Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Lao tzus impact on government
Lao tzu's influence on american govt
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Lao tzus impact on government
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.
In my opinion, it is not completely appropriate to compare our government with the one that Lao-tzu suggests. When comparing two things together, the factors that affect the issue must stay equal. To illustrate, the fact that Lao-tzu wrote this book hundreds of years ago and his audience was people in his time, disobey the comparison between his ideas and ours. In addition, he was partly practicing a religion –Taoism which was popular at the time. However, his book is not only about a religion, but about moral behavior and a guide in which how to wisely rule as well. As a result, it would be reasonable to discuss what he would like about us and what ...
... middle of paper ...
... war. This can root back to the principle that he dissented against the wish for power. Lao-tzu advises that “[w]eapons are the tools of violence; all decent men detest them. Weapons are the tools of fear; a decent man will avoid them except in the direst necessity and, if compelled, will use them only with the utmost restraint.” (31) However, these days, governments tend to be keener in taking part in wars. Although we might claim that governments are trying to protect their country and their people, but it still contradicts with Lao-tzu’s ideals and might be seen as unnecessary in his view.
In conclusion, governments as we know right now, falls way behind what Lao-tzu seems to believe. The reason is because it disobeys his tendency in peace, contradicts the fact that he is against people’s unfinished desires power, and opposes his disapproval in materialism.
Almost any place that you live in, you will find that there is some sort of government set up there. A government is basically a form of system of rule, by which state, community, etc. is governed by. Although, most places do have a government set up, the type of government in which they have differ from each place. One of the most popular forms of government that is used often today would be democracy; this means that the government is ruled by the people. Monarchy is another one that you should be aware of because it is one of the oldest forms of government and it is still used today in some places. A monarchy government consists of the rule
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.
Lao-Tzu's political philosophy falls into more of an individualistic and carefree branch of politics, in which the way of governing is by not forcing issues. He believes that the ruler should not act powerful, and because of this, he will be respected. Lao-Tzu also believes that the best leader is one that is loved, not feared. Instead of holding power and forcing rules, Lao-Tzu wishes to teach simplicity, patience, and compassions. He views the latter as "the greatest treasures" and if one has the three qualities, one will be a better person.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.” (BAM, 2010, p.20) These words were first written down over 2,400 years ago by a Chinese general named Sun Tzu in his famous military strategy treatise known today as The Art of War. These words, in fact the entire book, are just as valid today as they were during Sun Tzu’s lifetime. He was one of the first truly visionary and ethical military leaders in the world. Despite the fact that there is not much known about Sun Tzu today other than his writings, in this essay, I intend to extract his essence from his treatise to prove he was a visionary leader. I will then continue to prove he was also an ethical leader. Finally, I will finish by detailing how his seminal work has inspired me to self-reflect on how I can be a better visionary and ethical leader in the 21st Century Air Force. So, what exactly is a ‘visionary’ leader?
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: I will ensure that the people know that I need them to sustain. I will be a leader who is full of humility, as “humility is the root from which greatness springs” (Tzu 59). I am dependent on the people whom I rule. I am sovereign to them. I am the worthless one. I will not take expensive vacations using the people’s money. I will not wear designer clothes at the people’s expense. I would rather take care of the people. I do not want to be an expensive leader at the expense of my people because “[it] is not wise to shine like a jade and resound like stone chimes” (Tzu 60).
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.
...eed to educate ourselves through ancient virtues and treat others the way we want to be treated. Laozi on the other hand did not disagree with this view however he thought that it was not the most important thing to focus on. It is best if we allow nature to decide the direction we want to take in life and our destiny. Overall the Daoists believed that Confucius and his philosophy was a danger to society even though he truly believed in everything he was teaching.
Confucianism is a religious philosophy formed by the Chinese philosopher Kung-fu-Tsu. This philosophy came out of need during the warring states period of Chinese history. K'ung-fu-Tsu was a teacher at the hundred schools. His prime concern was the improvement of society. Confucianism has no gods, and the only written history of this religion is in the Analects, a collection of his responses to his disciple's questions. K'ung-fu-Tsu believed that the improvement of society was the responsibility of the ruler and that the quality of government depended on the ruler's moral character. This new way meant concern for others and adherance to the golden rule. Confucianism has had a greater and longer lasting influence on China than that of any other religious philosophy.
What does it mean to be a leader? Leadership is a way in which a person can influences others to accomplish an objective. Leaders do this by applying their leadership qualities, such as beliefs, values, ethics, character, knowledge, and skill. Two really good leaders with their own way of thinking how a country should be ran. Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli both have the ability to run a good country. They have a lot of similarities but they also have a lot of differences that set them apart from each other. Our country needs someone who is loyal to the people and trusts them. A President is a leader and is someone who others will trust and rely on to make the right choices and decisions for his country. The American people should have a good relationship with the leader. I feel that Lao-Tzu would fit as a better President than Machiavelli because he puts his trust into the people and do what is best for them.
Confucius believes that you have to work to gain Tao in the human world (227). Confucius used Tao in a very structured way to bring order to society by shaping the way people lived their lives. Confucius believed that you needed to build on social relationship to build yourself and achieve Tao. According to Molloy, Confucius believe that Tao could be achieved through excellence and “excellence come partly form the cultivation of and individual’s virtues and intellect. Thus education is essential (230).”
Lao Tsu. The Tao Te Ching. Translated by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English. Vintage Books, 1989.
Dressed in the drab military uniform that symbolized the revolutionary government of Communist China, Mao Zedong's body still looked powerful, like an giant rock in a gushing river. An enormous red flag draped his coffin, like a red sail unfurled on a Chinese junk, illustrating the dualism of traditional China and the present Communist China that typified Mao. 1 A river of people flowed past while he lay in state during the second week of September 1976. Workers, peasants, soldiers and students, united in grief; brought together by Mao, the helmsman of modern China. 2 He had assembled a revolutionary government using traditional Chinese ideals of filial piety, harmony, and order. Mao's cult of personality, party purges, and political policies reflect Mao's esteem of these traditional Chinese ideals and history.
Confucianism believes that their congregation should have human conduct over the idea of God in their lives, whereas Taoism is formed on the belief that its congregation should create a relationship with nature. This is pointed out by Smith in Experiencing the World 's Religions, “Confucius represents the classical, Lao Tzu the romantic; Confucius stresses social responsibility, Lao Tzu praises spontaneity and naturalness; Confucius focus is on the human, Lao Tzu’s on what transcends the human” (Smith 218). Another difference is Confucianism is based off of respect of others and their superiors, and Confucians are to follow a code of conduct with social harmony as a goal. On the other hand, Taoism is based on the contemplation of life and followers are to seek balance in their lives through following the path or