Analysis Of Machiavelli

“There are three kinds of intelligence: one kind understands things for itself, the other appreciates what others can understand, the third understands neither for itself nor through others. This first kind is excellent, the second good, and the third kind useless” (Niccolò Quotes). Niccolò Machiavelli was one of the greatest influences on our world today. His research and philosophies explored new strategies and ways of thinking. Machiavelli was before his own time and possibly had the utmost influence on the world of any person from the Renaissance. Machiavelli’s life is greatly a part of history as well as his influence and importance.

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

Machiavelli's work was based primarily on achieving power and stability. The citizenry, while important to keep appeased and docile, was not the basis of Machiavelli's perspective. This was not a humanist work; the active engagement of normative, humanist thinking is counterproductive to understanding Machiavelli. In many circumstances, Machiavelli speaks of controlled violence to achieve an end. This discerns that power is not an intrinsic element in itself but an external, conditioned construct that has no true inherent morality. The most pessimistic, however, realistic description of power is simply whomever has the authority to enforce laws--or subservience-- through threat of violence on a specific

Even if Machiavelli was a citizen of the up-middle class he still felt the effect and maybe he could have had a bigger possibility to travel, know and be instructed. He had the right to think and elaborate, he was a man of culture. One of the most shocking thing he saw and understand in his life was that good rulers doesn’t exist and if they do they don’t last much. In fact his ideal ruler was Ferdinand D’Aragon because when Luis the 12 accuse the Spain ruler of lying to him two times Ferdinand responded stating that he lied more than ten. Machiavelli loved this ruler because it was smart and ready to stab on the back of allies.

Machiavelli did not energize the thought in confiding in the ones that lead, however, “[…] men are a sorry lot and will not keep their promises to you, you likewise need not keep yours to them.” (230) He hoped for strategy, injustice, and unlawfulness from his kin and composed his tenets all things considered under the beliefs of being a pragmatist. While discovering “they are ungrateful, fickle, simulators and deceivers, avoiders of danger, greedy for gain” (228) the function of Prince was to hold and manage opposed to giving the general population a chance to thrive or set a

Niccolò Machiavelli was an activist of analyzing power. He believed firmly in his theories and he wanted to persuade everyone else of them as well. To comment on the common relationship that was seen between moral goodness and legitimate authority of those who held power, Machiavelli said that authority and power were essentially coequal.9 He believed that whomever had power obtained the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power. This implied that the only genuine apprehension of the administrative power was the attainment and preservation of powers which indirectly guided the maintenance of the state. That, to him, should have been the objective of all leaders. Machiavelli believed that one should do whatever it took, during the given circumstance, to keep his people in favor of him and to maintain the state. Thus, all leaders should have both a sly fox and ravenous wolf inside of him prepared to release when necessary.10

Machiavelli was one of the first “modern” political thinkers in the late 1400s and early 1500s. He addresses to a government with principalities, in which the power is either inherited or the power is attained through wickedness.

Machiavelli uses these premises given in his book to voice his political views of the world. He believed that the world is not an ideal place and a successful leader will see that and act accordingly. Instead of being concerned with problems that might arise in an ideal world, the leader should be concerned with the problems that are given at that moment. A good leader will have good morals but be able to stray away from what is the most morally correct thing to do in order to be

In spite of these statements, not all of his instructions are as unethical as his critics have made them out to be. Later, in Chapter IX, he states that “a prince must have the friendship of the common people; otherwise he will have no support in times of adversity” (109). It is out of pragmatism, and not morality, that he makes this assertion. The good will and well-being of the people are conducive to maintaining order and may help preserve the prince’s position of power. First and foremost, however, is that preservation of power for the

The Prince, Machiavelli’s guidance for new principalities, maintains that the most stable form of governance is an autocratic rule. At the heart of the matter, all affection must be removed from political affairs. In Machiavelli’s mind, if men are allowed to act with their hearts, they will ultimately and undeniably turn to self-preservation. Machiavelli fabricates two bold assumptions. The first is, “one can always find malcontents who hope to benefit from innovation,” and, “since men are wicked, they break whenever their interests are at stake” (Machiavelli 16, 52). While both of these assumptions are, in essence, correct, Machiavelli overstates the frequency of ill-doers, allowing his pessimism to taint his perspective of human decision

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,

Machiavelli considers society an immoral place. According to Machiavelli as stated in The Discourses on Livy, “for as men are, by nature, more prone to evil than to good”. The Prince is a manual for being a successful ruler in an immoral society. Often times that success is met by committing immoral acts. Machiavelli, an outsider to the inner workings of government gives what he thinks are the critical tools to being a successful ruler in modern society. “Sometimes you have to play hardball” is a saying from today that I relate to his philosophies.

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

"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

He sees no purpose in restraining and controlling oneself for the society because the society will not prosper if the ruler does not. Ruthlessness, maliciousness, and deviousness are all hailed as being acceptable, in fact encouraged, as means of securing position of power. Through his prioritizing, Machiavelli does not seem to be as concerned with the society and the individual as the previous philosophers in history have been. Rather, he sees power as the one and only goal in life, regardless of the individual or the state. Again, though, he is a reflection of his times. The men of the Renaissance era wanted many things--money, power, enjoyment in life--regardless of the moral cost. Others would argue that these superfluities either meant nothing or would not occur without restraining the desires of both ones self and ones state. One needs balance of everything in order to reach the ideals of perfection, but Machiavelli would argue that perfection is not real and so is not worth striving for. Instead, one must live for ones self. He makes the generalization of men that: