Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Machiavelli and lao-tzucompare and contrast
Machiavelli and lao-tzucompare and contrast
Machiavelli and lao-tzucompare and contrast
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Machiavelli and lao-tzucompare and contrast
There are many different governments in the world and they are all run differently. The United States has a republic, Russia is a capitalistic country, and North Korea is a dictatorship to name a few. The ideas of governments and politics have changed around immensely since the beginning of civilization. The 6th Century’s B.C. Lao-tzu’s Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching, and 15th Century’s Machiavelli’s The Qualities of a Prince have different views on use of money, war, and how to rule a functioning society. Both sides have great points on these topics which are all big factors of the idea of government. Everyone has their opinions on their favorite sort of government, but there may never be a day where the people of the world can agree on one, …show more content…
Lao-tzu and Machiavelli have completely opposite views on war. Lao-tzu believes in a peaceful, harmonic society with very little crime. Any sort of war would be a last resort for him and his society and must be avoided at all costs. Weapons causes chaos in the native state and people suffer and die everyday that the war is going on for both sides. Lao-tzu detests war whereas Machiavelli says war is a key part to ruling a society. A prince must be trained physically or strategically, preferably both, in the art of war in order to be ready for it if it ever breaks out. He states that the state would be lost without military power and if he didn’t know the art of war. A ruler that has no knowledge of war is essentially unarmed and their military may rise up and take over the state seeing this as one of the ruler’s weaknesses. Topography or knowing the land of the country is very important to Machiavelli in case an invasion ever took place and he needed to strategize based on location. The ancient philosophers views on war are on completely opposite ends of the spectrum, and a happy medium should be found in order to ensure protection and keep away chaos in the …show more content…
The Chinese philosopher Lao-tzu feels the people should be treated as children until they “grow” into an adult and can handle life on their own. He approves of helping out the society and providing them their needs. Peace is the main component of a perfect society for Lao-tzu. He hates war and in order to avoid it, Lao-tzu believes in isolating the state from other states so the society can function and grow on it’s own. The less governed a society is, the better it will turn out is a view of his. Using things such as force would make the people resent him and not look at him as the “Guardian of the State.” The same goes for being narcissistic or boasting about their power. Even though they were from two different time periods, Lao-tzu and Machiavelli agree on some rules of ruling a society. Both want to help the people out with their basic needs, Machiavelli having military protection as the main one. Also, they want to have adaptable ruling to make the people happier and less likely to cause chaos in the society. Stepping back and letting the society do it’s own thing sometimes is another agreed upon view. Keeping the people from knowing most of your ruling methods and letting them live life helps ruling because no one will be able to take those methods and use them to overthrow the ruler. In Machiavelli’s ideal kingdom, the throne is
Lao-Tzu believes in love and trust for the leader whereas Machiavelli strongly believes in fear from the leader. These views are almost complete opposites when paying attention to basics but the more you pay attention there are some similarities to be found, the main one being that they both believe that if the leader is hated then they government will struggle and possibly even fail. These views are almost complete opposites when paying attention to basics but the more you pay attention there are some similarities to be found, the main one being that they both believe that if the leader is hated then they government will struggle and possibly even fail. Another thing that you would be able to compare is that they both genuinely wanted what was best for their people under rule even though their views were complete opposites. Machiavelli said, “It is much safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking,” written in Machiavelli 's Ironic View of History by Salvatore. As far as their views contrast though, it was a very clear and direct that the way they looked at the government was nothing alike. You have one that believes that the only way to rule is to be loved then on the other had you have someone saying that the best kind of ruler is one that is feared, and that being loved isn 't relevant in this case. Lao-Tzu views this way of the government because he feels that if the people are on his side about things, than always fighting against him. Machiavelli though, is more intense on the idea of decision making and thinks that a ruler has to be ruthless no matter what the case, and is willing to make the best decision even if it isn 't the popular
Machiavelli strongly believes that a prince should be involved in the military and understand all military matters. A prince must always be concentrated on war. Whether his country is at war or not, he must always be prepared. He must continuously be training, mentally and physically, and know the terrain around him. Machiavelli believes that a prince who does not attain these military related qualities will fail as a leader. In addition, during times of war, a successful prince should always question all outcomes of possible battles and prepare himself for the future by studying past wars. Studying the
The Art of War, by Sun Tzu is a reading that demonstrates how business and war have various correlations. One of the major components of war illustrated is the concept of deception. Deception in war allows generals to acquire a strategic advantage over his adversary through misleading him. Similar to war, many businesses use this same approach in order to maximize profit and eradicate the competition within a market. A society built on such vicious methods can not sustain itself in such an environment for prolong periods of time.
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.
