Niccolò Machiavelli

both the government and the people living under it. Machiavelli saw the stability of the state with utmost importance, using any technique available such as deception to keep it together. Hobbes on the other hand saw government as a solution to the brutish and dangerous state of nature that all men originally find themselves in, creating a system for people to opt in as long as they do not attempt to undermine the sovereign. Niccolo Machiavelli is seen as a cut-throat political theorist who is often

position that Machiavelli strongly suggest that all Princes should have. Although, there are infinite examples showing Putin acting similar to Machiavelli’s Prince throughout the years, the current interaction between Syria and Russia exemplifies Putin’s similarity to Machiavelli’s Prince. In the interaction between Russia and Syria, Putin mostly resembles the trait of the Prince that Machiavelli describe in chapters 14, 18, and 21 In chapter 14 of Machiavelli’s The Prince Machiavelli explains how

character” (Shanzer 1). Although both critics’ descriptions of Brutus have merit, Brutus’ shortcoming, as well as the success of the opposing leader, Mark Antony, is more accurately explained using the observations of Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince. In this book Machiavelli outlines the characteristics of a successful leader. When using The Prince as a lens to read Julius Caesar, the correlation between a leader’s Machiavellianism and their success becomes very apparent. Marcus Brutus is undoubtedly

At first glance, Socrates and Machiavelli appear to have a lot in common.  They both lived in a time of political unrest and violence. They both dealt with uncertain surroundings in their societies. Most importantly, they both tried to use philosophy to improve their society. However, there was also an important difference between them. While Socrates was a moral philosopher whose goal was to search for truth and knowledge, Machiavelli was a political philosopher whose goal was to create a lasting

Machiavelli suggests that the most supreme approach to change the degenerate individual into a decent individual is through the good law, although even the best law is pointless. Machiavelli characterizes man as being self-serving and not willing to act in the best interest of the state, “and when the prince is in danger they turn against him”. Machiavelli strengthens the prince’s need to be feared by stating, “Men worry less

Prince by: Niccolo Machiavelli really tries and is successful at dividing politics and ethics to decipher the characteristics of a good and bad political/government ruling leader in this novel. In this reading, I seen 5 points that Machiavelli talked about, and those were: Free Will, Being Hated vs Goodwill, Virtue, A Good Military, and finally Human Nature. These are a necessity to the recipe that Machiavelli is making in this book. In the first few chapters of the book, Machiavelli begins to talk

In his famous works, The Prince and Discourse on Livy, Machiavelli meticulously discusses the importance of religion in the formation and maintaining a political order. Machiavelli regards religion as a political tool used by political elites for political purposes. He argues that the appearance of religion is good while the practice of it is harmful. One of the memorable passage from the Prince that supports Machiavelli’s claim is when he advices the prince to not to be good, and the prince should

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

Both Machiavelli and Hobbes have personal roots in violent historical times which are seen reflected in their respective theories about the use of violence in politics. The legitimate use of violence is a topic addressed by both theorists in their respective works, as read in Selected Political Writings and The Leviathan. Who has the monopoly over the use of violence, what its terms of use are, and what the consequences of its use are, are distinct from the works of both Machiavelli and Hobbes. Hobbes’

would make a leader successful in Machiavelli’s eyes. Throughout The Prince, Machiavelli implies that an individual with good morals will not obtain power, but rather that an individual who obtains power is assumed as morally upright by the people. One may wonder how a man whose reputation was a worshipper of the devil can have a profound impact on the individuals who live in this current generation; in this text, Machiavelli gives readers his advice on how to rise to power using history as evidence