Cassirer, Nietzsche and Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince
When the word "Renaissance" is mentioned, an image of love for antiquity learning and fine arts usually springs to one's mind. Yet this perception, however legitimate it may be in many areas of Renaissance human achievements, shatters in the face of Niccolò Machiavelli's masterpiece The Prince. Unlike his contemporary Baldassare Castiglione who exemplified subtlety, Machiavelli was ruthlessly practical, nonchalantly callous, and admirably seamless in his logics about the bloody art of political power.
By all accounts The Prince, is a handbook on the acquisition and maintenance of political power. Neither can it be argued any otherwise, like Ernest Cassirer has acknowledged in
…show more content…
(p164, "New Theory of the State") The keen observer that was Machiavelli merely organized and publicized the thoughts that once were only whispered amongst the political elites.
However, while The Prince can hardly be convicted of being a product of malice, what the readers cannot forget is that Machiavelli based his Political Ruler 101 on his fundamental and unshakable personal philosophical conviction that men are inherently self-serving. Cassirer recognizes Machiavelli for his cynical side: "we shall never understand [man] as long as we are suffering from the illusion of his 'original goodness'" (p163, "New Theory of the State"). Much like Thomas More who had the fictional More and Raphael Hythloday—two halves of his same philosophical self—arguing about the practicality of an ideal society in Utopia, Ernest Cassirer attempted to draw a distinction between Machiavelli the idealist who cherished dreams of a Republic and Machiavelli the pragmatist who was necessarily pessimistic about the natures of human and politics alike. The liberal Machiavelli ventured that "the aim of the common people is more honest than that of the nobles" (p28); while the cynical Machiavelli claimed that "any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good." (p42)
The darker Machiavelli's views are echoed in Fredrich Nietzsche's philosophy. In his "Morals as Fossilized Violence", Nietzsche charged that humans at
Trying not to overstep the boundaries of the citizens to get kicked out of power or not doing enough that they replace you. With the power gained from leading it is expected that other princes will try to take power away so the only way to prevent this from happening is to make alliances and maintaining a strong military. Later on, in the novel Machiavelli goes on to focus on what qualities a prince should have and how virtu plays a role in making a proper prince. Although a short novel, it is Machiavelli’s most widely known work and is responsible for creating a negative view on rulers/politicians and also making it seem like anything you do, even immoral, is justifiable if the end goal is worth it. Machiavelli writes “He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation” showing that the use of immoral means is justifiable when the end goal is survival and glory. This book follows the ideals of Italian humanism from the author being from Florence, the heart of the renaissance, dedicating the novel to Lorenzo de’ Medici, an example of a man who invested a lot in helping people learn about philosophy and such subjects to become better humanists.
Machiavelli opens The Prince with a dedication to Lorenzo ‘The Magnificent’ de Medici. In the address, the author adopts a remarkably deferential tone which highlights the power gap between himself and the ruler of Florence. Machiavelli underlines his social inferiority and presents his writing as beneath Medici “I judge this work unworthy to come into your presence” (Machiavelli and Gilbert 1965, v.1, p. 10). Yet, the writer aims to legitimize his counsel in the eyes of the Lorenzo de Medici for advising him is the highest political position that Machiavelli may aspire to reach as he was born a commoner. With that in mind, the author highlights that Medici would benefit from the outlook of a well-read ordinary citizen like Machiavelli. He
Richelieu’s section regarding the power of the prince was particularly reminiscent of 15th century Italian political strategist Niccoló Machiavelli’s seminal work, The Prince. The Prince also deals with the management of one’s people, and argued
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
“A New Argument for Morality: Machiavelli and the Ancients” by Rafael Major argues that Machiavelli relied on the rhetorical strategy of classical authors and Christian texts to formulate his moral philosophy. This usage demonstrated that The Prince was not as original or realistic as Machiavelli believed. Rafael Major is a lecturer at the University of North Texas with a focus on politics. The intended
Machiavelli’s tone throughout The Prince was pessimistic. He believed humans were only capable of evil and
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
Niccolo Machiavelli, a Renaissance philosopher and historian, is regarded as one of the founders of classical political philosophy and political science. To this day, scholars continue to debate whether the Florencian writer is more sympathetic to the few or the many. With some of his texts containing views contradicting the others, it is difficult to contend whether or not the philosopher is a true democrat. Despite many of Machiavelli’s seemingly democratic views and ideas, his personal ideology appears to be more of a Republican nature. His republicanism is most informed by his remarks on the people, nobles, and ideal state structure. Through analysis of his writings in ‘The Prince’ and ‘The Discourses’, and his ‘Letter to Francesco Vettori,
The Prince, written by Niccoló Machiavelli, is essentially a guide for to-be rulers on how to be successful, in running a state, monitoring political issues, and so on. The book is a handbook that was dedicated, as said by Machiavelli in the dedicatory letter, to Lorenzo de’ Medici, who was the governor of Florence at the time. Machiavelli discusses, in thorough detail, necessary characteristics that a leader should possess in order for him to become victorious in his reign. An important concept that Machiavelli address is how virtue and fortune connect and affect the ability of the ruler to keep power. In Chapter XVIII, he implicitly defines virtue as the qualities needed by a prince to rule effectively and in favor of the people.
Machiavelli speaking of mixed principalities, sees controlling a new state to be difficult because the subjects of that state will always want a
The shift from the medieval era to early modernity in the political sphere is notably exemplified in the writings of Niccolò Machiavelli. Two of Machiavelli’s works, The Prince (1532) and Discourses (1531)
Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince examines the nature of power and his views of power are still somewhat in existence today. I'll discuss this in this essay, emphasizing the following theses. Machiavelli discusses power over the people, dictatorial power, and power with people, shared power. While it is possible for power with to attain greater prevalence in society, it will not completely eliminate power over. In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses two distinct groups of people, the political elite, including nobles and other princes, and the general public. Today in the United States, the first group, the political elite, includes political leaders, religious leaders, business leaders and the leaders 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
This semester in Mr. Sellers’ History class, we were asked to read a history novel and write a book review on it. I chose to read The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli, and it sure did not disappoint. For a book on history, it was not so bad. The two parts to this review include a summary and a critical analysis. This paper will discuss the major points Machiavelli made in his book and analyze his tone and writing style, with an overall critique.
In the book, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli thoroughly explains the lifestyle a proper prince should uphold and the skills/actions he should keep in his arsenal, if the time ever comes. I’ve chosen chapters 15, 16, and 17 to further my claims on whether or not these ideas should be used in today’s government. Chapter 15 mainly focuses on the things for which men, but mainly princes, are praised or blamed for in an everyday society. Chapter 16 touches on how often one should be generous and liberal. Finally, chapter 17, the most controversial chapter of Machiavelli’s book discussed among many, tells the famous line of whether it is better to be loved