Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Machiavelli The thirteenth through the eighteenth century brought profound changes in the political realm of Western civilization. Beginning with the Scientific Revolution and only advancing during the Renaissance, secularization and skepticism lead to changes in not only the intellectual life of Westerners, but also to their politics. At the forefront of the political debate were well-versed men such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. The influences of these men, though often criticized, can clearly be seen in the centuries and decades following their noted works. Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau shared many concepts, but the similarities between their theories end at the word politics. Each had different ideas. Rousseau's and Locke's ideas appear to be wishful thinking while Hobbes's ideas seem to be too cynical. Machiavelli's ideas seem practical for his day and for an authoritarian government, but definitely not for a democratic system such as ours. I believe that the most accurate view for a successful society lies somewhere in between Hobbes's cynicism and Locke's optimism. Regardless as to who is most accurate, it is obvious that Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all shaped modern political theories by their views. Machiavelli was a prominent figure during the early sixteenth century. His political view stemmed from observing the division of Italy into small city-state systems during the late fifteenth century. Invasions, corruption, and instable governments marked this time period. According to Machiavelli, the success of the city-states was dependent on the effectiveness of the autocrats who headed these states. Machiavelli, through observation, saw what was nec... ... middle of paper ... ...ry Academy [no date]. "Prophets of Modern Science". Available: *http://www.dean.usma.edu/sosc/AP/SS252/Links From Block I/Shaping Modern Mentality.htm* [Oct. 6, 2000] Bibliography: Weber, Eugen. Edited version of The Social Contract, by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The Western Tradition: Renaissance to the Present (Los Angeles: D.C. Heath and Company, 1995), 225. ---- Edited version of The Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes. The Western Tradition: Renaissance to the Present (Los Angeles: D.C. Heath and Company, 1995), 184. ---- Edited version of The Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes. The Western Tradition: Renaissance to the Present (Los Angeles: D.C. Heath and Company, 1995), 184. ---- Edited version of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli. The Western Tradition: Renaissance to the Present (Los Angeles: D.C. Heath and Company, 1995), 20.
First, Machiavelli’s method attempts to discard discussion of the “imaginary” political world and instead focuses on “real life” (Machiavelli 48). His end goal is to construct rubric for leaders to follow either to rule and unite (in this case Italy) in the Prince or create a powerful republic in the Discourses. His method is derived from comparing contemporary and historical events to illustrate and substantiate his argument. He is critical of how people interpret history (Machiavelli 83). He still believes that his ability to interpret and compare history is superior. Arguing that his methodological approach doesn’t just “chew” on history but actually “tastes” it (Machiavelli 83). Therefore we can understand that he justifies his method approach as not being akin to most because he possesses a much deeper understanding of history. Throughout his two books using ...
Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity, when a state is in need of its citizens, there are few to be found.” In his writings in The Prince, he constantly questioned the citizens’ loyalty and warned for the leaders to be wary in trusting citizens. His radical and distrusting thoughts on human nature were derived out of concern for Italy’s then unstable government. Machiavelli also had a s...
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both believe that men are equal in the state of nature, but their individual opinions about equality lead them to propose fundamentally different methods of proper civil governance. Locke argues that the correct form of civil government should be concerned with the common good of the people, and defend the citizenry’s rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. Hobbes argues that the proper form of civil government must have an overarching ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. I agree with Locke’s argument because it is necessary for a civil government to properly care for its citizens, which in turn prevents the state of war from occurring in society. Locke also has a better argument than Hobbes because Hobbes’ belief that it is necessary to have a supreme ruler in order to prevent the state of war in society is inherently flawed. This is because doing so would create a state of war in and of itself.
Minority right was not well discussed in the early liberalism works. However, it becomes more important when more states had a mix of people of different identities. This paper will first investigate how Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau’s goal to unify people harms the minority. Then, it will compare Burke’s conservatism with their liberalism, and show how Burke’s theory, by embracing the traditions, leaves room for the minority rights. Finally, this paper will discuss how Marx transforms the minority question into the political emancipation of minority, and extends it to the ultimate human emancipation. It will also evaluate the practicability of such ultimate goal.
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
Both Hobbes and Rousseau have different, even opposing, views on the topic of the natural state of man. These views play a major role in their beliefs and reasoning for why man needs society and government. These beliefs can be easily summarized with Hobbes believing in an inherent selfishness and competition in man, whereas Rousseau’s views on things are far more positive, believing that man is far happier in his natural state, and the root of his corruption is the result of his entrance into society. Rousseau’s theory is based on a state prior to the formation of society and any form of government. Thomas Hobbes, the founding father of political philosophy and who was in great opposition to the natural state of man, emphasizes that all people are selfish and evil; the lack of governmental structure is what results in a state of chaos, only to be resolved by an authority figure.
