The Machiavelli 's Political Philosophy

The Renaissance was a time of classical revival and a turning point from the Middle Ages to the Early Modern period in the course of history. Ancient texts and artifacts became sources of inspiration for intellectuals and artists alike, and the desire to emulate—or even surpass the achievements of the past prompted them to study antiquities closely and saw them as models and guidance. People were consciously distinguishing themselves from the medieval thoughts and using history to make something new for their own era. In the field of political philosophy there’s no exception. Niccolo Machiavelli is perhaps the most representative and groundbreaking figure of this trend in political philosophy. With his erudition in ancient literature, histories and political thoughts, Machiavelli draws various sources from antiquity to critic and response to the political environment of histime. While one may find seemingly discrepancies in The Prince and The Discourse on the First Ten Books of Tius Livy, the use of histories as guide to demonstrate or propose ideal rules is apparent in both works. We should note that synthesizing ancient philosophy or thoughts with contemporary thoughts is nothing new. Thomas Aquinas, for example, reconciled Aristotelianism and Christianity in his work Summa Theologica, using ancient antiquity to back up his Christian beliefs. What is so noteworthy in Machiavelli is his emphasis and

are prominently distinct from one another and they challenge the reader to conceptualize how one man could have written two very different pieces. In utilizing both primary sources, from Machiavelli’s The Prince and Discourses, and scholarly evidence from multiple writers in academia, I will demonstrate that these two texts can co-exist. I aim to provide an understanding of the relationship between the two texts through a strong republican perspective by viewing The Prince as a comprehensive tool and weapon in furtherance of the republic

Karl Marx and Niccolo Machiavelli are interested in two completely different forms of government. Yet both philosophers share many of the same key terms. They both understand the power and importance of deceit, and how it is gained. They also are equally opinionated when it comes to the subject of property and money. This essay will seek to explain, compare, and contrast Machiavelli’s ideas on power with Karl Marx’s ideas on Money.

Niccolò Machiavelli was a noticeable figure during the early sixteenth century. He is most famously recognized as the author of The Prince, a handbook for politicians which inspired the term “Machiavellian”. His writing also solidified his position as the father of modern political theory. His political view stemmed from observing the division of Italy into small city-state systems during the late fifteenth century. According to Machiavelli, the success of the city-states was dependent on the effectiveness of the autocrats who headed these states. Through observation, he saw what was necessary for an authoritarian state to be successful. He was bursting with theories, the first being that he believed that the state and its laws were a creation of man that must be protected by the prince. He also argued that conflict could be useful under the organization of a ruler. Another idea that Machiavelli strongly professed, was his thought that men are not equal. His belief was that some men

Niccolio Machiavelli (Born May 3rd, 1469 – 1527 Florence, Italy.) His writings have been the source of dispute amongst scholars due to the ambiguity of his analogy of the ‘Nature of Politics'; and the implication of morality. The Prince, has been criticised due to it’s seemingly amoral political suggestiveness, however after further scrutiny of other works such as The Discourses, one can argue that it was Machiavelli’s intention to infact imply a positive political morality. Therefore the question needs to be posed. Is Machiavelli a political amoralist? To successfully answer this it is essential to analyse his version of political structure to establish a possible bias. It would also be beneficial

While some other great political thinkers sat around and dreamed about their perfect little utopias in the clouds, notably Socrates and Plato, Machiavelli was analyzing the most powerful men of his day. He observed and recorded how men flocked the sheep to exactly where they were wanted by their shepherd. He watched as the wolves preyed on the sheep and noticed that there was no philosopher king around to prevent it. He accepted that we as humans are corrupt and that we can’t all be Marcus Aurelius, king of

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

Machiavelli has long been required reading for everyone intrested in politics and power. In The Prince Niccolo M

Out of the three Neo-Machiavellian thinkers – Pareto, Mosca, and Michels –, Pareto has the closest ideas to those of Machiavelli. Although, Pareto mainly disagrees to Machiavelli, Pareto agrees to some of his ideas, such as, the binary of personal categories. Pareto expands Machiavelli’s binary to broader social situations and through them to order of historical events.

Niccolo Machiavelli’s abstract work of The Prince discusses politics and government and focuses in not only acquiring power, but also how to maintain it. Throughout his work, one of the most prevalent yet disputed themes is between the acquirement of states between principalities and republics. The Prince shows a predominant and constant debate on which group will excel in acquiring power. However, despite Machiavelli’s harsh criticisms on principalities, his work does not solely praise or focus on the excellence of republics. In fact, as Machiavelli continues to speak and provide examples about the successes and failures of both republics and principalities, it becomes clearer that the lone purpose of The Prince is to merely provide tactics in political governance, instruction on how to maintain power once it is acquired, and most importantly, advice on how to become a great leader.

Niccolo Machiavelli was the first to clearly decipher politics from ethics by studying politics in such depth and thought. He created the basis of what politics should be and how they are runned for today. His book The Prince is primarily a handbook for all rulers to follow to be the most successful in their reign. His book is considered political realism which means he speaks about only the truth of politics, so it can be used for the practice of governing. Machiavelli’s book is the handbook for obtaining and maintaining power even for today’s modern politics.

Machiavelli as simply a “realist” or a “pragmatist” advocating the suspension of commonplace ethics in matters of politics.

This paper offers an analysis of Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes in order to argue that even though their political philosophy is different from ours. It still has significance in a social context and these thinkers’ are very much relevant in today’s society. Both political philosophers’ were writing during a time when there was political turmoil and rising tensions were a consistent occurrence. In the first part of this essay, I will analysis Machiavelli’s political philosophy, such as historical context, the meaning of the text, and provide modern examples in politics to illustrate his point. Then, I will discuss Hobbes’ political philosophy using the same steps of analysis.

The purpose of this work is to explore Machiavelli’s political philosophy through the lens of discord. In terms of discord, Machiavelli presents the two main rivals, who are the nobles and the people. He sees the two different humors of the nobles and the people as the cause of discord. He observes that conflicts caused by the two diverse humors create salutary effects. His praise of tumults has inspired scholars not only to relate the notion of humors to the discussion of political freedom, but also to find the origin of the Modern Republicanism in his political philosophy. Focusing on the irrational cause of humors, however, existing studies have slightly overlooked rational causes such as idea or reason or knowledge of political

Relying on the needs of the society of that time, Machiavelli comes to the conclusion that the most important task is the formation of a single Italian state (Machiavelli 15). Developing his thoughts, the author comes to the following inference: only a prince can become a leader capable of leading people and building a unified state. It is not a concrete historical personality but someone abstract, symbolic, possessing such qualities that in the aggregate are inaccessible to any living ruler. That is why Machiavelli devotes most of his research to the issue of what qualities should the prince possess to fulfill the historical task of developing a new state. The written work is constructed strictly logically and objectively. Even though the image of an ideal prince is abstract, Machiavelli argues that he should be ruthless, deceiving, and selfish.