Throughout his thought, Machiavelli makes it a point to present Fortuna as a reason of violence. Thus, Machiavelli makes us believe that it is more than just compulsory to defeat Fortuna to ensure the continued existence of the state and it is the Machiavellian virtu which serves as a gate to this crucial victory(Nederman 2005).
As mentioned earlier that this book has attracted a lot of debates, one such debate is that of morality. Many philosophers claim Machiavelli’s work to be immoral or at least amoral, out of which arguments of some are given below.
The first has to be Benedetto Croce (1925), who simply puts a “pragmatist” or a “realist” cap on Machiavelli’s head as he highlights the denouncement of so called ethics in issues of politics
…show more content…
Moreover, Ernst Cassirer sees Machiavelli’s work as tussle between “facts” and the “values” (Nederman 2005). In other words, Ernst Cassirer claims that the belief system is not ought to be the truth system more so considering the fact that political dynamics and morals are …show more content…
It is well known that no one including the prince has the agency to choose his/her nature or change it (instincts), therefore, free will can be imagined to be illusionary (Magedanz n.d.).
It is this idea of virtu that serves as a central figure in not just The Prince but also other works of Machiavelli, most famously ‘The Art of War’ where the general is expected to change his tactics and strategies based on the varied battlefield that he may encounter Drawing a parallel, it can be claimed that in Machiavelli’s views politics dynamics are similar to a battlefield scenarios. Hence, the Prince just as the general needs to have virtù i.e. to be aware of what strategies are apt in a particular circumstance (Nederman
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.
The study of Machiavelli, long established, focuses mainly on his political and literary works rather than his religious views. Numerous monographs and literary analysis’ of his life and writings exist, and while some do mention his religion, few concern themselves with it, other than as a byproduct of his world-view. Nevertheless, a growing trend in the last fifty or so years, carries a two-fold approach. One side of the trend argues for a completely atheistic, satirical, and ironic Machiavelli in regards to religion. On the other hand, the second viewpoint negates this argument and states that Machiavelli held to his Christian upbringing. Moreover, Machiavelli threw off the mantle of the corrupt and tyrannical Roman Catholic Church; choosing to go back to the tenants of the
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.
...prevented conflict was important to evaluate. As well as examining solutions to the current situation he finds himself in. Using the lens of Machiavelli this loss of control could be better understood, allowing for a critical observation of why the events were unfolding.
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...
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 is undisputedly one of the most influential political philosophers of all time. In The Prince, his most well-known work, he relates clearly and precisely how a decisive, intelligent man can gain and maintain power in a region. This work is revolutionary because it flies in the face of the Christian morality which let the Roman Catholic Church hold onto Europe for centuries. Machiavelli's work not only ignores the medieval world's ethics: The Prince suggests actions which oppose the four most basic of Christianity's Ten Commandments.
The Prince, written by Machiavelli is concerned with the issues politics, ruling a state and how a ruler or a leader should be. The key properties of a ruler are represented by Machiavelli in details and the inner and outer effects of the success in ruling are mentioned. One of the most important topics in The Prince is about the relationship of skillfulness (virtù) of the ruler and his good or bad chance (fortune) and their effects on gaining and keeping the power. Virtù, which has the present meaning of manliness, is used by Machiavelli as having skills, strength, intelligence and prudence of a ruler. It is the inner ability to gain the power and not to lose it easily. Fortuna, with the present use, fortune is explained as the word of God and the luck and opportunity that is given to the ruler. A ruler by fortune is dependent
Written almost 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince” brings forward a new definition of virtue. Machiavelli’s definition argued against the concept brought forward by the Catholic Church. Machiavelli did not impose any thoughts of his own, rather he wrote from his experience and whatever philosophy that lead to actions which essentially produced effective outcomes in the political scene of Italy and in other countries. While Machiavelli is still criticized for his notions, the truth is that, consciously or subconsciously we are all thinking for our own benefit and going at length to achieve it. On matters of power where there is much to gain and a lot more to lose, the concept of Machiavelli’s virtue of “doing what needs to be done” applies rigorously to our modern politics and thus “The Prince” still serves as a suitable political treatise in the 21st century.
The fortuna-virtù dichotomy has become one of the most fundamental aspects of Machiavelli’s view of the political. The first concept refers to the way in which would-be rulers deal with the contingent occurrences that take place in realm of the political. The second principle is related to the ability to interpret and control the social environment in order to advance the interest of the state and the personal standing of the ruler (Bobbitt, 2013: 43). Most importantly, the existence of virtù entails the possession of a set of skills that are geared towards preserving the viability of the state, even if the means to attain it require the pursuit of amoral actions (Fischer, 2000: 54). This essay begins by outlining the description
He affirms that the absolute destruction of a state is the surest way to establish power. A ruler who does not destroy a city accustomed to freedom will certainly be destroyed by it because the people will always use their “ancient privileges as a rallying point, which neither time nor benefits will ever cause it to forget.” If the people’s state of liberty is threatened, they will always desire to rebel in an effort to reclaim that freedom, even if the ruler is of great benefit to the state. Machiavelli uses the example of the Florentines’ one hundred year occupation of Pisa and stresses that even after a hundred years, the people of Pisa still rallied against the Florentines for their freedom. As a means of avoiding these rebellions, Machiavelli promotes the destruction of cities because it forces the people into submitting to his ultimate power. Though it may seem cruel, Machiavelli was not concerned with morals.
9. Russell Price, “The Theme of Gloria in Machiavelli” in Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 4, Studies in the Renaissance Issue (Winter, 1977), pp. 588-631.
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.
... Nederman, Cary, "Niccolò Machiavelli", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
When examining the totalitarian government of 1984 by George Orwell, a direct connection can be drawn to the motives and ideals associated with Niccoló Machiavelli’s The Prince. Machiavelli’s support of the political necessity as a means to remain in power resonate with the government whose aim is to “extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought” as a way to ensure complete political orthodoxy within the country (193). Specifically, 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. In the following paragraphs, the connections between these two works above will be elaborated on in an attempt to show the Machiavellian influence of the government in 1984.