Aristotle Vs Machiavelli

225 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Importance of morals

Throughout history, a figure’s ideology towards human nature has had an ability to impact their view on other aspects of life. For example, one’s understanding of human nature has had a direct influence on their political formulas and their perspective on the way one should ideally lead their life. This idea is prevalent in the works of numerous renowned philosophers, such as Aristotle and Machiavelli. These philosophers utilized their outlook on human nature to further comment about the range of human potentials, morality’s role in acquiring a good life, and the values that control human affairs. However, even though both thinkers’ beliefs were influential in their own way, their doctrines had numerous differences between them. While Aristotle

Show More
Related

  • Machiavelli vs. Lao-Tzu

    284 Words  | 1 Pages

    Perhaps the most distinct differences between Machiavelli's and Lao-Tzu's are their beliefs in how a government should be run. Whereas Machiavelli writes about the qualities a prince should have while instilling a totalitarian government, Lao-Tzu strongly believes that one cannot have total control, so everything should run its course.

    Read More

  • Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince and Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar

    948 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Julius Caesar, Machiavellian traits are manifested through multiple characters. Those characters who obeyed Machiavelli’s guidance were successful in achieving their goals; those who did not conform to the recommendations failed. Machiavelli teaches tactics to achieve a goal, regardless whether or not these tactics are humane. On the other hand, religious books teach compassion and kindness. In short, one perspective is, to get ahead, people must drop all humane beliefs and focus solely on their aspirations.

    Read More

  • Comparing The Prince By Machiavelli And Utopia By Thomas More

    1377 Words  | 3 Pages

    It is difficult to determine Niccolo Machiavelli?s and Thomas More?s view on human?s nature. Each took a different approach to the topic. Through Utopia, Thomas More attempted to change man?s thinking by creating an ideological society. Niccolo Machiavelli, through The Prince, attempted to teach man how to deal with human nature. With this in mind, Machiavelli?s concept is much more realistic than More?s; therefore Machiavelli better represents human nature. Machiavelli?s view of human nature in The Prince, presents, on the surface, a view of governing a state drastically different for his time. Machaivelli believed that the ruling Prince should be the sole authority determining every aspect of the state and put into effect a policy which would serve his best interests. With this, Machiavelli uses the prince as man, and the state as the man?s life. These interests were gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. Though in some cases Machiavelli may seem harsh and immoral, one must remember that his views were derived from concern of Italy?s unstable political condition in the 1500s. Machiavelli seems to be teaching the common man how to live his life so that their life is good and prosperous. Machiavelli generally distrusted citizens, stating that ??since men are a sorry lot and will not keep their promises to you, you likewise need not keep yours to them? (Machiavelli 651). Furthermore, ? a prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promises? when, ?such an observance of faith would be to his disadvantage; and when the reasons which made him promise are removed? (651). Machiavelli did not feel that a Prince should mistreat the citizens. This suggestion once again to serve the Prince?s best interests. If a Prince can not be both feared and loved, Machiavelli suggests, it would be better for him to be feared by the citizens within his own dogma. He makes the generalization that men are, ?? ungrateful, fickle, simulators and deceivers, avoiders of danger, greedy for gain; and while you work for their good they are yours? (649). He characterizes men as being self-centered and not willing to act in the best interest of the state,? and when it (danger) comes nearer to you they turn away? (649). Machiavelli reinforces the Prince?s need to be feared by stating: ??men are less hesitant about harming someone who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared?

    Read More

  • Plato vs. Machiavelli

    1692 Words  | 4 Pages

    A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.

    Read More

  • Aristotle's versus Kant's Categories of the Temperate, the Continent, the Incontinent, the Vicious and the Bestial

    2179 Words  | 5 Pages

    Aristotle’s psychological types, as described in “Nichomachean Ethics,” are a categorization of different internal moral characters. These categories are a comprehensive attempt - for ancient philosophy - at identifying which internal psychologies manifest virtuous or morally bad behaviour. His moral categories are somewhat obsolete in a post-modern world, where science and politics are far more developed than in Ancient Greece. However, moral psychological ethics and normative debate still holds a relevant position in the moral undercurrent of society – it is dispersed through legal, political, military and medical activity, in relationships and familial function. It is for this reason, that Immanuel Kant examined a similar issue in “Pure Practical Reason and the Moral Law,” and that it still makes for interesting philosophical discussion.

