Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Human nature of Machiavelli
The principles of Machiavelli in "the prince
The principles of Machiavelli in "the prince
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Human nature of Machiavelli
Niccolo Machiavelli was a middle-class and humanist-educated Florentine diplomat, philosopher, and writer who lived during the Renaissance in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. Although bestowed with the title of the father of modern political theory, Machiavelli has been, and continues to be widely misunderstood and misinterpreted (Kreis). The term “Machiavellian,” and it is in the dictionary, is defined as subtle or unscrupulous cunning, deception, expediency, or dishonesty (Dictionary). In acknowledgment of the enduring impact of Machiavelli on society, psychologists have identified a distinct personality style that is characterized by manipulativeness, cynicism about human nature, and shrewdness in interpersonal behavior, and named this syndrome after Machiavelli (“48”). Machiavellianism is described as a manipulative strategy of social interaction and personality style that uses other people as tools of personal gain (“48”). In this excerpt from The Prince, Machiavelli’s most recognized and popular discourse on morality and power, the author discusses and compares numerous aspects of the necessary attributes of a successful ruler. While he debates the pros and cons of vice and virtue, Machiavelli presents a compelling case for the adroit application of vice, in the event that princely virtues will threaten the sovereignty of authority.
Most of Machiavelli’s work, including the The Prince, was only formally published posthumously, and the assumption would be that his intention in writing The Prince was not to inform the general public, most of who had neither reading skills, the access to books, or held positions of leadership and government.
Machiavelli’s true intention in writing The Prince was to gain the att...
... middle of paper ...
...itics. That Machiavelli has become synonymous with treachery is ironic, for this essay unmistakably and definitely confirms that throughout the history of civilization, those leaders who persevered and gained recognition as icons of power, character, and intellect were those who understood the balance of virtue and vice.
Works Cited
Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com. Web. 12 March 2012.
Kirszner, Laurie G., and Mandell, Stephen R. Practical Argument. “From The Prince.” New York: Bedford-St. Martin’s. 2011. Print
Kreis, Steven. “Niccolo Machiavelli.” The History Guide. The History Guide. Web. 10 Mar. 2012.
SparkNotes Editors. “SparkNote on The Prince.” SparkNotes.com. SparkNotes LLC. 2002. Web. 6 Mar. 2012.
“48 Laws of Power and the Machiavellian Personality.” Psychology and Mental Health Forum. Psychology and Mental Health Forum. Web. Mar. 12 2012.
Many empirical things can often still be debated and refuted by experts, but there is a general admittance to the idea that power is the root of many evil things. In all fairness, we must admit that a many evil things can in their essence, be great. And that is one of the many theories advanced by Niccolo Machiavelli in his well-known work, The Prince. The Prince serves a dual purpose of both teaching a person how to attain power, but also how to retain it. Incredibly enough, history has proven most of Machiavelli’s findings and theories to work well, while some have failed to effectively secure power for the rulers who did, in fact try them. His work, does obviously highlight one main fact, which is, that power is a well sought-after attribute, and most who attain are willing to do whatever is necessary to keep it.
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...
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.
Indeed, prudence and cunning can be considered to be important elements inherent in the accomplishment of virtuous actions. In the case of Agathocles, Machiavelli recognises a practical element of virtù. Agathocles’ prowess ultimately resulted in being able to perform deeds that required a high level of skill (Strauss, 1995: 44). Nevertheless, the moral implications of his actions restricted the possibility that his undertakings might be considered virtuous. On the other hand, the actions carried out by Cesare Borgia are indicative of a marriage between rational and moral pursuits (Fischer, 2000: 66). To begin with, the actions undertaken by Oliverotto did not result in the preservation of peace and unity; elements that indicate the existence of virtù in state matters (Mansfield, 1996: 71). Conversely, the actions carried out by Cesare Borgia showed the existence of a martial attitude in order to preserve the power of the ruler and the state (Bobbitt, 2013: 43). It must be added that in Machiavelli’s schema, there is a predilection for a strong ruler capable of preserving some kind of political unity amongst the Italian states. Although the actions exercised by Cesare Borgia necessitated the exercise of violence, his ulterior motives had attached to it an important moral element, leading us to conclude that
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.
