Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince

The Renaissance represented a new era in which values such as secularism and power became prevalent in society. Machiavelli expresses the need for politics and religion to be separated throughout his book "The Prince". Previously rulers had been restricted by Christian principals, but Machiavelli held the idea that rulers were warranted in any action so as long as it benefited the general public. Machiavelli believed that politics existed outside the realm of religion and morals. Subsequently, he approved of using any means necessary to gain and keep power, including lying, stealing, and murder. During this time Italy's city-states were in political chaos and condottieri roamed the streets. Machiavelli thought it was the ruler's duty to maintain discipline and peace in society at any cost. Despite his intentions to help Italy, Machiavelli's ideas were often seen as immoral and dishonest. The idea of a purely political action where morals were set aside is later referred to as the " Reasons of the state". In addition, Machiavelli felt a ruler must be sly

For many centuries, there have been many leaders and rulers around the world making their own rules and decisions. In the Book “The Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli, Machiavelli describes ways that leaders can be successful if they follow his advice. One leader that shows Machiavelli’s advice by the way they rule is Adolf Hitler.The way he ruled was by fear, violence, and by conquering other countries. Although Hitler had some failures during his lifetime, he shows how Machiavelli’s advice is relevant in today's leaders.

Machiavelli’s The Prince is just as applicable to the lives of leaders in the 1500’s as it is for leaders in modern times. Although any person who is in a position of authority might not say that they use Machiavellian tactics. Through their actions it is evident that the teachings of The Prince are still used on a global scale. Concepts such as safeguarding the state, and becoming wealthy, are just a few of the concepts that are beneficial to a strong government and reflected in current political situations at home and abroad.

In 1512, the Medici family rose to power once again in Florence Italy. Once in power they became privy to internal plots against the Medici family, and despite his innocence, they exiled Niccolo Machiavelli. A year after his exile, in 1513, he wrote a political treatise named The Prince. Written for the current ruler of the Medici family, Lorenzo de’ Medici, the contents of this political insight was all about what makes a good prince. The reason for why this piece was created is still debated though; many are unsure whether it is a political satire, or if it was to try to get into good graces with the family that had exiled him, or just an example of what people thought made a good leader at that time.

Niccolo Machiavelli’s most famous book, The Prince, contains the most valid information for a prince, a president, and even a king, to keep hold of their own power. Machiavelli tells about the importance and power of political action, his opinions, and most of all philosophy at it’s finest. Throughout the twenty-six chapters of this book he describes the bold, brave, practical, and powerful prince and how the prince’s life should be lived. Machiavelli’s view of human nature is used as justification for his political advice to princes. Niccolo Machiavelli was very intelligent, motivated, and dedicated while writing this book, he attempts to inform princes how to come to power by being powerful; he determines if nature and the environment a prince lives in is the cause of their failure and success.

Machiavelli’s work The Prince is, evidently, a bit dated. However, the points that it expresses maintain their significance, even when monarchies are no longer the primary form of government. The Prince is relevant to contemporary society in today’s age as it relates to contemporary elements such as North Korea, World War II, and more.

In Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics", the concept of knowledge is expressed by the author as truth of the soul which guides one to find the virtuous middle ground between excess and defect (Aristotle, Pg. 126-128). This aspiration to intellectual virtue is a political one because it is an attempt at doing the right thing and achieving the "good". Within Book VI, Aristotle identifies three different kinds of knowledge: scientific, craft and practical (Aristotle, Pg. 128). Scientific knowledge, as described by Aristotle, is comprised of necessarily eternal truths which are "ungenerated and imperishable" (Aristotle, Pg. 129). Knowledge of science, therefore, must be concerned with the unchanging truths of the natural world. Craft or the intellectual

Machiavelli did not seek to change the worldview of leadership when he composed The Prince in 1513. However, The Prince later became widely praised and criticized for its ruthless and immoral tactics for a ruler to gain and hold power. Machiavelli wrote The Prince as a guide to gain power; he wrote it in a blunt way without flowery language so that anyone who read the book would understand exactly what was required to gain and hold absolute power. One of the main focuses of the book is an explanation of the characteristics of an ideal prince and how those defined traits can help one hold and maintain power.

To describe what it is to be “Machiavellian” one must first describe what it is not. It is not being cruel for the sake of cruelty, just as it is not being good for the sake of goodness. It is being deliberate in one’s actions for the success of the state, or whatever one is ruling over. Machiavellians do not concern themselves with reputation, as long as those they are trying to rule do not hate them. I would describe a Machiavellian as intelligent, motivated by power, and someone that would not hesitate to deceive or manipulate others to reach their goals. While those traits might have brought someone success in ruling as a prince during the Renaissance, disregarding morals and ethics in today’s politics would not get someone very far.

The implicit tension between pragmatism and Christian ethics within texts signifies a contextual desire to alter social and political attitudes. Machiavelli’s The Prince (1513) was founded on emerging principles of Renaissance Humanism that privileged reason over Christian morality, which in turn influenced Shakespeare’s representation of the political opportunism that underpinned the assassination and chaotic aftermath of Julius Caesar (1599). Both texts share commonality in their examination of the timeless lust for power that underpinned the tension between the pragmatism emerging from Renaissance Humanism and the conservative religious ethics of the16th Century. Machiavelli represents the experiences of important power figures from history

Machiavelli explains on how fortune is a lady's furthermore how fortune can take control. I observed his hypothesis to be valid. Ladies are fortunes men will never get it. Fortune is something men will never love effectively. In today's general public, men disregard how exceptionally they ought to treat a lady. No men open entryways, give some assistance, or ask how their day have been. Numerous individuals trust fortune controls everything, so they let it. As years passed by, men have slacked off the admiration for ladies and their fortune. In the Machiavelli determination of The Prince, he appears to have it all made sense of.

A Republic is representative government ruled by law, where democracy is a direct government ruled by majority of the people. Republic is based on individuals and inalienable rights. In The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli the book expresses how to become and stay a prince through numerous obstacles. From the beginning, different forms of government are stated and described, but Machiavelli focuses on the different types of principles a prince should maintain within a kingdom and why a kingdom fails or thrives. He expresses in great detail the different governments. However, the book is not based upon republics but of monarchies, old and new.

Kaiser Wilhelm II lacked distinct characteristics required of a man in Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. Kaiser Wilhelm II was a child born from two powerful people of the time. In 1859 the King of Prussia, Prince Frederick Wilhelm and Princess Victoria who was the eldest daughter of Queen Victoria of England became pregnant with their son Wilhelm II. Although Wilhelm was not very fond of England at the time his ties to the royal monarchy would serve to his benefit later on his political agenda. Kaiser Wilhelm was a large political figure in Europe at the time and commanded the German forces in World War I in 1914.

Niccolò Machiavelli wrote The Prince with the sole purpose of impressing the Medici family and getting on the good side of the new ruler of Florence, Lorenzo di Piero de’ Medici. By writing this “handbook to ruling,” Machiavelli hoped to sway the Medici to accept him as an ally and possible political advisor. He was extremely convincing as he used examples from the past as a “political lesson” to further distinguish his ideas as correct.

Niccolo Machiavelli lived during a time where Christian doctrine and consequent conceptions of morality reigned supreme. Thus, in The Prince, he seeks to redefine the most basic human instinct as that of acquisition. This restructures or perhaps reasserts society as comprised of the haves and have nots; the coveted possession is not necessarily wealth but ambition to rule. In this sense, he orients the world around the eponymous Machiavellian prince: someone who, very simply, is willing to do what it takes to uphold his acquisition. By doing so, he rejects the notion of Christian virtue as singular focus on the salvation of the soul. Luther in “Freedom of a Christian,” for example, espouses that a virtuous man should not concern himself with