    Read More

  • Comparing Machiavelli and Hobbes

    1482 Words  | 3 Pages

    To be successful, one must have the appearance of virtuousness, but not necessarily be virtuous. At least, this appears to be true according to Niccolo Machiavelli's works. Machiavelli's idea of the virtuous republican citizen may be compared to Hobbes' idea of a person who properly understands the nature and basis of sovereign political power. Hobbes' ideas seem to suggest that most anyone can claim rightful authority as there is a belief in God, and one can under Hobbes, claim legitimate authority rather easily. There are few proofs. Machiavelli, on the other hand, takes a strong position and suggests specific criteria in terms of power. With Machiavelli, there is a sense of righteousness and fairness and while he does not sanction authoritarian rule to save man from himself, it is also true that Machiavelli puts a lot of faith in leaders also. In some respects, one can see that the two theorists agree yet Machiavelli’s proposed Political society is more feasible thus superior to that of Hobbes.

    Read More

  • Plato vs. Aristotle

    350 Words  | 1 Pages

    Plato vs. Aristotle How do we explain the world around us? How can we get to the truth? Plato and Aristotle began the quest to find the answers thousands of years ago. Amazingly, all of philosophy since that time can be described as only a rehashing of the original argument between Plato and Aristotle. Plato and Aristotle's doctrines contrast in the concepts of reality, knowledge at birth, and the mechanism to find the truth.

    Read More

  • Human and Human Nature: Aristotle and Sartre

    2166 Words  | 5 Pages

    It is only natural for humans to question why we have been put on this wonderful earth of ours. What does it mean to be these lucky ones called humans? Do we really have a human nature that is all our own? Are there really living beings that kind find something within this world to call our life purpose? And if there are, how do may we achieve it? It is happiness or simple the drive to survive that propel us forward? These are just some of the types of questions that philosophers have been wrestling with for centuries. Some argue that human nature is very much a real thing and that it is essential to living a happy fulfilled life, while others reject that idea completely. However, despite the completely opposite stances that philosophers can take when it comes to human nature, it’s not uncommon to see some surprising similarities between those who support it, and those who do not. One of the biggest examples of this, would be in regards to the Aristotle and his books on Nicomachean Ethics and Sartre with his writing of Existentialism Is a Humanism. When it comes to these two philosophers in particular it would appear on the surface that they are nothing alike. Aristotle being quite the supporter of human nature and it’s ability to give humans fulfilling lives, and Sartre who rejects the human nature completely for the idea that we as humans are essentially just going through life and making choices. Having said this, I would now like to discuss the individual views and arguments that both men have in regards to their views on human nature, it’s relationship to purpose, free will, and politics, and show that within these both Aristotle and Sartre give us the ability to see, that maybe to a certain that we are in fact responsible fo...

    Read More

  • Influnce of Human Nature and Politics in a City

    1631 Words  | 4 Pages

    In Plato’s republic, a philosophical account on the kallipolis (the beautiful city) is built on the perspective of Socrates and his discussion between his companions. In the republic, the city in which ones live in depends on the soul and the character of the city one lives in. In this paper the character of human nature and politics will be discussed in how a city is ought to be by the influence of human nature and politics. Firstly, the influence of human nature on politics will be looked at, for example according to Plato on behalf of Socrates; he claims that a just soul creates a just society, where it is human nature to be just, that influences in creating a just political system. Secondly, politics influences human nature, where in the republic when the discussion of guardians starts out between Socrates and the companions, there is political thought discussed between them, where Socrates wants to create the perfect guardians through specific training in all types of skills instituted to creating a perfect protector. Lastly, human nature is human soul if the soul is just the city is going to be just. It is the human nature which has created communities without any political thought put in place; it political thought that forms rules and laws. Thus, human nature is part of the individual understanding of its society that creates an understanding of how one ought to be, which in turns creates rules and laws that is essentially viewed as politics.

