In St. Augustine’s book entitled Political Writings, one could see that Christianity plays a very important role in his view of politics. His opinion on the morality or lack of morality in politics, to me makes it more evident that Christianity persuades his views. Although it seems his writings have become quite well known and admired, not everyone fully shared his beliefs. Niccolo Machiavelli, for instance, seemed to believe in a government that was not driven by morality, but more by practicality. In, The Prince, Machiavelli stresses that the moral fibers of government should not be so soft. Like St. Augustine, his work went on to become one of the most famous books ever written about politics. Throughout the two works there are some similarities and differences regarding politics, however it their view of Christianity and morality that many find most intriguing.
After reading St. Augustine’s book it seemed to me that he had very little interest in politics as a whole, but he did seem to have a a great interest on the moral problems that plagued them. The books that make up this work come from one of his previous works entitled, The City of God, in which Augustine discusses many different aspects of the city. Augustine’s view of Christianity in regard to politics was due to the moral decline of the Roman Empire and the effect of this decline on the still faithful Christians. Augustine blamed the pagan gods and their lack of concern for the moral character which defined those who worshiped them. He also makes a reference to Plato’s Republic, in regards to the way Plato wanted to banish the poets from his city in speech. Augustine also felt that there should be strong censorship of the poets when writing about the gods because they made fools out of them. Augustine is also very concerned with the amount of people who in past invasions of their homelands escaped by lying about being Christians and then turned their backs on Christ when the danger had subsided. Augustine’s work also raises the question of why mercy is extended to the pious and ungrateful. Augustine responds by reminding everyone that, “The sun rises upon the good and evil, and the rains fall upon the just and the unjust.” The book also discusses Gods patience with humans and how the choice to repent ones sins lies within the man. He tells how some will recognize...
... middle of paper ...
...in things, I do think it is safe to say that they are both Christians. Although, without question St. Augustine is more in touch with his faith, he seems to be less in touch with politics. Machiavelli on the other hand does not separate man from what he sees to be his natural state of morality but uses it to the advantage of politics. When discussing Moses and his helping the Israelites escape to the promise land, Machiavelli mentions the miracles of Christ and states that God has done his part and it is time for humans to do theirs. This leads me to think that he believes politics should not lack God but work in conjunction with him.
To me St. Augustine is not educated only in his faith, but in the faiths of others as well and he shows no discrimination but more concern with how they are led morally in their beliefs. Machiavelli, however seems to be content with the use of religion as tool to secure the strength of the state. After fully reading the work I do not feel as though Machiavelli is as anarchical of a person as some would be led to think. I think he just had a better understanding of human nature and how it is commonly applied to politics.
St. Augustine’s Confessions is written through the Christian perspective of religion. Christianity is founded on the idea that there is one God who oversees all actions. Though all actions are observed by a higher power, God instills in us a free will. As Christians we are free to make our own decisions whether right or wrong. In his Biography St Augustine expresses that he feels like a sinner. He struggles with the fact that he is a thrill seeker. He loves to watch blood sports. He watches gladiators fight to the death and commit murder. Not only does he watch, but he enjoys observing these acts. He is also expressing his sins in his biography when he writes about stealing, which is another sin. He steals pears for fun. St Augustine doesn’t even eat the pears he steals, but throws them to the pigs to eat. Through the story St Augustine struggles interna...
Machiavelli and Martin Luther were both hugely influential and controversial authors who wrote in times of turmoil. Although they had different focuses, Machiavelli's being political and Luther's being religious, they came to many similar conclusions, this may be in part to their reactions to a similar time period. Both authors saw the importance of looking into the past and using history as a tool to learn from. Luther believed more in returning to the past while Machiavelli saw it as a way to use what worked while learning from past mistakes. Their writings are filled with examples from the past to further their arguments. They were especially similar when it came to human free will, the role of God, and on the governing of the secular state. More specifically, both Machiavelli and Luther believed that there was an element of free will that humans could choose to take control of, and therefore determine their own outcomes; although there was an element of either God or Fortune weighing in. Also, when it came to the secular state, although their motives might have been different, they believed in similar actions that needed to be taken. The most interesting dynamic between the two would have to be in relation to the Catholic Church and how both viewpoints create a compellingly different view of the Church.
