Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Niccolo machiaveli's ideas
Political thought of niccolo machiavelli
Machiavelli philosophy to the contemporary world
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Niccolo machiaveli's ideas
What Does It Take to Be a Successful Leader? Leadership qualities demonstrate a vital role in the products of society. While governing over many individuals, it is necessary to manifest the required attributes and take precautions to lead a community as a whole to success. Lao-Tzu and Niccoló Machiavelli’s written works are prime examples on what it means to become a great leader, although they differ considerably in their views on the subject. The two historical figures offer distinct evidence on their approach to violence, their reputation, and the treatment of their subjects. Through opposing ideas and intake, Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli logically and carefully contemplate the appropriate means to maintain power. The subject where Lao-Tzu …show more content…
The philosopher foreshadows, “Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself” (verse 30, p. 26). Once war is provoked, the peace is broken because it is impossible for violence to end well. Also, while placing his faith in the fact that decent men should find a more cordial, harmonious path to resolving conflicts, Lao-Tzu trusts his instincts and his decision to be the right one. In the next verse, he discusses, “His enemies are not demons, but human beings like himself.” How could one possibly be content if their leader were to rejoice in news of battle, and of bloodshed? Lao-Tzu deplores having to enter war, but if he must, he does so with sorrow and compassion. Machiavelli, on the other hand, believes the ability of commanding and being apart of war is …show more content…
Lao-Tzu recognizes what possible actions will result in, and he confides in the people to make them feel apart of the government, rather than controlled by someone who should serve as example. By letting events transpire without attempting to sway them one way or another, a leader displays their understanding that “the universe is forever of control” (verse 30, p. 26) and the people feel more content in an unadministered world. Moreover, Lao-Tzu explains that in order to govern the people without manipulating them, it is best to let them find their own way without conveying superiority. However, Machiavelli disagrees, and through the enforcement of a cold leadership, a ruler is more inclined to keep his subjects and loyal. He believes that unpredictability will elude enemies and subjects from taking advantage of their leader, and he does so by deceiving the people and going back on his word. Machiavelli writes, “without that reputation he will never keep an army united or prepared for any combat” (46). But, Machiavelli is battle-hungry and prefers to be feared rather than loved. In order to indicate where a leader stands among their subjects, Lao-Tzu leads with an easy-going manner, while Machiavelli denotes vicious behavior—both prove to benefit the kingdom, but by producing
This compare and contrast essay will focus on the views of leadership between Mirandolla and Machiavelli. Mirandolla believes that leadership should not be false and that it should follow the rule of reason. He believes that leaders should strive for the heavens and beyond. On the other hand, Machiavelli believed that leadership comes to those who are crafty and forceful. He believed that leaders do not need to be merciful, humane, faithful or religious; they only need to pretend to have all these qualities. Despite both of them being philosophers, they have drastically different views on leadership, partially because of their views on religion are different. Mirandolla was very religious, and Machiavelli was a pragmatist, which means that he was not interested in religion.
Lao-Tzu believes in love and trust for the leader whereas Machiavelli strongly believes in fear from the leader. These views are almost complete opposites when paying attention to basics but the more you pay attention there are some similarities to be found, the main one being that they both believe that if the leader is hated then they government will struggle and possibly even fail. These views are almost complete opposites when paying attention to basics but the more you pay attention there are some similarities to be found, the main one being that they both believe that if the leader is hated then they government will struggle and possibly even fail. Another thing that you would be able to compare is that they both genuinely wanted what was best for their people under rule even though their views were complete opposites. Machiavelli said, “It is much safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking,” written in Machiavelli 's Ironic View of History by Salvatore. As far as their views contrast though, it was a very clear and direct that the way they looked at the government was nothing alike. You have one that believes that the only way to rule is to be loved then on the other had you have someone saying that the best kind of ruler is one that is feared, and that being loved isn 't relevant in this case. Lao-Tzu views this way of the government because he feels that if the people are on his side about things, than always fighting against him. Machiavelli though, is more intense on the idea of decision making and thinks that a ruler has to be ruthless no matter what the case, and is willing to make the best decision even if it isn 't the popular
Many empirical things can often still be debated and refuted by experts, but there is a general admittance to the idea that power is the root of many evil things. In all fairness, we must admit that a many evil things can in their essence, be great. And that is one of the many theories advanced by Niccolo Machiavelli in his well-known work, The Prince. The Prince serves a dual purpose of both teaching a person how to attain power, but also how to retain it. Incredibly enough, history has proven most of Machiavelli’s findings and theories to work well, while some have failed to effectively secure power for the rulers who did, in fact try them. His work, does obviously highlight one main fact, which is, that power is a well sought-after attribute, and most who attain are willing to do whatever is necessary to keep it.