    Read More

  • Theories Of Human Nature

    800 Words  | 2 Pages

    Throughout history there have been a variety of theories on human nature proposed by intellectuals from different time periods. A general idea of human nature is defined as the characteristics, emotions and behavioral traits shared by all humans. During the different time periods of each philosopher, human nature varied due to its involvement in politics. Political theories and morals derive from historical imprints and observations. The precise ways to rule or govern a constitution have been questioned and emphasized through many philosophers and theorists. It is history that indicates what a long-term, obligating government may need to prosper. In order to understand a theory particular to a specific time, one must look at the author’s history and society. For example, Machiavelli, Aristotle and Frederick Douglass each come from different time periods where the structure of society differ. Societies reflect the morals and ideals that are correlated to its generation and highlight the structure and nature of the people. Thus, when looking closely at political theories, one must first observe the author’s society and history. A particular theory may influence many governments and political organizations, whether because of its validity or its rejection, both play a part in structuring a society. Human nature within each society also played a role the desire for justice. For example, during the era of the Jim Crow laws there was a clash between the beliefs of those who opposed discrimination and segregation and those who supported the laws in society. Overall, human nature plays a key role in political theories from a variety of time periods.

    Read More

  • The Impact of Classical Literature on Machiavellianism

    905 Words  | 2 Pages

    In offering his own world view and knowledge to the Medici family, Machiavelli draws a considerable amount of his resources from classical figures and ideology. While Machiavelli is writing for a prince, whose goal would be to gain in territory, power, and control; his philosophy ties simply into less vital victories in the lives of common people. In this paper I will explain the points where he differs and conforms from/to the classical ideology in the generalized context of a leader. He uses these in one of two ways, by agreeing with and reinforcing them, or by refuting them. While Machiavelli keeps the need for a leader to have independence, seriousness, loyalty, and intellect; he rejects the necessity of generosity, mercy, and honesty, in favor of the outward appearance of these virtues.

    Read More

  • David Hume's Distinction Between Natural and Artificial Virtues

    1049 Words  | 3 Pages

    In David Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature, he divides the virtues of human beings into two types: natural and artificial. He argues that laws are artificial and a human invention. Therefore, he makes the point that justice is an artificial virtue instead of a natural virtue. He believed that human beings are moral by nature – they were born with some sense of morality and that in order to understand our “moral conceptions,” studying human psychology is the key (Moehler). In this paper, I will argue for Hume’s distinction between the natural and artificial virtues.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Plato And Machiavelli

    947 Words  | 2 Pages

    Likewise, Plato’s philosopher king also uses the same concept but calls it “Justice” or “Good.” Similarly, to Machiavelli, who needs his Prince to have virtù to lead the people, Plato necessitates that his king use philosophical knowledge and emphasize justice to guide the unenlightened masses towards a just and stable society as well. When Socrates discusses the allegory of the cave, he remarks how when rulers must descend “to the general underground abode” where the masses “reside,” the ruler “will see a thousand times better than [the inhabitants of the cave]…because [the ruler has] seen the truth about things admirable and just and good” (Plato 520c). Plato believes that by seeing beyond the cave, and understanding the situation he exists in, the leader will have the appropriate ability to bring foresight and intelligence when making difficult decisions. While Plato’s and Machiavelli’s means of educating, changing and legitimizing political communities differ, the two philosophers share the same goal of using the benevolent dictators’ attained knowledge to lead the masses and their governments to prosperity and good fortune.

    Read More

  • Machiavelli’s View of Human Nature

    590 Words  | 2 Pages

    Machiavelli’s philosophy about the nature of man is that man possesses both good and bad qualities, but will lean towards his own self-interests when all things are equal: thus man is a fickle creature. Machiavelli’s view of human nature influences his view of government.

    Read More

  • Political Science And Philosophy: The Nature Of Human Nature

    1664 Words  | 4 Pages

    From the beginning of ancient history the main question for political philosophy is how a human being exists in society, who should govern the society, how should the society be governed, who are the best rulers and how should they behave themselves, what is just and what is unjust, is better to be governed through just or not, how should the states be structured? These are main questions in political philosophy, that until today are strictly discussed. The major tasks of political philosophers are to analyze the nature of human being and to evaluate the ways in which an individual relates with society he lives in. The study of human nature is one of the most important aspects of political science and philosophy. In the process of creating a form of governance it is essential to understand the innate characteristics of human nature in order to avoid a bad government for all society and to achieve the ways how people should be governed most effectively. From the ancient time the roots of justification of political power were tied to sights of human nature.

    Read More

More about Aristotle Vs Machiavelli

Open Document