More handpicked essays just for you.
Contributions of Niccolo Machiavelli to political philosophy
Political ideology of niccolo machiavelli
Contributions of Niccolo Machiavelli to political philosophy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Prince as a Modern Political Guidebook
"Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown." (Shakespeare, 2 Henry IV 111.1.31)
Kingship and leadership is a human concept. Contraptions and fiction invented by human beings that hold the fabric of society together. It is the job of the leader to make the fiction work for the good of all. The quote above evokes the overall feeling about kingship held by both Prince Hal and his father in Shakespeare's Henry plays. Being a leader is perhaps the most difficult position one can ever attain. And in the same vein that King Henry IV says this above line, so does his son King Henry V offer this lament:
The slave, a member of the country's peace,
Enjoys it; but in gross brain little wots
What watch the King keeps to maintain the peace,
Whose hours the peasant best advantages. (Henry V: IV.i 280-4)
Shakespeare was acutely aware that there was little difference between a real king and a player-king. He gives us Henry V, a prince who knows how to be both. We see him as a politician dealing with ambassadors and a diplomat dealing with his advisors. He dispenses justice and mercy. He must know when to execute traitors and thieves and when to free drunks who insult him in the streets. He is a warrior and an oratorical wizard. He inspires courage in the face of desperate circumstances and perhaps most importantly he knows how to seem one thing while he is another. All these qualities make Hal Shakespeare's quintessential prince and these are the qualities that Niccolo Machiavelli saw as necessities for any "good" leader of a people.
The Prince, written in Florence in the year 1513, by Machiavelli, is one of t...
... middle of paper ...
...cause he didn't teach anything that wasn't already known to powerful leaders. In fact, in his address to Lorenzo de Medici, as I noted earlier, he states that the conclusions he makes are drawn from his knowledge of history. Throughout the book he makes references to historical situations and events that employ the very means to political success he describes. What is great about The Prince is not its original content but that it mirrors the politics of his time as well as our time. The book is a product of the Italian Renaissance in that it attempts to explain how things really are rather than how they are perceived.
WORKS CITED
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Trans. Christian E. Detmold. New York: Airmont, 1965.
Strauss, Leo. "Machiavelli the Immoralist." The Prince: A Norton Critical Edition. New York: W.W. Norton, 1977. 180-185.
Jefferson’s language in the Declaration of Independence shows clear influence from Locke and his theory of Life, Liberty, and Property. Locke’s idea of government is one that sets out to protect these rights and once a government becomes more destructive than useful it is the right of the people to dissolve the government and start over from scratch. It can be seen that Jefferson’s view of government, through his criticisms toward the British Parliament, are in direct alignment with Locke’s.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince, translated by N.H. Thomson. Vol. XXXVI, Part 1. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909–14; Bartleby.com, 2001.
Gauss, Christian. Introduction. The Prince. By Niccolo Machiavelli. Trans. Luigi Ricci, revised by E.R.P. Vincent. New York: Signet Classic, 1999:7-32
Niccolo Machiavelli lived in Florence, Italy in the 1400’s. The country of Italy was divided into city-states that had their own leaders, but all pledged alliance to their king. In time in which great leaders were needed in order to help the development of a city-state and country, Machiavelli had a theory that man needed a leader to control them. In his book The Prince, he speaks of the perfect leader.
Here the government was instituted only by “consent of the governed”, making it clear that Jefferson thought that the only way a ruler or ruling body could be seen as legitimate was if they were elected by the people (Cummings 2015, 64). This was a direct critique of the British King’s rule over the Colonies. For Jefferson, not only was British rule oppressive but also completely illegitimate as it was a system of rulership that did not source its power from the people (Cummings 2015, 65). In addition, the introduction of popular sovereignty as a core governing principle also lent itself to the idea of limited government. If the government “derviv[ed] their just powers” from the people, not from divine authority, as it was with Britain and other monarchies, then it followed that the government would only be able to exercise powers in the areas allocated by the people and, therefore, would be limited to their purview alone (Cummings 2015, 64). This was an important point because it ensured the America would never be under the illegitimate rule of a tyrant again. This idea directly connected to the final important principle of government the Declaration laid out; the right to revolution. If a government had become “destructive of these ends”, such as failing to protect the people’s rights or abusing the
How is it that Descartes goes about proving that God exists? His means are limited. He...
...der to maintain success. King Henry showed that he is restricted to one language which resulted him to not gain the lower class power and it then lead him to focus on his political status. On the other hand, Hal presented himself to the viewers as a friendly character, yet he sustained to manipulate and lie to others to achieve his goals. Henry IV n, Part 1 presents the idea of political power and the different characteristics leaders follow. The lesson for audiences, then, is to develop relationships with different people who will expand one’s area of inspiration and the ability to advance success. One can learn from the mistakes of King Henry and remember to be visible and properly positioned, so society can see one’s strengths and talents.