Over the course of history, power in the hands of new leaders and how new leaders deal with power have been deeply analyzed topics; however, as Abraham Lincoln once said, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” In the idealistic novel A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur’s Court by Mark Twain, the nature of power and rule directly reflects many of the ideas presented in the philosophical and non-fiction novel The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli. These two writings intertwine authoritative concepts including new leaders taking up residence in the new state, defending the weak, rising to supremacy through fear, and never avoiding war to delay controversy.
author of Prince. They are both philosophers but have totally different perspective on how to be a good leader. While both philosopher’s writing is instructive. Lao-tzu’s advice issues from detached view of a universal ruler; Machiavelli’s advice is very personal perhaps demanding. Both philosophers’ idea will not work for today’s world, because that modern world is not as perfect as Lao-tzu described in Tao-te Ching, and not as chaotic as Machiavelli illustrated in Prince.
In comparing and contrasting the governmental philosophies of the great thinkers Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli, I have found a pleasant mix of both of their ideas would be the best for America today. Lao-Tzu’s laisse-faire attitude towards the economy, as well as his small scale military is appealing to my liberal side, while Machiavelli’s attitude towards miserliness which causes low taxes appeals to the right wing. These great thinkers contradict the popular saying “all great thinkers think alike.” They have several ideas, such as taxes, that are the same, while other ideas, like the involvement of government in citizens' everyday lives are totally opposite. I shall start with the ideas of Machiavelli, then move on to Lao-Tzu’s, and finally a comparison and application into American life.
Although similarities between Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu may be difficult to detect, their views are both very extreme. Machiavelli believes that the prince should have total control and do anything to gain power; however, Lao-Tzu desires a political system in which everything runs its own course.
Tao-te Ching (in English pronounced “dow deh jing”) is believed to be written by Lao-tzu (6th century B.C). However, it is not for certain that he wrote the book. Lao-tzu is translated as “Old Master”. He was born in the state of Ch’u in China. It’s been said that he worked in the court of the Chou dynasty. The day that he was leaving the court to start his own life, the keeper of the gate urged him to write his thoughts as a book. Lao-tzu’s work mostly illustrates Taoism –a religion founded by Chang Tao-ling A.D. 150. His main purpose in this piece is practicing peace, simplicity, naturalness, and humility. Lao-tzu believes that people are overloaded with temporal objects in this world. He recommends his readers to let go of everything and always keep the balance in anything. In my opinion, Lao-tzu would more likely dislike our government and the way that people live nowadays. The reason is because majority of the people are attached to secular things. To paraphrase the famous, people have materialistic characteristics in today’s world which is completely against Lao-tzu’s view.
