Niccolò Machiavelli thoroughly discusses the importance of religion in the formation and maintenance of political authority in his famous works, The Prince and The Discourses. In his writing on religion, he states that religion is beneficiary in the formation of political authority and political leaders must support and endorse religion in order to maintain power. However, Machiavelli also critiques corrupt religious institutions that become involved in politics and in turn, cause corruption in the citizenry and divisions among the state. In the following essay, I will examine Machiavelli’s analysis of religion and discuss the relationship between religion and politics in Machiavelli’s thought.
It is important to establish from the very beginning of the essay what Machiavelli’s politics are and how he arrives at his beliefs in order to understand his views on religion in politics. Machiavelli is a realist thinker whose main arguments are about maintaining political authority over a state by using historical evidence, especially Roman, in order to support his theories. His main writings are an illustration of realpolitik, a government policy that emphasizes retaining power by using any means necessary including war and deceit. “Niccolò Machiavelli … emphasized a political calculus based on interest, prudence, power, and expediency above all other considerations.” (Kegley pp 36) Therefore, one must remember when reading Machiavelli that he is attempting to use religion as an instrument to maintain political power rather than a mechanism for achieving ideals.
Machiavelli’s view on religion stems from his famous argument of whether it is better to be feared or loved as a leader of a state. Machiavelli feels that it is safer to be feared than loved, but a great leader would hope to be both even though it is rather difficult. His reasoning behind this is that he feels the nature of man is to be fickle and greedy and man will turn against the political leaders in difficult times despite his loyalty during prosperous times. Machiavelli writes, “…that prince who bases his power entirely on their words, finding himself stripped of other preparations, comes to ruin; for friendships that are acquired by a price and not by greatness and nobility of character are purchased but are not owned, and at proper time cannot be spent.” (The Prince Chapte...
... middle of paper ...
... control religion. While the government must stay secular without the influence of religious organizations, it must appear to be quite the opposite in the view of the citizenry. Religious organizations must be used to keep the people pious in order to instill the fear of God rather then a fear of the state for the leader to avoid being despised, in turn causing him to be both feared and loved. Unusual laws and organizations are introduced easier into the city when they are based on religion and morals and often times only divine authority would instill them. Religious institutions must be kept from getting too large and must be kept from gaining political power or else they will turn corrupt and cause divisions among the people as in the case of the Roman Catholic Church in Italy since religious organizations are neither powerful enough to defend the state nor are they willing to submit their power to those who can.
Works Cited
Kegley, Charles W., and Eugene R. Wittkopf. World Politics Trend and Transformation. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2006.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. “The Prince and The Discourses” McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages; 1 edition (August 1, 1950)
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.
Phoebe tries to help Holden by asking him to name one thing he likes. However, when Holden mentions Allie, Phoebe tries to be his wake up call and remind him that Allie is dead (Salinger 171). This part in the novel shows how Holden is still attached to Allie, and will not forget about him. However, Phoebe tries to remind Holden that Allie is dead, attempting to make Holden let go of what happened in the past. Phoebe attempts to get Holden’s mind off of his removal from his school by asking him what he wants to become in the future (Salinger 172). This is when Phoebe’s words of advice and support start effecting Holden. Holden begins to think about his options, and what he truly wants to do in the future. “Why can’t I? Please, Holden! I won’t do anything-I’ll just go with you, that’s all! I won’t even take my clothes with me if you don’t want me to-I’ll just take my-” (Salinger 206). This quotation shows how supportive and encouraging Phoebe is towards Holden. When Holden tells Phoebe that he is leaving, Phoebe’s reaction is very affectionate. Phoebe brings a suitcase filled with her clothes, and begins to beg Holden to let her follow him. Phoebe’s encouraging words of advice, is another source of familial love for Holden to move on, and look forward towards his
The Church dominated political thought through thinkers such as Augustine and Aquinas. In The Prince and The Discourses, Machiavelli breaks from the early Christian tradition of thinkers such as Augustine in his work City of God. Augustine lays out the characteristics of a good Christian leader while Machiavelli issues a scathing criticism of such characteristics and the Christian faith in general. Augustine takes a moral approach while Machiavelli remains rather pragmatic in his approach.
Overall Machiavelli’s perspective does seem harsh and cold at times, but he proves to be an avid supporter of popular rule throughout his writings. He believes in popular rule so strongly that he states it is acceptable to use immoral means to achieve a peaceful government. If the citizens are not happy and feel their ruler disregards their wishes then the populace could become enraged and therefore, the ruler would not be executing his power of indirect popular rule. Machiavelli states that in order to achieve the necessity of popular rule, a leader will have to step outside a moral sphere and do whatever it takes to achieve popular rule. Machiavelli puts clear and strict limits on acts of immorality in leadership. The use of immorality is only acceptable in order to achieve overall good for a government. Engaging in immorality for the sake of popular rule is justified because it is done to serve the people and the state successfully.
Machiavelli discusses human free will especially in its relation to God, or more specifically, fortune. He chooses to focus on Fortune though, leaving God out of the equation for the most part which he does in most of his writing, as he believes his writing is on politics which is separate from religion. He argues that the general belief is that Fortune and God govern human affairs and that it is easy for humans to...
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...
Natasha Trethewey uses descriptive imagery of bodies to describe personal and historical unjustifiable acts, specifically through racism and abuse. In the poem “What Is Evidence”, Tretheway depicts her mother’s brutal injuries in order to demonstrate the injustice of her mother’s abusive relationship. Trethewey's mother hides her “fleeting bruises” and her “splintered clavicle, pierced temporal,” so her daughter will not carry the burden of her own abuse by her husband. Specifically choosing to hide the wounds, Trethewey shows her mother’s attempt to protect her daughter from experiencing any of the pain, physical and emotional, that she constantly feels. Trethewey describes her mother’s bones as “thin” to exhibit the result of her step-father’s
Coca-Cola was invented in 1886 by John Pemberton in Atlanta, and Pemberton wanted to invent something that would bring him commercial success (Martin.). Ever since then, Coca-Cola has been a globally recognized merchandise. The “Coca-Cola Iconic Santa Claus “Ad is one of several ways by which the Coca-Cola Company shows how much happiness the beverage can bring to people of all ages. It was first aired in the 1930s (Sundblom), and it has been around since then. Looking at fig. 1. “Coca-Cola Iconic Santa Claus”, those smiles on the faces of the baby and the Santa Claus obviously show that the advertisement is directed towards everyone during Christmas. This Ad used credibility and emotional strategies to appeal to the audience.
The relationship between Lady Macbeth and Macbeth was described as “best marriage in Shakespeare” in the beginning of the play. Duncan has once described Macbeth’s love “sharp as his spur”, and Macbeth has also described Lady Macbeth’s love “dearest partner of greatness”. Similar to every marriage and couples have, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth had their peaceful and amusing life as a husband and wife, too. However, Lady Macbeth was rather strange, mentally, and obsessive towards the position of the King. Lady Macbeth wanted the luxurious, and carefree life of being the King and Queen of the country, Scotland. This has always cause the relationship between the couples to be quite awkward and not suitable, but at the same time, we can see their trust in each other; to be able to tell their lust and greed
25-26), expressing nothing but loyalty to his ruler; not 30 lines later though he thinks to himself how he must “o’erleap” (iv. 56) the Prince of Cumberland, the rightful heir, if he is to become king. Macbeth appears to be a faithful servant of the king, but he is fantasizing and ultimately falling toward the path of a wretched murderer. Macbeth even has a dichotomous relationship with Lady Macbeth. The couple, in terms of their love for each other, is unfailing; they call each other “dearest partner” (v. 11) and “dearest love” (v. 67), earnestly at each other’s sides. However, there is a corruption to their love, symbolic of Mars triumphing over Venus. The love between them is so great that, instead of Lady Macbeth talking her husband out of murder, she encourages it, revealing corruptness even in their affections for each other. By the end of the act, Macbeth finds himself in the ultimate self-conflict. He hushes Lady Macbeth, saying “We will proceed no further in this [murder] (vii. 34), but in a moment he has already changed his mind again, setting out to kill the king. Macbeth is a character of self-contrast and self-conflict, made ever-evident in Act I of
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.
...rong simply because they believed the confederate had more knowledge and would choose the right answer. And though the situation was not as confusing as in other studies it still had the effect of making the participants look to others for guidance on how to precede in the giving their answers.
Machiavelli, N., 1988, The Prince, Q. Skinner and R. Price (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
In his 1955 experiment, he had participants analyze the similarities in line length out loud, but planted “confederates” to give incorrect answers. To his surprise, 32% of participants conformed to the obviously incorrect answers per trial, and 76% conformed at least once (McLeod, 2008).
Kegley, Charles W., and Eugene R. Wittkopf. World Politics Trend and Transformation. New York: St. Martin's, 1981. Print.