In the first meditation, Descartes makes a conscious decision to search for “in each of them [his opinions] at least some reason for doubt”(12). Descartes rejects anything and everything that can be doubted and quests for something that is undeniably certain. The foundation of his doubt is that his opinions are largely established by his senses, yet “from time to time I [Descartes] have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once”(12). First, Descartes establishes that error is possible, employing the example of the straight stick that appears bent when partially submerged in water, as mentioned in the Sixth Replies (64-65). Secondly, he proves that at any given time he could be deceived, such is the case with realistic dreams. Further, Descartes is able to doubt absolutely everything since it cannot be ruled out that “some malicious demon … has employed all his energies in order to deceive me” (15). The malicious demon not only causes Descartes to doubt God, but also sends him “unexpectedly into a deep whirlpool which tumbles me around so that I can neither stand on the bottom or swim on the top”(16). Descartes has reached the point where he must begin to rebuild by searching for certainty.
In his book Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes tries to accomplish several subject concerns. Firstly, Descartes attempts to accomplish the use of methodological doubt to rid himself of all beliefs that could be false. Then, he arrives at particular beliefs that could not possibly be false. Next, he discovers a criterion of knowledge. Also, he proves that the mind is distinct from the body and also the existence of God.
Machiavelli, Nicolo (1532) The Prince. In Peter Bondanella’s and Mark Musa’s (eds) The Portable Machiavelli. (pp. 77-166) New York, New York: Penguin Books.
In his epistemological quest for truth, through thought experiment, Descartes’ Meditations offers the reader a method of doubt that could be used in order to discover what is absolutely certain, and free oneself from the errors caused by misjudgments. Descartes’ purpose is to find indubitable truth. He makes used of the method of hyperbolic doubt in order to establish an absolute and convincing foundation of truth. He discovers that sense experience can be put to doubt, but Descartes cannot doubt that he actually doubts. Furthermore, he fears deception about everything. However, he cannot be deceived about his own existence since to be deceived, one must first exist. “I think, therefore I am”. I...
Therefore, many of the philosophers disagreed with each other and came up with very different answers for the same concepts. Plato also did not know the answers to all of the questions that arose in the pre-Socratic era. Plato decided to look back on the pre-Socratics era in particular at the philosophers Heraclitus and Parmenides. He agreed with Heraclitus who believed our world is constantly changing and with Parmenides who believed that the real world is not the same as the world of our experience. Plato chose to look at materialism and also his theory of Forms in a two-world setting in order to attempt to answer the questions of the universe. The two worlds Plato is talking about are: a world that is in constant flux (the world we live in) and a world that is ever-changing (the real world, otherwise known as Forms). Plato’s Forms distinguishes things that are real from things in our mind that we perceive as real. Plato also made the argument that reality is different than our worldly experience. Plato believed that material objects can imitate the forms because they have order, however, Aristotle’s disagreed. However, Aristotle thought that Plato’s concept of “participation” didn’t make sense. Aristotle believed that the world we live in is our reality and he argued that Plato’s idea of forms
Being young and inexperienced, and having read one small but important part of Plato’s great treasury of dialogues, I stood lost and confused. It is impossible for a philosopher to believe in the existence of two simultaneous worlds. But that is what his words are saying to me. Did he truly believe that our souls had existed in that perfect world, prior to their birth? Being certain that Plato did not think so, and having realized the boundaries of my understanding, I’ve consulted people who dedicated their lives to this great philosopher. I must admit that it was just then that my confusion reached its utmost point. I have never seen so many confronted opinions on the same topic. Well, we have the dialogues right in front of us, what is the thing that’s keeping us from realizing Plato’s thought as it is, and at least reduce the number of confrontations? I know what my obstacle is: youth, lack of experience, lack of knowledge, but what is theirs?
Unfortunately, Niccolo was dismissed from office when the Medici came to power and the overthrown the Republic. Without a job, Niccolo was forced to switch to writing about politics. He desperately wanted to get back to politics and in favor of the Medici by writing a book to influence what he thought was the Medici’s goals and dedicated it to him, this is where the creation of The Prince came to life (Giuseppe). The book The Prince was a book of advice to politicians regarding how to gain power and keep that power. The title The Prince is not about someone who has inherited land and is a decedent to a king.
Descartes begins his First Meditation by calling all of his beliefs into doubt. His method of systematic doubt or skepticism serves as a general demolition of all previously held opinions. The doubting can be broken into two separate parts. First, Descartes must abandon every belief which lacks complete certainty. Second, once a careful examination of his beliefs has been performed, Descartes must retain only those beliefs characterized by the highest degree of precision. Descartes’ intention is distinctively clear, for he sees it necessary to suppose the falsity of everything he formerly believed as influenced by sensual knowledge, so that he can start again from the right foundations and establish absolutely clear truths.