Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The role of art in our life
The role of art in our life
Machiavelli theory of human nature
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The role of art in our life
Yesterday we discussed about a lot of things such as the reading on the Prince, why art would be a good doorway to allow oneself to enable realistic interpretation of the world around us, and also the concept of transcendental reality. We also talked about Augustine’s model of our understand known as the dual plane theory of reality. Furthermore, this is shown in the City of God Books where there was a dichotomy between the City of Gods verse the City of Man. In the City of Gods, there’s not only heaven, but also love which organizes people and serves as the principle whereas in the City of Man, we are people of greed power and hatred, slowly disintegrating the world we live in. After rereading last night’s reading, it has been made apparent …show more content…
In Machiavelli’s text he simply explains the rules that must be followed in order to conquest a territory and conquest it in a way that is effective. Machiavelli uses an example of the Romans that successfully conquested another and King Louis as an example that did not. From the Roman example, Machiavelli explains how the Romans were successful for being able to break the power of the strong and indulge the weak and didn’t allow foreigners to gain power. This act of breaking the poor is logical because there is nothing that the poor can do. Machiavelli writes, “men ought either to be caressed or destroyed, since they will seek revenge for minor hurts but will not be able to revenge major ones.” Then in analyzing King Louis’ ruling, he is exactly what is an example of failure because of his inability to value his initial power. He weakened the power of those already weak and strengthened those that were already strong, such as the church. What Machiavelli is trying to accomplish with the Prince, is to broaden the mind of Italy through the use of examining previous failures and accomplishments, which is a common technique to decide upon what the future of something should look like. So my question to the class is, would you consider the Roman ruler in Machiavelli’s the Prince evil? Another question
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.
In the many sections Niccolo Machiavelli writes he constantly compares to extreme qualities, one of which is ideal, the other real. These extremes include love(ideal) vs fear, clemency(ideal) vs cruelty, generous(ideal) vs stingy, and integrity(ideal) vs lying. In comparing these different traits Machiavelli highlights the merits of opposing characteristics and (specifically)when it is effective to act in certain ways. He argues that a balance of both are vital as to prevent a prince from dipping too far into a pool of inescapable extremism. The following excerpts display the author’s contrast-centered style: “ Thus, it's much wiser to put up with the reputation of being a miser, which brings you shame without hate, than to be forced—just
Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.
As he begins to conclude, Machiavelli states that the prince: “should think about avoiding those things which make him hated and despised.” (Mach 48) Although these lack any withstanding moral values, they are effective in the sense that they better serve their purpose. Machiavelli was seeking to display a way to hold political power by any means possible not a utopian state. This may mean malicious acts, imprisonment, and torture, or it may mean the utilization of power to achieve a common good. Machiavelli doesn’t elaborate on this. He concentrates on a realistic approach towards government, as he remains concerned with the establishment and protection of power.
Augustine’s contention that man cannot possibly come into truth by reason in his temporal life constitutes his initial departure from the ancients, and results in the need for an entirely new structuring of the relationship between man and the good. In differentiating between the nature of God and man, Augustine argues that man’s nature—unlike God’s—is corruptible, and is thus “deprived of the light of eternal truth” (XI, 22) . This stands the thought of Plato on its head, since now no amount of contemplation and argument will be capable of getting man closer to a truth that exists on a plane that “surpasses the reach of the human mind” (XXI, 5). If reason is an instrument as flawed as man himself, how, then, is man to know the supreme good if he is forced to grope blindly for it in a state of sin without any assistance from the powers of his own mind? It is this question which serves as the premise for Augustine’s division of existence into the City of Man and the City of God and articulation of a system of vice and struggle against vice that keeps man anchored to the City of Man and prevents him from entering the City of God in temporal life.
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.
Machiavelli stated “..., if the prince is reasonably assiduous he will always maintain his rule, unless some extraordinary and inordinate force deprives him of it; and if so deprived, whenever the usurper suffers a setback he will reconquer.” 1 Here Machiavelli proclaims that the natural prince will have the peoples support as long as the princes ambitions are moderate. Machiavelli also states that the natural prince will have less reason to cause the people to hate, when he states “ The fact is that the natural prince has less reason and less need to give offence; and so it follows that he should be more loved; ” 1 Now Machiavelli shifts his focus toward new states. Machiavelli states that new principalities are far more difficult to sustain than hereditary principalities for many reasons. Machiavelli claims that conquering new states is the most dangerous and difficult mission
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.
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.
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
To be “Machiavellian” is typically understood to mean clever or dishonest; generally unlikable traits in a general member of society. When asked to evaluate the current state of affairs in America today and look for the conceptions of liberty and corruption, the most accurate answer to this evaluation is through history. Looking at America and taking the previously studied writings of Machiavelli, is there any hope for the liberty America prides itself on or at least is there any way to stave off corruption? If we are to look through our American society through Machiavelli’s perspective, our perspective will be a lot more well-grounded if we first take a look at those who influenced Machiavelli before he in turn influenced our understanding as well. Starting off politics thousands of years before our time that we still study and attempt to imitate today are the Romans.
In chapter 17 of Machiavelli’s The Prince, he talks about how a prince or ruler should lead their people. Specifically in chapter 17, Machiavelli talks about whether a leader should be feared or loved. Machiavelli advises that a leader, if forced to choose between one or the other side with being feared as it will be better for the people in the end. A leader who exemplifies one who is feared is Rodrigo Duterte, the current president of the Philippines. He is very passionate about the drug problem in the Philippines, to the extent where he allowed for the killing of thousands of people suspected of drug possession or selling. Human rights groups and other leaders criticize Duterte for how he chooses to deal with drug offenders, although he disregards and insults anyone who criticizes how he runs the Philippines. Compared to The Prince, Rodrigo Duterte is more of a leader who is feared instead of loved based off of how he runs his
Machiavelli’s The Prince was written more than 500 years ago and it is “one of the most influential and controversial books published in Western literature.” (Article A) It was about Machiavelli’s political philosophies and the basic principles of what he believes a politician or “prince” should be. The three main ideas of the Prince were “Liberality and Stinginess”, “Cruelty and Mercy: Is It Better to Be Loved Than Feared, or the Reverse?”, and “How a Prince Should Keep Their Promises” and for the most part many of his concepts should or are already instilled in our government.
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 a evil minded fellow associated with the corruptness of totalitarian government. In Machiavelli’s home state Florence, he introduces the modern political theory. Hoping to gain influence with the ruling Medici family Niccolo wrote a pamphlet call The Prince (Prezzolini).