More handpicked essays just for you.
What is niccol machiavelli the prince, an essay
What is niccol machiavelli the prince, an essay
Essay on niccolo machiavelli
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
What would you do if you discovered a secret that can make your life better? Not just any ordinary secret, but a special one that would tell you how to gain power/ control over others and maintain it. Would you share it with others? Well that’s what writers have been sharing for centuries; yet many of us are still unaware. The very concept of Power is extremely important especially since we the people can give it to others but never ourselves. Well two contemporary authors in regards with the subject of power are Niccolo Machiavelli, and Robert Greene. Although generations apart, both are very influential writers that have had an ever lasting impact on human history through their works. Machiavelli with his the Prince, and Greene with the 48 Laws of Power. Although Robert Greene as an author surfaced quite recently in 1998; however, the amount of notoriety he carries has quickly earned him a spot on the list of influential authors. Though both books are subjected towards attaining and maintain power; however, they differ highly in its targeted audiences, and the manifestation of major themes. Such as Machiavelli, in The Prince mainly addresses the methods of achieving power in the political world by highly favoring rationality while disregarding moral ethical values. Thus exemplifying the famous phrase of “the end justifying the means”. Whereas Greene, on the other hand also addresses similar issue; however, he does it in a way that exposes the inner workings of the power struggles taken place in everyday situations. Overall, I believe that upon reflecting on the works of Robert Greene, and Niccolo Machiavelli one can clearly trace back resemblances and distinctions with each other. However, I’m consider that the reasoning behind ...
... middle of paper ...
...ever present” (Machiavelli, 1532). Meaning that the most common form of Human nature is fear as it has a greater influence on our actions rather than anything else; that all people are self-interested. Such as they content or happy as long as they not victims of fear.
Works Cited
Greene, R. (1998). 48 Laws of Power. New york: Penguin group.
Hutson, M. (2007, December). Master Playmaker. Insights on the Job, pp. 20-20.
Machiavelli, N. (1532). The Prince. the Florentine Republic.
Magedanz, S. (2013, december 20). CliffNotes on the Prince. Retrieved from www.cliffnotes.com: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/p/the-prince/niccolxf2-machiavelli-biography
Paul, S. (2012). Kautilya and Machiavelli Views on state and politics: A Comparative analysis. Indian Streams Research journal, 1-4.
Paumgarten, N. (2006, November 6). Fresh Prince. Hip-hop's Machiavelli, p. 2006.
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.
Over the course of history, power in the hands of new leaders and how new leaders deal with power have been deeply analyzed topics; however, as Abraham Lincoln once said, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” In the idealistic novel A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur’s Court by Mark Twain, the nature of power and rule directly reflects many of the ideas presented in the philosophical and non-fiction novel The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli. These two writings intertwine authoritative concepts including new leaders taking up residence in the new state, defending the weak, rising to supremacy through fear, and never avoiding war to delay controversy.
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.
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
Perhaps the most distinct differences between Machiavelli's and Lao-Tzu's are their beliefs in how a government should be run. Whereas Machiavelli writes about the qualities a prince should have while instilling a totalitarian government, Lao-Tzu strongly believes that one cannot have total control, so everything should run its course.
... to the times of kings and princess, however it must be noted that the underlying human emotions and their motivations can only be dealt with decisiveness and deep plotting. The concepts discussed are applicable to all leaders and politicians holding offices. Bottom line is, some things never changes. Even though a lot has changed, principles of Machiavelli’s Prince are adapted and used widely yet secretly in a complex world of growth and prosperity with a greater demography and geography.
During colonial times, King George III was a tyrant ruler. He was unstable and constantly inflicted hardship upon the people of the American Colonies. King George III thought that imposing more demands on the colonists would allow him to reach his goals such as bringing in more money for the British government. Machiavelli, on the other hand, thought that a ruler needed his subjects to be on his side so that there would be less resistance.
author of Prince. They are both philosophers but have totally different perspective on how to be a good leader. While both philosopher’s writing is instructive. Lao-tzu’s advice issues from detached view of a universal ruler; Machiavelli’s advice is very personal perhaps demanding. Both philosophers’ idea will not work for today’s world, because that modern world is not as perfect as Lao-tzu described in Tao-te Ching, and not as chaotic as Machiavelli illustrated in Prince.