It was no secret that a cohort of feudal states was inherently unstable, thus the unification of Italy seemed like a very reasonable idea from Machiavelli’s perspective, even though he never saw unification come to fruition. Florence, had recently been acquired by Lorenzo de Medici with more potential acquisitions to come as Lorenzo develops his new order; therefore, chapter five is directly applicable to the current state of both Florence most all the states that are classified within the unified Italy. Machiavelli’s position within foreign relations for his home state of Florence, allowed him the knowledge to understand how the transition to a new order can be conducted. Machiavelli professes his knowledge of three methods by new orders in dealing with transition of orders in a newly acquired principality: ruin them, go live there personally, or let them live by their own laws like an oligarchical state (Machiavelli 20). Machiavelli goes on to elaborate on this phenomenon in republics specifically, which is directly applicable to most all the states that are classified within the unified Italy as they have a history of republican institutions: “The memory of their ancient liberty does not and cannot let them rest, so that the most secure path is to eliminate or live in them.
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes and Rousseau agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for a society’s protection and emphasizing the government’s definite responsibilities to its citizens.
After five hundred years, Niccolo Machiavelli the man has ceased to exist. In his place is merely an entity, one that is human, but also something that is far above one. The debate over his political ideologies and theories has elevated him to a mythical status summed up in one word: Machiavelli. His family name has evolved into an adjective in the English language in its various forms. Writers and pundit’s bandy about this new adjective in such ways as, “He is a Machiavelli,” “They are Machiavelli’s,” “This is suitable for a Machiavelli.” These phrases are almost always the words of a person that understands more about Niccolo’s reputation than the man himself. Forgotten is that Machiavelli is not an adequate example of the ruler he is credited with describing; a more accurate statement would be to call someone a “Borgia” or a “Valentino.” Most of the time they are grossly mistaken in their references. All these words accomplish is to add to the legend, and the misinterpretation, of the true nature of Niccolo Machiavelli.
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli will be discussed briefly in this paper, he was labeled as the Italian Renaissance political philosopher and contributed to Public Administration. During Niccolò Machiavelli’s upbringing, he was greatly involved in the works of political and historical problems. He was an important topic of discussion due to his contributions of “The Prince” and “The Discourses” which dicussed “how political power was grasped, used and kept”. His publications were created when he was subsequently impugned of conspiracy in 1513. Lorenzo de' Medici –a Florentine statesman, ruler and patron of arts and letters- fired Machiavelli who worked of the government as the office of Secretary.
From his dedication letter to the title of the first chapter, we are asked to believe that Machiavelli is concerned with how to rule and whether ethics has any place in such affairs. The bulk of The Prince, however, is focused on the acquisition of territory and finding ways to keep what has been acquired. Machiavelli, it seems, is less interested in classifying states or with the practice of government, which are all treated as prompts to the larger concern: the expansion of the Italian state and maintenance of their stronghold once it is established. Machiavelli looks to history and to his contemporaries for guidance; hoping that somewhere among wealth, fortune and talent there exists some strategy worth
Having written The Prince in 1532, it is easy to identify Machiavelli’s views on human nature as bleak and largely immoral. From this identification, one is able to relate his political advice to the modern day; however, doing so will only result in the realization that they are largely incompatible. In this essay, three of Machiavelli’s main points will be challenged according to modern day standards of politics, morality, and ethics. His sentiments regarding neutrality, public opinion, and presence, all of which are cornerstones of his philosophy, will be analyzed, ultimately revealing, with little exception, the way they do not apply to the modern standards of leadership. Machiavelli lived during a period of great moral deficiency.
The sections that I will be presenting are 73, 74, and 75. I will discuss the political ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli, Francesco Guicciardini, and Thomas Hobbes during the time of Florence Republic. First, Niccolo Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy in 1469 at a time when the country was in political upheaval. Italy was divided between four dominant city-states, by which each of them was always at the mercy of the continual changing of princes and governments.
Hobbes and Machiavelli both had revolutionary ideas about government and the essence of Man. Hobbes grew up in England, and had ideas concerning a freer type of government. His main work was ?Leviathan?. Machiavelli was raised in Italy, and had other ideas. Machiavelli focused on how a prince should act in governing his country. Machiavelli?s main work was entitled ?The Prince?. Ironically, neither Machiavelli nor Hobbes suggests a total democracy or a republic, like we use today. As much as Machiavelli and Hobbes are considered great philosophers, the modern government of the United States has proved to be the best.
During the time 1469, a child by the name of Niccolo Di Bernardo Del Machiavelli was born. Some may know him as an Italian philosopher, humanist, or an evil minded fellow associated with the corruptness of totalitarian government. In Machiavelli’s home state of Florence, he introduces the modern political theory. Hoping to gain influence with the ruling Medici family, Niccolo wrote a pamphlet called The Prince (Prezzolini). Niccolo lived a nondescript childhood and his main political experience in his youth was watching Savonarola from afar.