Machiavelli seemed to give a certain amount of respect to the religious rulers of the time and throughout history. He made a great number of comments about the way in which these rulers manipulated the people through religion. It's as if he was laughing at the people for being so ignorant as not to realize the way they'd been manipulated. Furthermore, it is as if he was congratulating the rulers for being smart enough to con the people with the fear of a higher being. "Numa, finding the people ferocious and desiring to reduce them to civic obedience by means of the arts of peace, turned to religion as the instrument necessary above all others for the maintenance of a civilized state, and so constituted it that there was never for so many centuries so great a fear of God as there was in this republic". (Mac. p 139) For lack of a better word, Machiavelli is basically calling Numa's intentions a 'crock'. Religion claims to be good in nature. However, in this situation it was used for population control. "…its citizens were more afraid of breaking an oath than breaking the law, since they held in higher esteem the power of God than the power of man". (Mac. p 139) This is a great quote because it illustrates Machiavelli's view on religion perfectly; he believed that it was a tool to control the masses from the beginning of religion. Why should anyone listen to an ordinary man?
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...
Although similarities between Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu may be difficult to detect, their views are both very extreme. Machiavelli believes that the prince should have total control and do anything to gain power; however, Lao-Tzu desires a political system in which everything runs its own course.
Machiavelli's revolutionary philosophy begins with the opposition of the First Commandment: "Thou shalt not have strange gods before me." This Commandment is the basis for the entire Judaeo-Christian worldview, and is in essence the foundation of any monotheistic religion. Machiavelli instructs the prince to attempt to appear religious (135), (since such an appearance is useful to manipulate the populace), but there is no instruction for an actual observance of faith. Furthermore, a prince is instructed to consider one thing over all others: "A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its institutions and its discipline;" (124). These thoughts of war override piety and prayer, and thus undermine and attack the First Commandment.
St. Augustine has taken Plato’s notions, and have furthered the implications of living a life that strives towards a common good. In the City of God, the purpose of a citizen’s existence is to pursue an alignment with God, rather than to seek a common good. Through an alignment with God, there is no need for political regimes or any form of governance. This solves the issues that Plato and Aristotle disputes concerning the best regimes.
This paper will outline specific points in Saint Augustine’s Confessions that highlight religious views following the fall of Rome. Though Augustines views on religion may not reflect that of most people in his time period, it still gives valuable insight into how many, namely Neoplatonists,, viewed God and his teachings.
The rise of Christianity in western civilization is arguably among the most important memories in history. There is no denying what the spread of Christianity has done for the world, for better or worse. Its impact on western civilizations is unrivaled and unprecedented. Christianity slowly became something for many individuals to turn to; in times of hurt its provided comfort, in times of pleasure it has given thanks. The will and belief for salvation has driven individuals to be better, and to have a reference while in need. The rise of Christianity more than 2000 years ago provided necessary building blocks for the future. Without Christianity there would be no cathedrals, no monasteries, no music from one Johann Sebastian Bach, no paintings from Michelangelo, nor no philosophy from Saint Augustine (Backman 205). There are countless times in history, whether good or bad, that can be credited to
Machiavelli is remembered in popular culture for his ruthless pragmatism, which is best circulated through out-of-context maxims, such as “Dictatorship [is] always of benefit to the state”. This quote is seemingly paradoxical as it was written in The Discourses, his most known work in the support of republican governments. Machiavelli’s The Prince, the preceding work to Discourses, is read as an instruction guide to a prince or aspiring authoritarian ruler and seems to be in support of a single-ruler regime. Though The Prince appears to be in conflict with the republicanism Machiavelli later espouses in The Discourses, it still remains that his true inclination lies with the republican model of government, as in both works he writes about the
W. Andrew Hoffecker. Building a Christian World View, vol. 1: God, man, and Knowledge. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Phillipsburg, New Jersey : 1986. William S. Babcock. The Ethics of St. Augustine: JRE Studies in Religion, no. 3.
