Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparing and contrasting gilgamesh
Essays on personal leadership philosophy
Leadership philosophies thesis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Machiavelli wrote one of the most influential treatises on leadership that is still utilized in politics and management today. One of the defining conceptions he explores is locating a balance between being virtuous and righteous and practicing carefully selected deceit and cunning. Gilgamesh’s exhibition of leadership is much more primordial and archetypal, yet does more to highlight the inherent tragedy and emotional trauma present in such high-stakes situations. Ultimately, the differences in leadership between the two is a product of radically different eras, in which the notions of power and the state were at opposite ends of a spectrum, as were the structures that organize people.
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...
... middle of paper ...
... and assume the role of a normal and, therefore, effective ruler. This is achieved upon Gilgamesh's recognition that Utnapishtim is no more than a normal man, who received immortality not because of his heroic acts, but because he was obedient to the command of his god: “Said Gilgamesh to him, to Uta-napishti the Distant: “I look at you, Uta-napishti: your form is no different, you are just like me, you are not any different, you are just like me” (89).
At first Machiavelli would consider Gilgamesh a subpar leader because he lacks the sophistication, intelligence, and empathy, to rid himself of the quest for personal glory in favor of a more communal responsibility. This is the key to his growth. Once he abandons his quest for immortality, he becomes grounded in reality and ascends to the role of a leader that can actually have a positive influence on his people.
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.
Niccolo Machiavelli believes in a strong government. The leader should be strong and feared. I believe he gets this idea from the fear of God; no one is supposed to question God because he is so feared, and in the same sense, no one should question a strong leader. Machiavelli realizes that the leader should be feared, but not hated. A hated leader will probably be killed in a rebellion. One also can not be loved. Any compassion towards your citizens will make them believe you are weak, and they will rebel. He thinks a very strong military is necessary at all times, and that powerful arms should be available and in hand. This idea is similar to that of right wing America and our friends, the National Rifle Association, who believe assault rifles are America’s pastime. The nation should always be prepared for war, and should always be searching for new lands to conquer. T...
Niccolò Machiavelli was a man who lived during the fourteen and fifteen hundreds in Florence, Italy, and spent part of his life imprisoned after the Medici princes returned to power. He believed that he should express his feelings on how a prince should be through writing and became the author of “The Qualities of a Prince.” In his essay, he discusses many points on how a prince should act based on military matters, reputation, giving back to the people, punishment, and keeping promises. When writing his essay, he follows his points with examples to back up his beliefs. In summary, Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince,” provides us with what actions and behaviors that a prince should have in order to maintain power and respect.
Gilgamesh is the king of Uruk, one who is macho, irresponsible, and simply not fit to be in the position that his blood status has put him in. His decisions are constantly making the people of Uruk
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.
While Gilgamesh was a hero thought to be more beautiful, more courageous, more terrifying than all of the people of Uruk. Even though his desires, attributes, and accomplishments were just as there’s, he was still mortal.
Machiavelli judges Gilgamesh as a prince based on his behavior, qualities, and characteristics that Machiavelli describes in The Prince and the behaviors of Gilgamesh in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Gilgamesh, feeling the fear of his own mortality, sets out on a journey to search for a way to preserve himself. Although the journey that he endures is much larger than life, Gilgamesh comes to realize that he can never achieve immortality. Before the creation of Enkidu, Gilgamesh is a man without an equal match. He is an individual with overwhelming power, and it is because of this that makes Gilgamesh a very arrogant person.
Some of Gilgamesh’s qualities are that he had a “beauty… surpassing all others” and was “two thirds… god and one third man” (13). Before Enkidu, Gilgamesh acted horribly. He was a terrible ruler and a terrible man. Gilgamesh was not all good, for example, “his lust leaves no virgin to her lover, neither the warrior’s daughter nor the wife of the noble…” (13). He was a terrible ruler. Gilgamesh was arrogant, but very powerful in his country. His people had no choice but to listen to him. They were forced to go along with his unlawfulness and stubbornness.
Gilgamesh the king is a myth beholding various heroic traits shared in multiple other stories and myths for that fact. Towards the beginning of Gilgamesh’s myth, he chooses to conquer the beast of the jungle, Humbaba, and sets himself the goal to do so. Heroes must have a goal or else there is nothing for that hero to accomplish, and create a story of. However, once Gilgamesh accomplished his goal of defeating the terrifying Humbaba, he experiences a greater loss than the hero ever imagined possible, the loss of his best friend Enkidu. Although, once Gilgamesh realized what he had done was certainly the wrong choice of action, he devoted all of his time and effort into reviving his friend. On his journey for the search of eternal life, hero Gilgamesh essentially “descends into darkness” both mentally and literally while he enters the underworld to obtain his desire. Here Gilgamesh realizes that what he did was selfish and wrong, and that he is also not the only person who is of value in his life. Subsequent to Enkidu’s death, Gilgamesh becomes aware that his decision to murder Humbaba was once again wrong and resulted in his own depression and loss. Throughout the duration of a myth, the hero mu...
Throughout time, people of all cultures have told stories of heroes and kings. The most ancient story we have on record is the tale of King Gilgamesh. This story is an account of the King's journeys and accomplishments. Although it was written over four thousand years ago, many comparisons can be made between the society in which the story was written and our own modern society. In this essay, differences and similarities between the two societies will be examined.
The epic of Gilgamesh is about demigod created to rule over the people of Uric but fears death, Throughout the epic, Gilgamesh faces many obstacles while undergoing a series of changes and developments; starting out as an arrogant and selfish king.
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
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.
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.