Lao-Tzu Vs Machiavelli

1166 Words3 Pages

Intro: Power is the only real thing people look for in life. The problem with power though, is keeping it. Two very different, yet alike texts help with this little problem of decline. In Machiavelli’s text, “The Prince” he explains exactly how to keep his power in check, he veers more toward the side of fear and war, unlike his comrade Loa-tzu who wrote on the same subject. He writes more about letting the people of the country have more freedom. Letting them do as nature intends. They both have rules and regulations, but are both diverse opinions. In a text from Paediatric Nursing, where it talks about controlling and having power of young children, it states, “position and expert power. If a person is going to use rules and procedures, they …show more content…

In “Tao-te Ching” by Lao-tzu he believes that the government should leave the people alone. The people will work things out by themselves. He also believed in not doing too much for them, as he says in his literary work, “The Ancient Masters didn’t try to educate the people, but kindly taught them to not-know,” (pg 27 ¶ 50). In Machiavelli’s work, “The Prince” he believes that the government, or the Prince, should always be concerned with battle, and that it was a big role in the government. The government, in Machiavelli’s view, should try to control their subjects. He plays with the idea of being feared rather than being loved. Being fears is much better in his opinion. If the ruler or the government is loved, then there are a lot of obligations in line with that. If they people fear the government, then the subjects will fear the consequences of not following. However, they both agree on the subject of improvement. Machiavelli and Loa-tzu believe that if the people aren’t prosperous, the government has failed. In an article found in The Washington Post it tells of how the government should do its best for the sake of the people. In it, it says, “We will keep moving forth in order to do what we do best,” (Washington). In other words, the government should try to help the people to move

Show More
Related

  • Comparing and Contrasting Mirandolla and Machiavelli

    610 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Summary Of Lao Tzu And Machiavelli's Views On Government

    1369 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • 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

  • Machiavelli and Rousseau's Views on Human Nature and Government

    558 Words  | 2 Pages

    Machiavelli and Rousseau, both significant philosophers, had distinctive views on human nature and the relationship between the government and the governed. Their ideas were radical at the time and remain influential in government today. Their views on human nature and government had some common points and some ideas that differed.

    Read More

  • The Tao-te Ching by Lao-Tzu and The Prince by Machiavelli

    1754 Words  | 4 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Relationship In The Prince By Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince

    1213 Words  | 3 Pages

    In his work The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli explores the complex relationship between a ruler and his people, but ultimately comes to the conclusion that the people, because they are crucial to the well being of the country, are to be manipulated in order for a country to thrive. In order to manipulate effectively one must keep the people oppressed, but not to the point of inspiring hate, and only when that balance is achieved is when a ruler can successfully manipulate their people.

    Read More

  • Eva Luna and A Doll's House: The Nature Of Power

    1521 Words  | 4 Pages

    Rolf Carle’s father in Eva Luna parallels this nature of power. Lucas Carle has total control over his wife and children, to the point where he treats his wife more like a prostitute, and his children hide from him when he comes home because they fear a beating from him. It is this fear of being punished if one does not obey that gives Lucas Carle his power, and as in the case of the General, if the only reason to give in to someone’s power is fear of the consequences if one doesn’t, then this power gains no respect from those it affects.

    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

  • Compare And Contrast John Locke And Machiavelli

    1447 Words  | 3 Pages

    Machiavelli believed that, ethics and morality were considered in other categories than those generally known. He does not deny the existence of, but did not see how they can be useful in its traditional sense as in politics and in the government of the people. According to Machiavelli, a man is by nature a political angry and fearful. Machiavelli had no high opinion of the people. It is assumed that a person is forced to be good and can get into the number of positive features, such as prudence and courage. The prince can only proceed gently and with love, because that would undermine the naivety of his rule, and hence and the well-being of the state. He thought that, the Lord must act morally as far as possible, immorally to the extent to

