagger.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 20, 2008
Bang! That is the sound of one of the "Great" philosophers, who, continues to hold sway today, running into the wall of logic. Kreft really does dissect the essential tenets put forth by Niccolo.
January 19, 2015
Mind bender to get your gray matter into the setting and conversation. But once you do, it is a fun and interesting ride.
July 30, 2019
Apologia Contra Machiavelli
While I was browsing for an entirely different book The Anti-Machiavel, I happened to spy this intriguing little volume and after a brief look thought it might provide an interesting and light overview of Machiavelli's basic ideas. Indeed, the first 25 or so pages were humorous, bright and engaging and I was looking forward not only to the rest of the book but still others that the author had written. This humour resurfaces in chapter 11 where Kreeft quite mischievously has his characters reflect on whether or not they are real when Socrates casually remarks that they are also characters in (this) book. This may also be a reference to an episode in Star Trek TNG as Kreeft appears to be a fan per page 118 he has Machiavelli say “Damn it, Socrates, I'm a physician, not a metaphysician.” There is also a brilliant pun (pp116) where Machiavelli, quips “I make no assumptions.... one of the many ways you can distinguish me from the Virgin Mary”, though one should probably be Catholic or Eastern Orthodox to appreciate the reference to Mary's ascent to heaven without actually dying.
It's a dialogue held in Purgatory geared to an introductory course in political philosophy. Socrates explains that their purpose is to examine the Machiavelli's writings, impact and their truth on their own terms. As a presentation of Machiavelli's positions I found it reasonably thorough, and there was great potential as portraying M. as a pragmatic rationalist interested in politics as a science, subject to testability. Before Machiavelli, politics was a branch of ethics. With him it became “the art of the possible”. (pp110) Kreeft does admirably in contrasting Socrates' deductive approach based on ideals with Machiavelli's inductive reasoning from observation, attempting to turn politics into a science. His explanation of Machiavelli's dichotomy of fortuna (chance) and virtu (the exercise of power thru choice) emerges as significant to Machiavelli's thought. As a useful tool, Kreeft as Socrates remarks that whenever Socrates delves into politics, it is really Plato who is speaking as Socrates claims that he “never ventured into politics, as Plato did, the god forbade it”. (pp48) It's also clear that Machiavelli is writing solely for the Prince, not giving his advice to the citizens of a democracy, who could take it as a warning. In political terms, in a nation of sheep,with only a few bad actors, it is to one's advantage to behave as a wolf or at least a fox Writ large, as Socrates suggests, if everyone acts behaves like this, such a nation ceases to be habitable. (See The Evolution of Cooperation: Revised Edition)
What bothered me was that Kreeft's Socrates appeared inauthentic, another reviewer noted - he was that opposite of what he expected. His arguments were that of the Catholic Church rather than those of a 5th century pre-Christian Greek. For example, on page 28 Socrates warns Machiavelli not to digress by asking “What is truth?” as someone else's use of this question led to the “setback to his (Pilate's) reputation for all time.” In chapter 5 “Machiavelli's Philosophy of Man” M is quoted: “Moses, Cyrus, Thesus and Romulus would not have been able to make their peoples obey ... if they had been unarmed”. Socrates responds that Moses had no arms, and neither did Jesus “who made a difference to more lives” than anyone (Buddha, Marx and Lennon might disagree), having Machiavelli concede an argument he should have won by replying that Moses' effective army was the hand of God, and that it took Constantine's sword and the power of Rome to win the battle for Christ. On page 93 Socrates argues from a Christian POV “love is dependent on virtu, not fortuna, for love is always in your power.“ Definitely Jesus, not Socrates. And on page 119 Socrates takes Machiavelli to task for opposing generosity, which Kreeft could have limited to his use of Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle) and not extending it to the Gospel. Chapter 15 is practically a Church sermon. At midpoint I noticed that the publisher was the Ignatius Press, founded by Father Joseph Fessio in 1978 to promote Catholic theological ideology, which explains that the orientation was intentional.
Overall I felt that Kreeft was unfair to Nicollo, sandbagging him with details that occurred after his death, allowing him to inadvertently praise Hitler, Mussolini, Fascism and Totalitarianism. Make no mistake, I don't favour a Machiavellian approach, but Kreeft could have let him win at least a few exchanges with stronger arguments. It would have made a better book.
