Machiavelli and Rousseau, both influential philosophers, were innovators of their time. They represented different ideas on what the state of nature and government should consist of, having both similarities and differences. Their viewpoints evolved from different time periods, which make them unique. Machiavelli, the sixteenth century Italian diplomat expressed, that a Prince should be unethical in achieving power. He argued that to be successful in politics certain qualities were of importance and ethics could not stand in the way. Machiavelli stated that a Prince’s power should be maintained in being feared and loved, and possessing control over the people. Rousseau on the other hand was an eighteen century philosopher and writer. Unlike Machiavelli, his view’s on political and modern philosophies were influenced by the French Revolution. Rousseau believed in a legitimate government that was elected by a civil society based on social contract. Both philosophers wanted to develop an ideal structure for the development of a functional society. They both had different tactics in doing so but aim for the same thing, a great society. Rousseau’s approach seems most persuading to me in the sense that is based off a group of people coming together and deciding what is best for the majority. Machiavelli influenced Rousseau in the context of political economy and social contract. During the sixteenth century the political foundation was of interest to Machiavelli. He wrote, “The Prince” as a guide to political power. It was his analysis on how a powerful ruler could be created. Although most seen his writing as harsh, it allowed others the idea of what they believed the perfect civilized government should look like. His rules and... ... middle of paper ... ... for the same thing, a great society. Both styles of government presented in this paper reflect parts of what our government can be but Rousseau’s approach seems most persuading in the sense that it is most relatable to our government. Overall, Machiavelli influenced Rousseau in the context of political economy and social contract and they both seem to believe government should be directed towards the people but have different views on government. Works Cited Rousseau, Jean. “Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men,” Trials of Modernity: Europe and the Modern World. Eds. Stacy Burton and Dennis Dworkin. 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson, 2001. 139-43. Print. Machiavelli, Niccolo. “The Prince” Trials of Modernity: Europe and the Modern World. Eds. Stacy Burton and Dennis Dworkin. 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson, 2001. 139-43. Print.
The principal tension is between a democratic conception, where the general will is simply what the citizen of the state have decided together in their sovereign assembly, in simple terms Rousseau is saying the people generally settle for what the leaders of their individual communities lay down and out for them, and an alternative interpretation where the general will is the transcendent incarnation of the citizens common interest that exists in abstraction from what any of them actually want. Both views find some support in Rousseau’s texts, and both have been influential, modern and contemporary epistemic conception of democracy often make reference to Rousseau’s text and have both been
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.
"The Prince," written by Niccolo Machiavelli in 1513, is a political treatise addressed to the Medici family of Florentine. "The Prince" was written to analyze and explain the acquisition, perpetuation, and use of political power in the west. Machiavelli’s theories in the work describe methods that an aspiring prince could possibly use to acquire power, or an existing prince could use to keep power. Though this work was written in 1513 and published in 1532, its context can be applied to foreign policy in today’s world. The principles suggested by Machiavelli provide insight into the issues that arose with the war on Iraq and issues involved with occupation and transition to a new government.
It is clear that Locke and Rousseau had different views on equality and democracy. Locke believed in reason and self-governance whereas Rousseau advocated for decision making for the good of the community rather than just the individual. Locke believed that the government is responsible for the protection of rights and freedoms in the state of nature, yet Rousseau relinquishes these rights and says that it is the government’s job to advance the general will of the people.
John Locke, Rousseau, and Napoleon all have very different views on what would make a good society. Locke uses a democracy/republican type view that many countries still model after today. Locke’s view on a happy society is the most open and kind to its people, out of the three. Rousseau takes the complete opposite stance from Locke in thinking a more dictatorship government would be what is best for society as a whole as what is good for one person is good for one’s society. Napoleon plays by his own rules with telling people he will follow Lockean like views only to really want to be an absolutist government under his own power. However, all of their ideas would work for a given society so long as they had a set of laws in place and citizens
Machiavelli and Rousseau, both significant philosophers, had distinctive views on human nature and the relationship between the government and the governed. Their ideas were radical at the time and remain influential in government today. Their views on human nature and government had some common points and some ideas that differed.
While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely, Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors (i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately, negates freedom. How each philosopher interprets this manifestation of servitude in civil society reveals the intrinsic problems of liberty in civil society. Marx and Rousseau come to a similar conclusion on what is to be done to undo the fetters that society has brought upon humankind but their methods differ when deciding how the shackles should be broken. To understand how these two men’s views vary and fit together it must first be established what they mean by “freedom”.
Both Aristotle's “Politics” and Jean Jacques Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality address the natural right and superiority of man and his subsets. In his piece, Aristotle discusses the emotional feeling of superiority, while Rousseau discusses the more logistical aspects. Together, their writing begs the question of the morality of slavery. Aristotle seems more willing to accept slavery as a natural creation by humans, however, in the end both of their pieces show the immorality and abnormality of slavery. Rousseau and Aristotle both believe that some people are naturally superior to others, and together they create a well-rounded understanding of how superiority complexes are justified.
From his figurative window, Rousseau sees a Europe ravaged by conflicts resulting from supposedly peaceable and civilized institutions (111). He posits that the essentially problematic flaw, the cause of conflict, is a contradiction in modes of relating: while individuals live within a framework of enforced norms ("l...
The term political philosophy cannot be mentioned without Machiavelli’s The Prince coming to mind. This is one of the most notable books ever written on the topic of politics and one of the most well known books to come from the Renaissance, but it is not the only book from this time period that focused on politics. Machiavelli also wrote Discourses on Livy, which gives a very different view of the political world and Francis Bacon wrote about the reign of Henry VII. Each of these manuscripts focuses on the different traits that a prince ought to have, their views on how to gain political power, and their political philosophies. In The Prince, Machiavelli believes that the key to power is a combination of fear and love; in the Discourses on Livy, he writes that knowledge of the past is important, and Bacon seems to think that being a private man while knowing much about others is most vital.
...ons on what kind of government should prevail within a society in order for it to function properly. Each dismissed the divine right theory and needed to start from a clean slate. The two authors agree that before men came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature, which lacked society and structure. In addition, the two political philosophers developed differing versions of the social contract. In Hobbes’ system, the people did little more than choose who would have absolute rule over them. This is a system that can only be derived from a place where no system exists at all. It is the lesser of two evils. People under this state have no participation in the decision making process, only to obey what is decided. While not perfect, the Rousseau state allows for the people under the state to participate in the decision making process. Rousseau’s idea of government is more of a utopian idea and not really executable in the real world. Neither state, however, describes what a government or sovereign should expect from its citizens or members, but both agree on the notion that certain freedoms must be surrendered in order to improve the way of life for all humankind.
The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that the state played and its relationship to its citizen’s participation and access to the political economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of capital and distributions from the government. Studying the different approaches will let us show the similarities of principles that eliminate abuse of power and concentration of wealth by few, and allow access for all. To further evaluate these similarities, we must first understand the primary principles of each of the philosophers’ concepts.
Rousseau, Jean, and Donald A. Cress. "Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men." Basic political writings. 2nd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub. Co., 2011. 27-92. Print.
Along with these basic premises in Rousseau’s democracy, four basic conditions must exist to allow for democracy to flourish: a small state, a “g...
Strauss, Leo. Machiavelli’s Intention: The Prince . Ed. Leo Strauss. N.p., 1958. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. .