War is an unavoidable part of history and it was not in peace that Alexander the Great acquired one of the largest empires on earth. As said by Hugh Liebert, “Alexander the Great is understood to be the first statesman to attempt a ‘universal state’” (Liebert 1). This “universal state” was not obtained by peaceful methods. It was in Alexander’s conquest of all that stood in his path that he exhibits excellent understanding of the Machiavellian principles of war. Chapter fourteen of Machiavelli’s The Prince begins by stating: “A Prince, therefore, should have no care or thought but for war” (Machiavelli 37). If war should be a primary concern for a leader, then who else demonstrates a better understanding of warfare than Alexander the Grea...
For all of Machiavelli’s ruthlessness and espousal of deceit, he knew the value of authenticity and relying on his administration. A true leader cannot achieve greatness alone. Machiavelli says that the prince is the state, and the state is the prince. This means that whatever vision and principles the leader holds in the highest regard, they must be known to the state so that they can be realized. He believed that no matter how a prince was elected, his success would depend largely on his ministers. Collaboration between a prince and ministers would create an atmosphere of harmony and camaraderie, highly reducing the chances of rebellion. Without the support and cooperation of the people, military action is not possible, expansion is not possible and most importantly, governance is not possible. If a leader does not satisfy the needs of the people, they have the power to overthrow him through strength in numbers. Thus, a leader depends just as much on the people as they do on him. A leader must be able to convince the people to buy into his visio...
The system of government we have today was starting to developed centuries ago by the Athenians and Romans. Both governments were established with the intent to give power to the people, even though it did not always play out that way in society. The Athenian democracy and the Roman republic were two very different governments in practice, but also maintained similar characteristics in both systems of government.
Throughout history rulers have used force in the pursuit of the acquiring more power and wealth, regardless of the consequences. The use of force may lead to the fulfillment of ones current interests or goals, but continued abuse of this power in pursuit of ones own interests has historically lead to the downfall of those in power. In the text The Prince Machiavelli says, “It is much safer to be feared than loved, if you cannot have both”. This quote suggests that when given the choice it is better for a ruler to use his power, through force if necessary, and be feared than to do what is right for the people and lose everything. In Sophocles’ Antigone, Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War, and Sophocles’ Republic the analogy of the double-edged
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...
Tao-te Ching (in English pronounced “dow deh jing”) is believed to be written by Lao-tzu (6th century B.C). However, it is not for certain that he wrote the book. Lao-tzu is translated as “Old Master”. He was born in the state of Ch’u in China. It’s been said that he worked in the court of the Chou dynasty. The day that he was leaving the court to start his own life, the keeper of the gate urged him to write his thoughts as a book. Lao-tzu’s work mostly illustrates Taoism –a religion founded by Chang Tao-ling A.D. 150. His main purpose in this piece is practicing peace, simplicity, naturalness, and humility. Lao-tzu believes that people are overloaded with temporal objects in this world. He recommends his readers to let go of everything and always keep the balance in anything. In my opinion, Lao-tzu would more likely dislike our government and the way that people live nowadays. The reason is because majority of the people are attached to secular things. To paraphrase the famous, people have materialistic characteristics in today’s world which is completely against Lao-tzu’s view.
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 ...
Although they share some similarities in ideology, these parallels are greatly overshadowed by the concepts in which Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli diverge. Their primary distinction lies within their view of human nature and it’s role in governing. Lao-Tzu maintains that if we promote a system of governing to the least possible extent, then human nature should manifest a favorable temperance and dictate the direction of society. In fact, Lao-Tzu asserts numerous attempts to illustrate his point that if leaders, “Stop Trying to control” (§ 57, 35), then there is no desire (§ 37, 24), he dwells in reality (§ 38, 29), and “the world will govern itself.” (§ 57, 35) Although this is an extremely optimistic and beneficial ideal, the main problem with Lao-Tzu’s entire philosophy is exactly that, it can only be viewed as a philosophy. Because it appears under the section entitled “Government,” I...
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
Machiavelli’s ultimate goal is to inform the Prince on how to keep his principality and assure his spot. The Prince needs to maintain power and can do anything to get and keep it, as long as it doesn’t affect his subjects negatively. Some methods can be steal land, make empty promises, and cheat people in order to stay on top. Machiavelli says “The Principle foundations that all States have, as well new, as old, or mixt are good laws, and good armes; and because there cannot be good laws where there are good armes; and where there are good armes, there must be good laws.” (Letter 12) Without good armies there cannot be good laws, but if a state has a strong army, that shows the state has good laws that are enforced.It is crucial to lay down a solid foundation, because after he has spent so long clawing his way to the top, he wouldn’t want all of it come crashing down. This means eliminating rivals and winning followers. Machiavelli says “They who by fortune only becomes Princes of private men, with small pains to attain is, but have much ado to maintain themselves in it; and find no difficulty at all in the way, because they are carried thither with...
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