Comparing Machiavelli And Piico's Views Of Human Nature

745 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Hamlet and the human characteristics

Have you ever wondered what exactly human nature is? It can be defined as “distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting that humans tend to have naturally, independently of the influence of culture. (Wikipedia)” When discussing Machiavelli and Pico’s views on human nature one may notice that their views are completely opposite. In this essay I will discuss how Machiavelli and Pico would view the characters in Hamlet.
Machiavelli sees human nature as a negative, whereas Pico sees human nature as a positive aspect in life. Each of the two has done works in their time of life that expressed their ideas of the man and their actions. One of Machiavelli works includes The Prince and one of Pico’s works in On the Dignity of Man. Each one of these works will be discussed further. As for an overview of the two men, they both have views that are completely opposite. One believes that man is selfish, greedy, fraudulent and etc. the other believes that man makes mistakes and things happen for a reason. Do you believe that man can be deceitful but still loving and caring? Or do you believe that man is deceitful and that’s just what they do to get ahead of the game? Some may say they believe in living a life of freedom, and there is no right or wrong way to live, but why wouldn’t there be a right or wrong way? Let’s look further into examples of each of these beliefs.
First of all, Machiavelli had a negative view on human nature. He believed that people are only interested in themselves; they are trustworthy only when everything is all good, they tend to be deceitful. Machiavelli overall believed that people actions were only good when it benefited themselves. In Hamlet the character Claudius may be looked a...

... middle of paper ...

...e her break up with him. Not only may this seem despiteful or deceiving to someone but one may respond to it as loving and protection. Either way Pico believes that there are “no rules how to live because humans possess free will. (Pico, On the dignity of Man)”
All in all, human nature can be taken in as a positive aspect in life or a negative aspect. Sometimes in order to find what your belief is you have to ask yourself certain questions about the actions of mankind. Over-viewing the examples used from the film Hamlet, one may agree with Machiavelli that Claudius was a powerful fraudulent man, or one may believe that Claudius is just Claudius and life goes on. Machiavelli and Pico had very strong views as to what was the right way about human nature. Machiavelli and very negative thoughts about human nature whereas Pico had very positive outlooks of human nature.

Show More
Related

  • Relationship In The Prince By Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince

    1213 Words  | 3 Pages

    Some may argue that what Machiavelli is saying that subjects should be cared for, but based on the harsh diction like crush and cripple, when speaking about how to treat the people that pose a threat and due to the repetitive nature these comments, it is evident that Machiavelli advises a ruler not to care for the people, but to manipulate the people to keep the country or community

    Read More

  • Machiavelli's Argument Analysis

    658 Words  | 2 Pages

    On the other hand, some people may say that Machiavelli's ideas were for people in the past time and cannot be used in todays society.According to text 2 one of Machiavelli's quotes came up about being feared more than loved and the response to that was " A leader must build his relationship with the people upon mutual respect, more than any other thing. It is not fear or

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1242 Words  | 3 Pages

    Many people have different views on the moral subject of good and evil or human nature. It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil. This where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be. Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature.

    Read More

  • Machiavelli’s The Prince

    653 Words  | 2 Pages

    I believe that man, by nature, is neither good nor evil. When a child comes out of its mother, one cannot tell whether or not that child will be a serial killer or win the Nobel Peace prize. A child’s environment is what forms it to be the adult that it will be one day. I believe that it also what one believes that makes him or her what that person will be one day. Machiavelli believed however that man was naturally an evil being, one that needed control (Prince).

    Read More

  • Machiavelli and Rousseau's Views on Human Nature and Government

    558 Words  | 2 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Machiavelli vs. Lao-Tzu

    284 Words  | 1 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Hamlet Comparison Essay

    1709 Words  | 4 Pages

    In Shakespeare’s plays, those characters experienced great struggles of choosing to be moral or evil. He gave them chances to choose whether they wanted to become good and moral even though, according to the settings, it was reasonably for them to become evil and give their enemies a taste of their own medicine. In this paper, three characters from different plays will be compared, such as Claudio from Much Ado about Nothing, Prospero from Tempest, and Hamlet from Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark.

    Read More

  • Machiavelli: The Power of Fear

    852 Words  | 2 Pages

    Some may take this to mean a completely different thing, such as thinking that Machiavelli believes that the end justifies the means, that a leader should lie to the people, and that a ruler has to rule with force. In actuality, Machiavelli means no such thing. He says that there are times when the common good outweighs the means, and the morality of a ruler’s actions. He also says that you cannot be loved by everyone, so try to be loved and feared at the same time, but of the two, choose to be feared.