    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

  • Machiavelli VS Robert Greene

    1258 Words  | 3 Pages

    What would you do if you discovered a secret that can make your life better? Not just any ordinary secret, but a special one that would tell you how to gain power/ control over others and maintain it. Would you share it with others? Well that’s what writers have been sharing for centuries; yet many of us are still unaware. The very concept of Power is extremely important especially since we the people can give it to others but never ourselves. Well two contemporary authors in regards with the subject of power are Niccolo Machiavelli, and Robert Greene. Although generations apart, both are very influential writers that have had an ever lasting impact on human history through their works. Machiavelli with his the Prince, and Greene with the 48 Laws of Power. Although Robert Greene as an author surfaced quite recently in 1998; however, the amount of notoriety he carries has quickly earned him a spot on the list of influential authors. Though both books are subjected towards attaining and maintain power; however, they differ highly in its targeted audiences, and the manifestation of major themes. Such as Machiavelli, in The Prince mainly addresses the methods of achieving power in the political world by highly favoring rationality while disregarding moral ethical values. Thus exemplifying the famous phrase of “the end justifying the means”. Whereas Greene, on the other hand also addresses similar issue; however, he does it in a way that exposes the inner workings of the power struggles taken place in everyday situations. Overall, I believe that upon reflecting on the works of Robert Greene, and Niccolo Machiavelli one can clearly trace back resemblances and distinctions with each other. However, I’m consider that the reasoning behind ...

    Read More

  • Reaction to Machiavelli's The Prince

    910 Words  | 2 Pages

    Machiavelli argues in chapter 5 that the key to taking over a free state is initially to destroy it. By destroying the city, Machiavelli believes that the citizens will have no choice but to follow the direction of the new prince. He goes deeper to say that if a prince who occupies these cities does not destroy it, he risk the probable outcome of a rebellion. This rebellion is brought fourth by the tradition held by the citizens and the memories of the former way of government. The second step is to live there in person to establish loyalty and the third step is letting the people live by its own laws, but establish a small government who is loyal to you to keep it friendly. Chapter 6 gives us some insight on what Machiavelli feels leadership is. Leaders, he explains, are followers too in many ways. All leaders are imitating great rulers in history. A leader who really wants to achieve glory, does so by his own prowess, meaning by his own talent. Anyone can inherit a kingdom, but not anyone can rule it with natural leadership. This kind of leadership is what makes great leaders in history such as Moses or Cyrus. Chapter 7 explains that a leader should not try to buy his subjects. If a prince buys his subjects they will only temporarily be loyal. A prince needs to eliminate his enemies and do so all at once. Even if a prince does not succeed in ruling by his own prowess in his lifetime, he is still setting a good foundation for future princes which is just as important. Chapter 8 explains the level of evil that should be done in order to rise to power. He gives us clear insight of the pros and cons of obtaining power by evil means and how to use evil in ways of benefit. Machiavelli was a man of manipulation.

    Read More

  • Erasmus Vs Machiavelli

    876 Words  | 2 Pages

    In The Prince, Machiavelli separates ethics from politics. His approach to politics, as outlined in The Prince, is strictly practical. Machiavelli is less concerned with what is right and just, and instead with what will lead to the fortification of the government and the sustainment of power. Machiavelli believed that a ruler should use any means necessary to obtain and sustain power. He says, “…people judge by outcome. So if a ruler wins wars and holds onto power, the means he has employed will always be judged honorable, and everyone will praise them” (Machiavelli, 55). According to Machiavelli, the ends of an action justify the means (Machiavelli, 55). His motivation for these views in The Prince was the reunification of the Italian city-states (Machiavelli, 78-79). Machiavelli wanted Italy to return to its glory of the Roman Empire (Machiavelli 78-79). Some of the beliefs of Machiavelli could be perceived as evil and cruel, but he found them necessary. Machiavelli was not concerned with making people happy. His purpose was outcome and success, and in his opinion, the only way to be successful was to be realistic. These views of Machiavelli could classify him as one of the earliest modern

    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

  • Comparing Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli

    2258 Words  | 5 Pages

    ...be loyal subjects, bowing before the state. They should love the state more than their very souls, and serve it to their dying days. In Machiavelli?s model, the people were there to carry out the wishes of the state, and to try not to injure themselves in the process. People are also important to make up the military, which is the ultimate strength of the state.

    Read More

More about Lao-Tzu Vs Machiavelli

Open Document