It is difficult to determine Niccolo Machiavelli?s and Thomas More?s view on human?s nature. Each took a different approach to the topic. Through Utopia, Thomas More attempted to change man?s thinking by creating an ideological society. Niccolo Machiavelli, through The Prince, attempted to teach man how to deal with human nature. With this in mind, Machiavelli?s concept is much more realistic than More?s; therefore Machiavelli better represents human nature. Machiavelli?s view of human nature in The Prince, presents, on the surface, a view of governing a state drastically different for his time. Machaivelli believed that the ruling Prince should be the sole authority determining every aspect of the state and put into effect a policy which would serve his best interests. With this, Machiavelli uses the prince as man, and the state as the man?s life. These interests were gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. Though in some cases Machiavelli may seem harsh and immoral, one must remember that his views were derived from concern of Italy?s unstable political condition in the 1500s. Machiavelli seems to be teaching the common man how to live his life so that their life is good and prosperous. Machiavelli generally distrusted citizens, stating that ??since men are a sorry lot and will not keep their promises to you, you likewise need not keep yours to them? (Machiavelli 651). Furthermore, ? a prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promises? when, ?such an observance of faith would be to his disadvantage; and when the reasons which made him promise are removed? (651). Machiavelli did not feel that a Prince should mistreat the citizens. This suggestion once again to serve the Prince?s best interests. If a Prince can not be both feared and loved, Machiavelli suggests, it would be better for him to be feared by the citizens within his own dogma. He makes the generalization that men are, ?? ungrateful, fickle, simulators and deceivers, avoiders of danger, greedy for gain; and while you work for their good they are yours? (649). He characterizes men as being self-centered and not willing to act in the best interest of the state,? and when it (danger) comes nearer to you they turn away? (649). Machiavelli reinforces the Prince?s need to be feared by stating: ??men are less hesitant about harming someone who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared?
While both Machiavelli and Hobbes agree that there should be rule by a sovereign, and that this individual will probably make better decisions than individuals, the two disagree on basic assumptions. While Machiavelli believes that the ends justify the means, Hobbes tends to align religion and politics and sees the way in which policies play out as vital for the moral good of society. Machiavelli embraces the idea of a virtuous republican citizen similar to how one might consider a citizen today. To give power and authority to the individual in charge, and trust in what he is doing, is to be virtuous. Hobbes' idea of a subject who properly understands the nature and basis of sovereign political power is more important than the simple, unquestioning support of the leader.
The common thread that ties together all of Machiavelli's beliefs is his basic view of human nature. Machiavelli believes that humans are greedy, dishonest, and are looking out for themselves above all else. The majority of what Machiavelli dictates to his audience is based on the fact that the prince has to be very careful in how he deals with his citizens, as well as those in other states. The prince has to keep them all satisfied, to avoid any attempts to dethrone him. Machiavelli even suggests that there are times in which the prince will be required to act immorally in order to keep the people of the state on his side. Machiavelli states "Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good" (P.42). In this statement Machiavelli acknowledges that humans are selfish and dishonest, so for a prince to keep his authority, he must learn when to not exhibit virtuous characteristics. Simply put, some actions that seem virtuous will ruin a pr...
...ry opinion would favor Aristotle, and I am inclined to agree. Aristotle’s secular, capitalist-tolerant view seems like it would jive more with today’s society than would Augustine’s deeply religious near-asceticism. In America, we live in a world of material possessions and manage to live better than citizens of any other nation, and most would agree we are not living in a world of sin or on the edge of turmoil. Then again, some would. Personally, I envision justice as a combination between ambition and moderation—right down Aristotle’s alley. In addition, I appreciate Aristotle’s optimism and faith in us mortals, optimism not as present in Augustine’s vision.