Memory is such a powerful tool that provides intellectual strength and serves as a guidance to make wise decision. This can become a reference when facing an adversity. Just like the shield and armor, memory can be used as defense against ignorance and weapon to defeat mistakes of the past. In the book entitled “Machiavelli: Selected Political Writings,” edited and translated by David Wooton, Machiavelli placed a high value on the usage of memory. His works himself were all based from a memory, which can be defined as the remarks of the past, accumulation of experiences, and illustration of told and histories. I strongly believe that Machiavelli treated memory as the most important source of political education which can be acquired through lengthy experience of contemporary politics and through uninterrupted study of the classics. Indeed, he valued memory more than anything due to the fact that by understanding the deeds or the memories of the great men, Machiavelli found justified answers how to become a magnificent ruler. In this paper, I believe that Machiavelli defined memory as a form of intellectual advice, based on the existence of past leaders, which may impact the efficacy of current and future rulers of society.
Machiavelli understood the essence of memory to improve rulers’ decision-making skills.
He used his recollection of past rulers’ performances to distinguish whether a ruler made an efficient or inefficient strategies. For instance, Machaivelli commended how the Kingdom of Egypt imposed artificial necessity that molded its inhabitants to become finest soldiers who, according to Machiavelli, “…deserved more praise than Alexander the Great and many others whose deeds remain fresh in our memory.” Through me...
... middle of paper ...
...courage resistance from the people especially if they would feel oppressed and if their memory of customs were offended. Before acquiring the states, Machiavelli suggested rulers to allow the people to live under old institutions and experience the memory of liberty, but once relationship has stabilized, it is crucial to demolish the memory of their former freedom which “gives no rest, no peace,” and urges for revenge. If memory encouraged people to stronghold their customs, rulers would be at risk and definitely would encounter a dilemma within the ruler’s kingdom. Another reason why rulers should be skeptic about memory, human affairs are always changing according to Machiavelli. Therefore, relying too much on memory could cause failures and downfall of the kingdom. Indeed, the strategies given by memory could not be applicable to the current and future ruling.
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...
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.
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.
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.
In regards to glory, Machiavelli argues that, rulers should study the actions of admirable men. They should learn how to conduct themselves when at war, study why some battles were won and others lost, so they will know what to imitate or to avoid. In regards to such education, he states, “above all [the ruler] should set himself
In fact, Machiavelli’s morals are as questionable as those of Ferdinand II. Because Machiavelli believed that “it [was] unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities [he had] enumerated, but it [was] very necessary to appear to have them” (62), Ferdinand II seemed to be an excellent example of the advice given in the book. However, Machiavelli fails to see that Ferdinand II’s actions opposed one of his primary beliefs. Machiavelli specified that princes did not have to avoid cruelty and dishonesty if and only if their actions benefited the state, and that a prince must consider every action he took based on its effect on his country. As previously stated, Ferdinand II’s actions exclusively benefited himself. Considering the fact that this was a principal theme throughout Machiavelli’s book, why he saw Ferdinand II as such a “great and extraordinary” ruler is baffling. His love of the king is as hypocritical as the King’s character. There is a strong possibility that Machiavelli had a bias towards Ferdinand, considering he was the ruler when he wrote The Prince, and Machiavelli did not see his rule’s final outcome. This presents the question of how Machiavelli’s partiality affects his credibility. Provided he did, in fact, have that bias, what does that say about the rest of his work? Since Machiavelli did not have a neutral stance on politics, he may have steered Prince De’ Medici and all other political leaders who read The Prince in the direction of his own opinions, thus singlehandedly shaping history into his
First, Machiavelli’s method attempts to discard discussion of the “imaginary” political world and instead focuses on “real life” (Machiavelli 48). His end goal is to construct rubric for leaders to follow either to rule and unite (in this case Italy) in the Prince or create a powerful republic in the Discourses. His method is derived from comparing contemporary and historical events to illustrate and substantiate his argument. He is critical of how people interpret history (Machiavelli 83). He still believes that his ability to interpret and compare history is superior. Arguing that his methodological approach doesn’t just “chew” on history but actually “tastes” it (Machiavelli 83). Therefore we can understand that he justifies his method approach as not being akin to most because he possesses a much deeper understanding of history. Throughout his two books using ...
However, the prince himself must resist from the temptation of greed that power brings. If he becomes too self-obsessed, his subjects will no longer value and adore him. In terms of political power, the theorist believes a successful ruler to be sly and secretive while avoiding hatred and accepting criticisms. He outlines the dangers of liberality, stating that far too much kindness can only end in disaster. Instead, Machiavelli suggests the importance of a fierce and successful ruler to be feared rather than loved. A leader cannot allow a poor reputation to interfere with his judgement, instead he should embrace it and focus on the protection and security of his land and his people. He argues that *great things* have yet to be accomplished by a ruler who has let his compassion for his people cloud his judgement and deter him from taking risks. Through his perspective, a prince should not live virtuously, but instead live wanting to achieve the most practical benefit for his subjects. However, a prince must guard himself from being despised and hated. Machiavelli's beliefs served to bring
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.
Machiavelli in his famous book “The Prince” describes the necessary characteristics for a strong and successful leader. He believes that one of the most important characteristics is to rule in favor of his government and to hold power in his hands. Power is an essential aspect of Machiavelli’s theory, and a leader should do whatever it takes to keep it for the safety of his country because “the ends justifies the means.” To attain and preserve the power, a leader should rather be feared than loved by his people, but it is vital not to be hated. As he states, “anyone compelled to choose will find far greater security in being feared than in being loved.” If a leader is feared, the people are less likely to revolt, and in the end, only a threat of punishment can guarantee obedienc...
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.
Not only a crafty political theorist but a fervent observer of human character, Niccolo Machiavelli is perhaps one of the most famous figures during the Renaissance. This places him into an exclusive position to debate what part the populace should be entrusted with in republican politics. Within his two most famous and leading writings, The Prince and The Discourses, Machiavelli portrays his mentality towards the populace and nobility. More applicable to this query is his latter publishing, as it relates mainly to republics. On the other hand, The Prince is interested with the establishment and change of a state through the course of a single man. It will be seen that the populace execute an essential function and significantly assist Machiavelli’s
Machiavelli was able to demonstrate the evilest, and express what the consequences of wrongdoing were, and although with the reveal of the truth, mankind does not become released and enlightened by any means, the truth prepares people, for what to expect. Like Berlin expresses Machiavelli’s desire to find the “solution” it is almost impossible to attain it however, understanding and preparing for the problem is a step forward an essential, and through his work Machiavelli was able to allow the reader to understand the truth and reveal the reality.
Adding complexity to what was conventionally considered essential for an efficacious sovereign, NicolÒ Machiavelli challenged the concept of ultimate moral goodness by introducing a nuance unnamed by any other philosopher. This new concept, virtÙ, is a pertinent piece of examination when evaluating Machiavelli’s political theory. VirtÙ, in a most basic definition, is the force and energy of the mind used for good or bad purposes. This opposes the prior notions that excellent leaders were able to only bestow good. The force that likely influenced Machiavelli to enlighten leaders about the importance of virtÙ can be traced to his political livelihood and experiences during an unstable political era, in which Italian city-states were under consistent attack from abroad. This constant political