    Read More

  • Similarities Between Plato Machiavelli And Lao Tzu

    1641 Words  | 4 Pages

    He says “For everyone can see but few can feel” (Machiavelli 24), meaning that people can see the “good” but not know that it is really an appearance. People are easily accepting of what they are shown and believe these things to be truths. Machiavelli’s point of view is; if people are easily fooled into believing things, then why must a leader truly be good if he can simply appear to be good. Machiavelli says in verse 24 of The Prince, “Ordinary people are always deceived by appearances and by the outcome of anything.” According to Machiavelli, it is very important to not be hated by the people, it is much better to be feared than hated. He gives three points of instruction to avoid being hated and prevent conspiracy against him: “You do not deprive them of their property or their honor,” do not be considered “ changeable, frivolous, effeminate, cowardly, or irresolute,” and “he should maintain himself in such a way that no man could imagine that he can deceive or cheat him” (Machiavelli

    Read More

  • Free Essays - Human Nature in Hamlet

    592 Words  | 2 Pages

    The play, Hamlet, by William Shakespeare, shows human nature to be greedy, self-involved and vengeful. Claudius is driven by his greed to commit murder. Polonius is always looking out for himself, currying favor at the expense of anyone in his way. Hamlet thinks only of vengeance from the moment he finds out about Claudius murdering his father. Human nature has been all of these things, but it has also evolved through the ages. We can be base and cruel, but we can also show great compassion and kindness.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast John Locke And Machiavelli

    1447 Words  | 3 Pages

    Machiavelli believed that, ethics and morality were considered in other categories than those generally known. He does not deny the existence of, but did not see how they can be useful in its traditional sense as in politics and in the government of the people. According to Machiavelli, a man is by nature a political angry and fearful. Machiavelli had no high opinion of the people. It is assumed that a person is forced to be good and can get into the number of positive features, such as prudence and courage. The prince can only proceed gently and with love, because that would undermine the naivety of his rule, and hence and the well-being of the state. He thought that, the Lord must act morally as far as possible, immorally to the extent to

    Read More

  • Comparing The Prince By Machiavelli And Utopia By Thomas More

    1377 Words  | 3 Pages

    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?

    Read More

  • Machiavelli's The Prince

    1203 Words  | 3 Pages

    He talked down to the people and spoke harshly of them. As if those who have power are higher above the other population. He said, “Of mankind we may say in general they are fickle, hypocritical, and greedy of gain.” Machiavelli stated, “It is much safer to be feared than to be loved if one of the two is lacking.” He wanted to make them fear him so much that, “they are entirely yours, offering you their blood, their goods, their life, their children.”

    Read More

  • A Comparison of Shakespeare's Prince Hamlet and Machiavelli’s The Prince

    1083 Words  | 3 Pages

    Machiavelli states that "it is necessary for a prince, who wishes to maintain himself, to learn how not to be good, and use this knowledge and not use it, according to the necessity of the case." Machiavelli's ideas both compare and contrast to the methods used by Hamlet. Hamlet's desire to drive the king mad and eventually kill him, is what he thinks he must do in order to set things right. Hamlet struggles to maintain his position as prince. Perhaps he lacks the essential qualities of a prince outlined by Machiavelli.

    Read More

  • Human Nature In Plato's The Prince By Niccolo Machiavelli

    1365 Words  | 3 Pages

    Machiavelli’s advice to princes directly correlated to his view on human nature. He believed that every common man was born evil and selfish. That did not stop him, however, from saying that humans many show instances when they exhibit generosity and wholeheartedness. He does tell princes, however, not to count on the few occurrences that may happen, and he says, “It is necessary to be a prince to know thoroughly the nature of the people, and one of the populace to know the nature of princes”. He is saying is that it is imperative that a prince knows the natural human nature, that each and every human will become more self-interested than interested in the good of the state. If he is ignorant to that fact, his kingdom/area of rule will deteriorate simply because he believes in the citizens that occupy it. He does believe, however, that with the right training, a human being can be molded (with the help of the state, of course) and he says, “Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many.” Although he believes that people cannot change themselves for the good, he does think that the state and military can shape humans for the better, but there will always be

    Read More

More about Comparing Machiavelli And Piico's Views Of Human Nature

Open Document