Machiavelli strongly believes that a prince should be involved in the military and understand all military matters. A prince must always be concentrated on war. Whether his country is at war or not, he must always be prepared. He must continuously be training, mentally and physically, and know the terrain around him. Machiavelli believes that a prince who does not attain these military related qualities will fail as a leader. In addition, during times of war, a successful prince should always question all outcomes of possible battles and prepare himself for the future by studying past wars. Studying the
Although they share some similarities in ideology, these parallels are greatly overshadowed by the concepts in which Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli diverge. Their primary distinction lies within their view of human nature and it’s role in governing. Lao-Tzu maintains that if we promote a system of governing to the least possible extent, then human nature should manifest a favorable temperance and dictate the direction of society. In fact, Lao-Tzu asserts numerous attempts to illustrate his point that if leaders, “Stop Trying to control” (§ 57, 35), then there is no desire (§ 37, 24), he dwells in reality (§ 38, 29), and “the world will govern itself.” (§ 57, 35) Although this is an extremely optimistic and beneficial ideal, the main problem with Lao-Tzu’s entire philosophy is exactly that, it can only be viewed as a philosophy. Because it appears under the section entitled “Government,” I...
Lao-Tzu wants a good relationship with the people. A leader should be loved and not feared. Machiavelli thinks that it is best that the leader have fear over the people. Machiavelli says, “I reply that one should like to be both one and the other, but since it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared than loved when one of the two must be lacking.” (Machiavelli 44). If you rule in fear, people will not respect you nor will they like you. The people are just doing what the leader wants because they fear the consequences of not doing it. If I was in a relationship with my boyfriend, I would want to have a good relationship with him. If my boyfriend abuses me and threatens to hurt me if I ever leave him, of course I would listen to him and do what he says. I do not want to get hurt. I don’t want my boyfriend to physically abuse me or mentally abuses me in any way, so I would listen to him. He put that fear into my mind so I would do as he says. If someone told me if I left my boyfriend and they are sure that no harm will come my way, I would definitely leave him. I do not want to be around or associated with some who abuses me. I rather be with someone that I respect and have a good relationship with.
For all of Machiavelli’s ruthlessness and espousal of deceit, he knew the value of authenticity and relying on his administration. A true leader cannot achieve greatness alone. Machiavelli says that the prince is the state, and the state is the prince. This means that whatever vision and principles the leader holds in the highest regard, they must be known to the state so that they can be realized. He believed that no matter how a prince was elected, his success would depend largely on his ministers. Collaboration between a prince and ministers would create an atmosphere of harmony and camaraderie, highly reducing the chances of rebellion. Without the support and cooperation of the people, military action is not possible, expansion is not possible and most importantly, governance is not possible. If a leader does not satisfy the needs of the people, they have the power to overthrow him through strength in numbers. Thus, a leader depends just as much on the people as they do on him. A leader must be able to convince the people to buy into his visio...
Through his many years of experience with Italian politics Machiavelli wrote “The Prince”; a how-to guide for new rulers. We are given descriptions of what a leader should do to effectively lead his country. A leader should be the only authority determining every aspect of the state and put in effect a policy to serve his best interests. These interests are gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. Machiavelli’s idea is that a ruler should use a variety of strategies (virtues) to secure his power. Machiavelli lists five virtues that a ruler should appear to have; being compassionate, trustworthy, generous, honest and religious. A ruler should possess all the qualities considered good by other people.
My theme of this paper is government, which should function based on good intentions when serving for its people, and how it relates to leadership. I define leadership based on the governmental belief that people require an structured group of authority to protect their well-¬being. Throughout this essay, I will relate Eugene Delacroix’s painting, "Liberty Leading the People," to Lao-tzu's "Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching," Machiavelli's "The Qualities of the Prince," Marx's "Communist Manifesto," and Keynes’s "Social Consequences of Changes in Value of Money," to relate each writer's idea of government to my definition of leadership.
Notwithstanding the two philosophers’ different views on abstract concepts, Machiavelli’s virtù to fortuna is comparable to Plato’s Justice to Good. Each philosopher grants his ruler with a specific trait that deviates from the leader’s acquired knowledge of abstract concepts. Under their beliefs, the best ruler is the one who conforms to this virtuous trait--for Plato, Justice (Plato 519b-c), and for Machiavelli, virtù (Machiavelli, Prince 29). These traits then extend to a multitude of characteristics that define the careful instruction both philosophers laid out and that will allow the leader to directly change society into a worthy political