Although Machiavelli gives numerous points on what it takes to excel as a prince, he also shows some raw examples of how he feels a prince should act in order to achieve maximum supremacy. First, when he says, "ought to hold of little account a reputation for being mean, for it is one of those vices which will enable him to govern" proves Machiavelli feels mighty adamant about his view that being mean will help a prince achieve success (332). It is absurd to imagine the meanest prince as the most successful. Also, when Machiavelli states, "our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft" revealing his attitude to manipulate people into fearing and respecting the prince (335). Also, Machiavelli shows that for a prince to be successful, he must not think about good faith.
The most astounding aspect of The Prince is Machiavelli’s view that princes may indeed, be cruel and dishonest if their ultimate aim is for the good of the state. It is not only acceptable but necessary to lie, to use torture, and to walk over other states and cities. Machiavellianism is defined as “A political doctrine of Machiavelli, which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power (Def.)” This implies that in the conquest for power, the ends justify the means. This is the basis of Machiavellianism. The priority for the power holder is to keep the security of the state regardless of the morality of the means. He accepts that these things are in and of themselves morally wrong, but he points out that the consequences of failure, the ruin of states and the destruction of cities, can be far worse. Machiavelli strongly emphasizes that princes should not hesitate to use immoral methods to achieve power, if power is necessary for security and survival.
“The Prince”, by Niccolo Machiavelli, is a series of letters written to the current ruler of Italy, Lorenzo de’ Medici. These letters are a “how-to” guide on what to do and what not to do. He uses examples to further express his views on the subject. The main purpose was to inform the reader how to effectively rule and be an acceptable Prince. Any ruler who wishes to keep absolute control of his principality must use not only wisdom and skill, but cunning and cruelness through fear rather than love. Machiavelli writes this book as his summary of all the deeds of great men.
Machiavelli discusses assertive and bold ideas in “The Prince,” revealing his radical and courageous nature. His treatise is deceptively self-soliciting, because he disguises his extreme notions behind a veil of feigned expertise. His frank approach makes him appear confident and deserving of the utmost respect; however, he cautiously humbles himself by pouring immense flattery for the ruling prince into his work and, in doing so, assures protection for himself and his notorious ideas.
This key paragraph of advice is given by Machiavelli to all aspiring rulers who are contemplating the act of obtaining a principality through the use of criminal methods. Macbeth is an example of someone who obtains his kingdom in a criminal manner, as he and his wife conspire together to kill the present king and blame his murder on his drunken guards, but in order for Macbeth to be considered completely Machiavellian, he would have to partake in all of the characteristics that Machiavelli urges for leaders of his sort to display. While Macbeth exhibits certain Machiavellian characteristics, he does not heed Machiavelli's advice regarding rulers who desire to obtain their principalities through crime, and through either the ignorance of, or disregard for, this advice, Macbeth cannot be considered Machiavellian.
Niccolo Machiavelli stressed that “one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved…for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.” He felt that a true leader must be cunning and deceptive, winning the hearts of his people through power and influence. If he could not be liked, he could at least get by knowing he has intimidated these below him into submission. However rash or cruel this may seem, Machiavelli’s argument is not one to be countered easily.
The meanings behind both phronesis and virtù illustrate the differences between Machiavelli’s view of being an efficient ruler and Aristotle’s view of being a virtuous ruler. In the Prince Machiavelli shows with three excellent references that it
Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. Robert M. Adams, trans., ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1977. pp. vii.-75.
The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli isn't about one man's ways to feed his power hungry mindset through gluttony, nor is it just explaining altercations between a nation's states. This writing is regarding to how one's self-confidence can make them become powerful in a society and also, the way morals and politics differ and can be separate in a government. Originally, Machiavelli wrote The Prince to gain support from Lorenzo de' Medici, who during the era, was governor of Florence. As meant as writing for how a society should be run, this book has been read by many peoples around the world who want to have better knowledge of the perfect stability of beliefs and politics required to run a good civilization.
Written almost 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince” brings forward a new definition of virtue. Machiavelli’s definition argued against the concept brought forward by the Catholic Church. Machiavelli did not impose any thoughts of his own, rather he wrote from his experience and whatever philosophy that lead to actions which essentially produced effective outcomes in the political scene of Italy and in other countries. While Machiavelli is still criticized for his notions, the truth is that, consciously or subconsciously we are all thinking for our own benefit and going at length to achieve it. On matters of power where there is much to gain and a lot more to lose, the concept of Machiavelli’s virtue of “doing what needs to be done” applies rigorously to our modern politics and thus “The Prince” still serves as a suitable political treatise in the 21st century.