Arendt Vs Machiavelli

Throughout The Prince, the line between ethics and accomplishment in politics is discussed. In politics and government there is a question of when to separate morality from what needs to be done, and how much “evil” is acceptable when trying to achieve a certain outcome. For example he proposes that, “It is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong and to make use of it or not according to necessity” (72). Machiavelli argues that sometimes it is appropriate to do some evil as long as it is done thoughtfully and out of necessity. The prince or governing entity must know the proper way to respond and, “He must have a mind disposed to adapt itself according to the wind, and as the variations of fortune dictate, and, as I said before, not deviate from what is good, if possible, but be able

The public is thought to participate in the political process through the murkiest window while the ruler(s) enjoy(s) the cleanest ones. For Machiavelli, aspiring to a world without secrecy is not only fanciful but dangerous. Indeed, throughout his works, the Florentine author emphasized how indispensable ruse was not solely for the ruler’s sake but also the general interest. Machiavelli regarded popular support as essential to the conservation of power and, more broadly, for political stability. Indeed, even in instances where the public authorities are not personalized, constituents’ support is paramount to the maintenance of a given political system: “only that the people’s friendship is essential to a Prince. Otherwise in adverse times he has no resource” (Machiavelli and Gilbert 1965, v.1, p. 41). However, Machiavelli insists that effective rulers must frequently act against public morals to protect themselves and their city from shrewd enemies by using similarly unethical tactics. To preserve their reputation in the face of such reprehensible conduct, the rulers are compelled to manipulate public opinion: “in general, men judge more with their eyes than with their hands, since everybody can see but few can perceive” (Machiavelli and Gilbert 1965, v.1, pp.66-7).

In the Prince, Machiavelli argues that the idea of truth in the government is only a method to manipulate the unsuspecting public. A leader does not need to be truthful as long as the public believes he is. Politics during Machiavelli’s time was much harsher than that of Socrates and his work reflects his cynical history. While Socrates experienced a major change in his home government during his lifetime, Machiavelli witnessed multiple periods of governmental turmoil.

Machiavelli concentrated more on the way things should be and how to manipulate them for his own personal gain rather than for the betterment of the state. He was well-known for being a political thinker who believed that outcomes justified why things happened. A key aspect of Machiavelli’s concept of the Prince was that “men must either be caressed or annihilated” (Prince, 9). What Machiavelli meant by

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

The writings of Nicolo Machiavelli are the single most important example of this new humanist thought. Drawing from ancient Roman writers, Machiavelli developed a worldly concept of politics, and was one of the first in the modern period to discuss the virtues of republican government and a system of checks and balances. He is perhaps most famous for his rejection of Christian idealism in politics. Princes and other leaders, he argued, must view human affairs must as they really are, not as we hope ideally they should be. The rules of worldly power (best understood by the

Has somebody ever muttered the words "It is best to be feared than loved "? In any context, this could look like remorseless; however, the deeper the meanings are reached once with a glance at Machiavelli's morals and arguments achieved. Inside this essay, I will discuss the deserves, shortfalls and contravene arguments of the philosopher political philosophy and system. Also, I will be able to check up on Machiavelli's personal history; furthermore to grasp abundant any what and the way drive this argument.

When reading Machiavelli's writing, one must quickly both differentiate and depersonalize the true feelings of Machiavelli, the person, as opposed to Machiavelli writing the book. Machiavelli's work is considered the finest treatise of political science, along with the academic birth of 'realism.' Ends do justify means in Machiavelli's text; however, one must understand that Machiavelli generally only supported violence for a greater purpose, and never more than necessary to retain stability. This was not Machiavelli's opinion alone but was the reality of Italian politics during the period.

In this extract Machiavelli was saying that the way we live is different from the way we should live and that nasty people use your weakness, we concluded that political are bad people. I agree because we always were masks even with our family and so the political one is just another of the many the only difference is that in this case the mask is used to do the best for the state and the best for the state is a strong of character, skillful and resulfullness ruler. 3.

“The state is the highest achievement of man, a progressive and elaborate creation of his free will. The individual, the leader, the people, cooperate in maintaining it.” This idea of state was put forth by Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince, which was in essence a ruler’s handbook to governing and maintaining his land. Machiavelli conjured his theories for government by basing his ideas in his belief that men, especially men in power, tend to follow the same directions, and therefore by looking at past leaders and their follies we can better determine how to run a state. “Men are always the same and are animated by the same passions that lead them fatally to the same decisions, acts, an results…. That one can foresee the course of

Therefore, Arendt argues to defend modern political lying. Furthermore, Arendt continues to think outside of the Totalitarian environment she finds truth telling is a way to keep the “status quo”. However, the lie exercises the free exchange of opinions. Nonetheless, Arendt argues “the great danger of the modern world is the hierarchy between politics and lying reverses, and politics have begun to operate in service to a particular and fictitious world of “ersatz truth” (Rosenfeld 223).

Two of the most significant works in literature, setting the basis and framework for political philosophy, are Plato’s The Last Days of Socrates, and Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince and The Discourses. Both pieces take place during political uncertainty with surrounding societal turmoil. Each take a different approach to how these issues must be dealt with. They each have their own construct of an ideal political regime which, at times overlap, but at others do not. Machiavelli seeks to gain power and wealth while Socrates seeks to gain knowledge and justice. It is because of these differences that Socrates would disapprove of Machiavelli’s concept of a prince, thus resulting him in having a different concept based on his values that he

First let us discuss the ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli in is piece “The Prince”. Machiavelli has a very independent controversial way of thinking and portraying his ideal form of governance in this text. The ideal and most effective from of governance for him is not in that of a republic but instead he insists in an autocratic regime. He argues that republics and other forms of government are too weak because of the corruptness of human nature. This book is written as a guide on how a prince should run his state or nation based on how and when he would come into this power. One of his main concerns in which he has been criticized for is his disregard to follow moral values so as to properly run the state, as well as

     Machiavelli’s argument also focuses on the topic of integrity and generosity and on how a political leader should keep his word. On one hand, he states that it is commendable for a political leader to live by integrity and to be considered generous; however the leaders who have accomplished great deeds throughout history hardly cared about keeping their word and were men that were known to be able to manipulate every situation by clever and shrewd means. Since it is impossible to always maintain all the qualities that man consider good and also maintain a state in his view, a great leader would know when to break those qualities when it is needed for the preservation of the state. However, he warns of excess generosity and the burdens it brings because in order for a leader to maintain his reputation as generous, he has to continuously tax his people in order to raise his funds. This process in turn makes those who employ excessive generosity appear to be the most miserly of all since they tax everyone in order to appear generous to a few.

However, that said, some of his ideas continue to attract philosophical engagements even by the so-called first rank philosophers. This qualifies the incorporation of some of his ideologies into any comprehensive philosophical survey. This paper therefore zeros in on his political ideals that have culminated into what is known as Machiavelli’s political philosophy of ‘Machiavellism’ (Meinecke, 1965). The paper seeks to explore his political ideologies in general. Further, the paper seeks to establish based on any real evidence whether Machiavelli is indeed a ‘break’ in the political philosophy or otherwise. In keeping with the latter