While I was browsing for an entirely different book The Anti-Machiavel, I happened to spy this intriguing little volume and after a brief look thought it might provide an interesting and light overview of Machiavelli's basic ideas. Indeed, the first 25 or so pages were humorous, bright and engaging and I was looking forward not only to the rest of the book but still others that the author had written. This humour resurfaces in chapter 11 where Kreeft quite mischievously has his characters reflect on whether or not they are real when Socrates casually remarks that they are also characters in (this) book. This may also be a reference to an episode in Star Trek TNG as Kreeft appears to be a fan per page 118 he has Machiavelli say “Damn it, Socrates, I'm a physician, not a metaphysician.” There is also a brilliant pun (pp116) where Machiavelli, quips “I make no assumptions.... one of the many ways you can distinguish me from the Virgin Mary”, though one should probably be Catholic or Eastern Orthodox to appreciate the reference to Mary's ascent to heaven without actually dying.
It's a dialogue held in Purgatory geared to an introductory course in political philosophy. Socrates explains that their purpose is to examine the Machiavelli's writings, impact and their truth on their own terms. As a presentation of Machiavelli's positions I found it reasonably thorough, and there was great potential as portraying M. as a pragmatic rationalist interested in politics as a science, subject to testability. Before Machiavelli, politics was a branch of ethics. With him it became “the art of the possible”. (pp110) Kreeft does admirably in contrasting Socrates' deductive approach based on ideals with Machiavelli's inductive reasoning from observation, attempting to turn politics into a science. His explanation of Machiavelli's dichotomy of fortuna (chance) and virtu (the exercise of power thru choice) emerges as significant to Machiavelli's thought. As a useful tool, Kreeft as Socrates remarks that whenever Socrates delves into politics, it is really Plato who is speaking as Socrates claims that he “never ventured into politics, as Plato did, the god forbade it”. (pp48) It's also clear that Machiavelli is writing solely for the Prince, not giving his advice to the citizens of a democracy, who could take it as a warning. In political terms, in a nation of sheep,with only a few bad actors, it is to one's advantage to behave as a wolf or at least a fox Writ large, as Socrates suggests, if everyone acts behaves like this, such a nation ceases to be habitable. (See The Evolution of Cooperation: Revised Edition)
What bothered me was that Kreeft's Socrates appeared inauthentic, another reviewer noted - he was that opposite of what he expected. His arguments were that of the Catholic Church rather than those of a 5th century pre-Christian Greek. For example, on page 28 Socrates warns Machiavelli not to digress by asking “What is truth?” as someone else's use of this question led to the “setback to his (Pilate's) reputation for all time.” In chapter 5 “Machiavelli's Philosophy of Man” M is quoted: “Moses, Cyrus, Thesus and Romulus would not have been able to make their peoples obey ... if they had been unarmed”. Socrates responds that Moses had no arms, and neither did Jesus “who made a difference to more lives” than anyone (Buddha, Marx and Lennon might disagree), having Machiavelli concede an argument he should have won by replying that Moses' effective army was the hand of God, and that it took Constantine's sword and the power of Rome to win the battle for Christ. On page 93 Socrates argues from a Christian POV “love is dependent on virtu, not fortuna, for love is always in your power.“ Definitely Jesus, not Socrates. And on page 119 Socrates takes Machiavelli to task for opposing generosity, which Kreeft could have limited to his use of Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle) and not extending it to the Gospel. Chapter 15 is practically a Church sermon. At midpoint I noticed that the publisher was the Ignatius Press, founded by Father Joseph Fessio in 1978 to promote Catholic theological ideology, which explains that the orientation was intentional.
Overall I felt that Kreeft was unfair to Nicollo, sandbagging him with details that occurred after his death, allowing him to inadvertently praise Hitler, Mussolini, Fascism and Totalitarianism. Make no mistake, I don't favour a Machiavellian approach, but Kreeft could have let him win at least a few exchanges with stronger arguments. It would have made a better book.
November 6, 2022
This installment of the Socrates meets great thinker series is on Machiavelli and, particularly, "The Prince". Kreeft illustrates well the methodological contrast between Socratic moral deductive philosophy and Machiavelli 's practical philosophy. Machiavelli stated to Socrates in the beginning of having no intention to educate any idealistic moral philosophy but only to offer practical principles of guidance to someone, Lorenzo di Medici, to be the prince for ruling successfully over his dominion. Plato's Republic was written as a philosophical work for the common good in an idealist society while The Prince was a practical guide in strategy for a particular person at a point in history. Kreeft also shows the opposition between Socrates as an idealist and Machiavelli insistence as a realist who derived his principles from history, and not deriving principles from abstract as in Plato. The whole book is a sparring session between the two very different approaches.
In The Prince, the First Principle to learn to be a successful ruler is to maximise his own virtu, I.e. power and ability, and minimise fortuna, I.e., circumstances in the world not under your control. Machiavelli also claims he was doing an anthropology, and not philosophy. An assumption he uses is that man is inherently, and morally evil, and untrustworthy. So, the safe way to govern over man is by virtu or power. History shows successful leaders all had power. Socrates rejoinder is that he neglected leaders who led peacefully by sound philosophies with no might such as Buddha, Confucius, Moses and other humanitarians. Machiavelli's anthropology needs to account for them in order to be factual or historical as claimed. This oversight also bears in Machiavelli's relation between arms and laws which he thought arms is a necessary and sufficient condition for good laws. But history shows good laws have been established without military might and strong military states don't necessarily have to govern by good laws. So Socrates shows Machiavelli's arm and law principle is a non sequitur .
Another interesting discussion is on Machiavelli's principle to govern by fear is better than by love because love depends on others willingness to love, which is fortuna, while fear is directed by the ruler's power. Socrates suggested behavioural scientists have shown love of rewards is more effective to modify behaviour than fear of punishment. So there is an inductive argument from love better than ironically Machiavelli's deductive argument from fear. So it seems the two swapped approaches to address the issue. Socrates also alerted it seems self-defeating for him to publish a book on strategy to rule over people given man's nature which can use it against the ruler.
The whole book consists in the two sparring against each other in different issues laced with anecdotes. The arguments are lucidly executed but the dialogues are less playful than some of the other ones in the series such as the one on Freud and Marx. The book still serves as a useful tool to teach the material in The Prince.
In The Prince, the First Principle to learn to be a successful ruler is to maximise his own virtu, I.e. power and ability, and minimise fortuna, I.e., circumstances in the world not under your control. Machiavelli also claims he was doing an anthropology, and not philosophy. An assumption he uses is that man is inherently, and morally evil, and untrustworthy. So, the safe way to govern over man is by virtu or power. History shows successful leaders all had power. Socrates rejoinder is that he neglected leaders who led peacefully by sound philosophies with no might such as Buddha, Confucius, Moses and other humanitarians. Machiavelli's anthropology needs to account for them in order to be factual or historical as claimed. This oversight also bears in Machiavelli's relation between arms and laws which he thought arms is a necessary and sufficient condition for good laws. But history shows good laws have been established without military might and strong military states don't necessarily have to govern by good laws. So Socrates shows Machiavelli's arm and law principle is a non sequitur .
Another interesting discussion is on Machiavelli's principle to govern by fear is better than by love because love depends on others willingness to love, which is fortuna, while fear is directed by the ruler's power. Socrates suggested behavioural scientists have shown love of rewards is more effective to modify behaviour than fear of punishment. So there is an inductive argument from love better than ironically Machiavelli's deductive argument from fear. So it seems the two swapped approaches to address the issue. Socrates also alerted it seems self-defeating for him to publish a book on strategy to rule over people given man's nature which can use it against the ruler.
The whole book consists in the two sparring against each other in different issues laced with anecdotes. The arguments are lucidly executed but the dialogues are less playful than some of the other ones in the series such as the one on Freud and Marx. The book still serves as a useful tool to teach the material in The Prince.
August 24, 2020
An interesting concept and had several interesting chapters, but it also has some issues. This book is a supplemental philosophy text for college students but is also intended for those looking for enrichment, and thus is written for a broad audience with a basic knowledge of Socrates and Machiavelli (at least need to know who they are and why they're important). I think it succeeds as a college supplemental text but it is hard to see its appeal beyond that, due to a few issues.
Two strange features standout: Socrates talks like he is a Christian, and he has knowledge of all world events up to the modern day. Both of these undermine it as a conventional philosophical dialogue like those written by Plato. In contrast, Machiavelli is written to fit who he was historically, with his knowledge limited to his life experience. Given that the dialogue or inquiry is taking place in purgatory, Machiavelli is put at a serious disadvantage. Socrates has home court advantage to the point Machiavelli is at times fearful of saying anything blasphemous.
Had the dialogue taken place in Machiavelli's time with the ghost of Socrates, he would not be as reluctant to argue his case for fear of drawing God's anger. Some have speculated why the author, a devout Catholic, chose to build it this way, and I have to agree that the Christian God definitely is intentionally represented in the discussion.
This was not a discussion between a Pre-Christian Greek philosopher and an Italian sinner (and possibly atheist). This discussion is between a Christian and a critic of Christian morality.
I also don't understand why Socrates is given all knowledge all the way up to the Rolling Stones and Hitler, yet Machiavelli is limited to his 16th century life. He actively uses these historical examples to strike at Machiavelli's work, The Prince, who has no way of disputing or pushing back simply because he doesn't know what Socrates is talking about. Why put your thumb on the scales like that? Unless, you wanted the Christian philosopher to win (and Socrates sounds like a Christian here).
The long intro of Socrates talking about what they are going to talk about instead of getting into the inquiry itself was annoying, although not that serious. The breaking of the fourth wall, and attempt to be meta is amusing, although I could've done without it.
Significant parts of the dialogue are fascinating, particularly those where Socrates is not invoking modern examples, and it really had some strong insights. These are strong points and make it useful as college-level supplemental text. It isn't appealing beyond that. The issues described above, plus the numerous typos, make it ineffective as book for general audience looking for enrichment.
Two strange features standout: Socrates talks like he is a Christian, and he has knowledge of all world events up to the modern day. Both of these undermine it as a conventional philosophical dialogue like those written by Plato. In contrast, Machiavelli is written to fit who he was historically, with his knowledge limited to his life experience. Given that the dialogue or inquiry is taking place in purgatory, Machiavelli is put at a serious disadvantage. Socrates has home court advantage to the point Machiavelli is at times fearful of saying anything blasphemous.
Had the dialogue taken place in Machiavelli's time with the ghost of Socrates, he would not be as reluctant to argue his case for fear of drawing God's anger. Some have speculated why the author, a devout Catholic, chose to build it this way, and I have to agree that the Christian God definitely is intentionally represented in the discussion.
This was not a discussion between a Pre-Christian Greek philosopher and an Italian sinner (and possibly atheist). This discussion is between a Christian and a critic of Christian morality.
I also don't understand why Socrates is given all knowledge all the way up to the Rolling Stones and Hitler, yet Machiavelli is limited to his 16th century life. He actively uses these historical examples to strike at Machiavelli's work, The Prince, who has no way of disputing or pushing back simply because he doesn't know what Socrates is talking about. Why put your thumb on the scales like that? Unless, you wanted the Christian philosopher to win (and Socrates sounds like a Christian here).
The long intro of Socrates talking about what they are going to talk about instead of getting into the inquiry itself was annoying, although not that serious. The breaking of the fourth wall, and attempt to be meta is amusing, although I could've done without it.
Significant parts of the dialogue are fascinating, particularly those where Socrates is not invoking modern examples, and it really had some strong insights. These are strong points and make it useful as college-level supplemental text. It isn't appealing beyond that. The issues described above, plus the numerous typos, make it ineffective as book for general audience looking for enrichment.
May 31, 2025
Nice review of The Prince. Kreeft does a great job breaking up the logic, the implications, and some of the shortcomings. I just read this after reading The Prince. It’s a good companion and easy enough to get through. Kreeft’s humor is a little cringe sometimes though.
March 9, 2026
Mar 2026. Spring Break treat. Probably should read THE PRINCE first.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews