Essay on Comparing and Contrasting Mirandolla and Machiavelli

In the fourteenth century, the humanist philosopher Francesco Petrarch wrote a letter entitled How a Ruler Ought to Govern His Sate. Nearly a century later, another philosopher by the name of Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a book about governing, The Prince. The two documents show many similarities in content and theme. While the two wrote in similar subject matter, it is clear that these philosophers possess distinctly different viewpoints on how a ruler should govern. In Petrarch’s How a Ruler Ought to Govern His Sate and Machiavelli’s The Prince, both philosophers possess different opinions on how a ruler ought to govern. In particular Machiavelli pays specific attention to the importance of

Machiavelli takes a drastically different view on renaissance leadership, placing emphasis on obtaining and

Machiavelli’s interpretation of human nature was greatly shaped by his belief in God. In his writings, Machiavelli conceives that humans were given free will by God, and the choices made with such freedom established the innate flaws in humans. Based on that, he attributes the successes and failure of princes to their intrinsic weaknesses, and directs his writing towards those faults. His works are rooted in how personal attributes tend to affect the decisions one makes and focuses on the singular commanding force of power. Fixating on how the prince needs to draw people’s support, Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of doing what is best for the greater good. He proposed that working toward a selfish goal, instead of striving towards a better state, should warrant punishment. Machiavelli is a practical person and always thought of pragmatic ways to approach situations, applying to his notions regarding politics and

From the 14th century into the 17th century of European history, a cultural revolution took place. The renaissance came to Europe and pushed out old middle age ideals and brought in new humanistic ones. The renaissance brought new cultural ideas, new ways of learning, new art, and new standards of how to rule a Kingdom. Kingdoms were coming and going fast at this time, rulers were slipping under the pressures of expanding rule and it seemed that a new kingdoms were continuously being conquered. The guidelines set up in Machiavelli’s The Prince, help to define what makes up a good and bad leader in terms of the new Renaissance ideals.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once stated, “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” For centuries, philosophers, kings and many more have been on a quest to determine what it takes to become a great ruler and to maintain power. Between the Middle Ages (500 A.D.) and the Renaissance (1500 A.D.), in the books The Prince and The Life of Charlemagne, Niccolo Machiavelli and Einhard displayed their idea of what the theory of leadership is. Based on the ideas expressed in each text it appears as if virtu, amorality, and religious practices made the difference in what it took to become an effective leader during the Middle Ages.

It is essential prior to judgement on whether Machiavelli is a political amoralist or not to take into account The Discourses and the essence of their meaning. The Prince alone I grant can be mistaken for a how-to-be-a tyrant handbook with it’s absolute theories and some what lack of civility, where “the end justifies the means';. But it’s intention is assuming the political leader is already of moral standing and possess such qualities of integrity and virtue to be expected of one in the position of leadership. “Everybody sees what you appear to be,few feel what you are,and those few will not dare to oppose themselves to the many,who have the majesty of the state to defend them;and in the actions of men,and especially of princes,from which there is no appeal, the end justifies the means'; “Thus it is well to seem merciful,faithful humane,sincere,religious and also to be so.'; Effectively what seems as ruling with an iron fist is best expressed in terms of need. The 16th Century political unrest Machiavelli is influenced by would best be unified by such absolute power due to it’s degradation and lack of structure. So therefore it would not be seen as immoral with respect to it’s time. And looking at it from a wider more advanced perspective although the technique may appear rigid if it creates the desired unification

Niccolo Machiavelli is a very pragmatic political theorist. His political theories are directly related to the current bad state of affairs in Italy that is in dire need of a new ruler to help bring order to the country. Some of his philosophies may sound extreme and many people may call him evil, but the truth is that Niccolo Machiavelli’s writings are only aimed at fixing the current corruptions and cruelties that filled the Italian community, and has written what he believed to be the most practical and efficient way to deal with it. Three points that Machiavelli illustrates in his book The Prince is first, that “it is better to be feared then loved,”# the second

According to legend, just before his death, Niccolo Machiavelli told his friends that had remained faithful to him up until the very end about a dream he had had. In his dream, he had seen a group of peasants, wretched and decrepit in appearance. He asked them who they were. They replied, ‘We are the saintly and the blessed; we are on our way to heaven.’ Then he saw a crowd of formally attired men, aristocratic and grim in appearance, speaking solemnly of important political matters. Again, he asked them who they were and where they were going. ‘We are the damned of Hell’ was their answer. Machiavelli later remarked that he would be far happier in Hell. This story was from Viroli’s Niccolo’s Smile (“The Mask and The Face”). The crowd of

“Machiavelli wrote The Prince to serve as a handbook for rulers, and he claims explicitly throughout the work that he is not interested in talking about the ideal republics or imaginary utopias, as many of his predecessors had done” (Harrison). There is an ongoing debate about which philosopher’s ideas are most correct on the subject of leadership. Two main philosophers come to mind when thinking of this topic and they are Machiavelli with his book The Prince and Plato’s dialogue The Republic. The Republic takes a very theoretical point of view on leadership and portrays life as it should be in an ideal state, whereas Machiavelli’s The Prince, takes a more realistic point of view. Machiavelli is less interested with what things should be

"Machiavelli identifies the interests of the prince with the interests of the state." He felt that it was human nature to be selfish, opportunistic, cynical, dishonest, and gullible, which in essence, can be true. The state of nature was one of conflict; but conflict, Machiavelli reasoned, could be beneficial under the organization of a ruler. Machiavelli did not see all men as equal. He felt that some men were better suited to rule than others. I believe that this is true in almost any government. However, man in general, was corrupt -- always in search of more power. He felt that because of this corruptness, an absolute monarch was necessary to insure stability. Machiavelli outlined what characteristics this absolute ruler should have in The Prince. One example of this can be seen in his writings concerning morality. He saw the Judeo-Christian values as faulty in the state's success. "Such visionary expectations, he held, bring the state to ruin, for we do not live in the world of the "ought," the fanciful utopia, but in the world of "is". The prince's role was not to promote virtue, but to insure security. He reasoned that the Judeo-Christian values would make a ruler week if he actually possessed them, but that they could be useful in dealing with the citizens if the prince seemed to have these qualities. Another example of Machiavelli's ideal characteristics of a prince

According to Machiavelli's view of how to be an effective leader, a ruler should be one who is feared but not hated. Machiavelli states that fear is better than love because love is unreliable. All of the reasons that Machiavelli gives relate to how human nature controls men and drives them to commit crimes in order to reach their goals and satisfy themselves.

When examining Machiavelli political ideals, it is hard to look at it without saying this is cruel and not ideal in any sense. Machiavelli is a prime example for a strong leader that pursues justice through unification and has shown to be very open-minded. Justice doesn’t just come through cruelty and strength, it also requires intelligence with careful studies. As exhibited in the prior quote, he takes in historical mistakes and success to shape his ideal. To have a culture with justice, Machiavelli pushes that “It is necessary for a prince who wish to maintain his position to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it accordingly” (224). It is quite evident that Machiavelli is willing to use the full extent of his power without fear. Through his willingness and open-mindedness, he examines both side, good and the bad, for the benefit of his country. He believes only those that can utilize both knowledge is fit for the position of being a prince. When he says knowledge, it goes deep into the studies of history and past experiences. It is shown time and time again throughout his

Author’s Identity: Unlike many other previous writers on military thought, Machiavelli was not from pure or noble blood, although he was of enough social status to become literate. Instead, Machiavelli used his intellect to climb the social ladder the highest legs of Italian social order. From 1501 to 1521, Machiavelli worked as an influencer, author, and military leader. Rather than conceal his intellect to avoid prosecution or death, such as within a monastery, Machiavelli balanced a thin line between critical thought and appeasement in his allegorical experiences with Caesar Borgia.

He points out that leaders have succeeded in keeping the peace and ruling a successful kingdom when the people fear them and respect their power. Machiavelli states that if a leader is to soft and merciful, the people will not respect him, leading to chaos and lack of respect for leadership. Machiavelli makes a strong argument for his position, and most likely had a strong impact on how leadership was viewed.

It is fundamentally important to preface the discussion hosted in this essay by addressing ourselves to the most mundane question-why consider Machiavelli in the context of philosophy, least of all, political philosophy? This question dominates any philosophical inquiries of the Machiavelli’s political ideologies. Put differently, do the contributions by Niccolò Machiavelli to the various salient discourses in the Western thought, most notably political theory, meet the requisite standard models of academic philosophy? Machiavelli essentially seems not to consider himself a philosopher. In fact, he overtly disapproved of any philosophical inquiries into his works. In addition, his credentials do not qualify him to be properly admitted within the realm of philosophy (NeDermAN, 2002).