In recent history, the last fifty years or so, modern businessmen and politicians have given Machiavelli a Renaissance of his own. Professional politicians have written novels they claim to be on the same philosophical level of Machiavelli’s The Prince. Gary Hart, in his book The Patriot: An Exhortation to Liberate America From the Barbarians attempts to update Niccolo to the modern age with his own political philosophies, and attempts to credit Machiavelli by quoting him frequently. “Hart makes an effort to mimic the form, if not the spirit, of the most famous work by his Florentine ‘mentor.’…There is a dedicatory le...
Power is implied in the very essence of Machiavelli’s writing. It is tied in with the greed,
After investigating the text in both George Orwell’s 1984 and Niccoló Machiavelli’s The Prince, a staggering connection can be found. When closely observed, the ideas presented by Machiavelli in his search for the ideal prince are in fact directly analogous to the motives and actions made by INGSOC in 1984. Machiavellian thought plays an important part in 1984 as its ideas on reputation, revolution, avoiding hatred, and the use of fear to control a populace are used by INGSOC in order to maintain complete control throughout the story.
To be successful, one must have the appearance of virtuousness, but not necessarily be virtuous. At least, this appears to be true according to Niccolo Machiavelli's works. Machiavelli's idea of the virtuous republican citizen may be compared to Hobbes' idea of a person who properly understands the nature and basis of sovereign political power. Hobbes' ideas seem to suggest that most anyone can claim rightful authority as there is a belief in God, and one can under Hobbes, claim legitimate authority rather easily. There are few proofs. Machiavelli, on the other hand, takes a strong position and suggests specific criteria in terms of power. With Machiavelli, there is a sense of righteousness and fairness and while he does not sanction authoritarian rule to save man from himself, it is also true that Machiavelli puts a lot of faith in leaders also. In some respects, one can see that the two theorists agree yet Machiavelli’s proposed Political society is more feasible thus superior to that of Hobbes.
Two of the greatest philosophers of all time are Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli. Hobbes was born in 1588 in England, when absolutism was taking hold in Europe. His most famous work was 'Leviathan', written in 1651. Hobbes discussed the ideal state and innate laws of man and nature, among other things. Machiavelli was born in Italy in 1469, a time when his home country was ruled mostly by foreign powers. His hometown, Florence, was still independent. Machiavelli's most famous work, 'The Prince', tells of his ideal state and ideal ruler. Machiavelli goes on to describe the perfect prince, a picture of cruelty and cunning. Though both genius philosophers, their views differ greatly. Hobbes believed in a minimalist government where the state only interfered with the lives of the citizens when it had to. The ideal kingdom was the kingdom of God, in Hobbes' mind. In Machiavelli's 'The Prince', he describes his ideal government with a strong monarch, and fearful subjects. In Hobbes' system, a close relationship was kept with God, while in Machiavelli's reason was the only rule. The most important and most dealt-with area of dialogue is the 'ideal' government.
Likewise, Plato’s philosopher king also uses the same concept but calls it “Justice” or “Good.” Similarly, to Machiavelli, who needs his Prince to have virtù to lead the people, Plato necessitates that his king use philosophical knowledge and emphasize justice to guide the unenlightened masses towards a just and stable society as well. When Socrates discusses the allegory of the cave, he remarks how when rulers must descend “to the general underground abode” where the masses “reside,” the ruler “will see a thousand times better than [the inhabitants of the cave]…because [the ruler has] seen the truth about things admirable and just and good” (Plato 520c). Plato believes that by seeing beyond the cave, and understanding the situation he exists in, the leader will have the appropriate ability to bring foresight and intelligence when making difficult decisions. While Plato’s and Machiavelli’s means of educating, changing and legitimizing political communities differ, the two philosophers share the same goal of using the benevolent dictators’ attained knowledge to lead the masses and their governments to prosperity and good fortune.