Citizen Machiavelli In Hell

Niccolo Machiavelli was a unique politician, philosopher, and writer who lived in Florence, Italy during the European Renaissance period of the late 15th and early 16th centuries. He is most famously known for writing his ruthless handbook for rulers, The Prince, during his time in exile in 1513. This contentious piece of literature has been fondly referred to as “the guidebook for tyrants and totalitarians,” according to the documentary, Machiavelli: The Prince by director Jett Rink. However, the document has also been credited with positively paving the way for ethnic and religious toleration, individual rights, and modern democracies all throughout history; and it inevitably set the stage for future governments to come. In this way, it is

When you read the short excerpts from Machiavelli's The Prince from our text I hope that he made you feel angry and defensive. Reading Machiavelli makes me bristle; I want to argue with him. His formulas for political success contradict my most basic religious beliefs, those I have held from childhood, and help me to see why Mennonites have traditionally been so suspicious of politics. And yet I know that his pragmatic approach is the very basis of modern political theory. Because we have, as citizens of the twentieth century, to a large extent followed his advice, I am put on the defensive. I am astonished to see how

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

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

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

Through King Louis XII’s failure to acquire, Machiavelli teaches that one’s moral restraint to keep faith leads to the Prince’s ruin. Machiavelli teaches that in order to keep one’s state, one must do what is necessary. That is, if breaking faith, even with the pope, is necessary, then that is virtue. Throughout Machiavelli’s analysis of King Louis’s failure to acquire states in Italy, he investigates why Louis felt obligated to keep his promises. This obligation leads to the issue of staying faithful to Christian ideals of what virtue is and connects to Machiavelli’s claim that one can not be wholly Christian and preserve their state simultaneously.

“It is much safer to be feared than loved.” This quotation was just a specimen of the harsh and very practical political annotation of the legendary historian, Niccolò Machiavelli – philosopher, patriot, diplomat, advisor and statesman. He was born as the son of a poor lawyer in 1498, but he never let boundaries restrict him. He still received an excellent humanist education from the University of Florence and was soon after appointed as the Second Chancellor of the Republic of Florence.2 His political importance to Florence would soon give him the opportunity to write what is disputed as one of the most significant works in history, The Prince.

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

Machiavelli says on page 64; “A certain prince of the present day, whom I shall refrain from naming, preaches nothing but peace and faith, and to both one and the other is entirely opposed.” this means to me that Machiavelli is not the first leader to act in such a way, there is somebody else who does not practice what he preaches, in fact Machiavelli says that this character is ‘entirely opposed’ meaning that he does not believe in what he preaches and appears to be whatsoever. He continues; (p64) “and both, if he had put them into practice, would have cost him many times over either his reputation or his state.” This gives me the impression that if he were to let peace or religion get in the way of his job he would have failed miserably; whether it have been his personal reputation to suffer, or his

A family of monarchy which tortured Machiavelli for months causing him great suffrage and sorrow. He writes to Lorenzo “May I trust, therefore, that Your Highness will accept this little gift in the spirit in which it is offered: and if Your Highness will deign to peruse it, you will recognize in it my ardent desire that you may attain to that grandeur which fortune and your own merits presage for you.” This enough is confusing because if this is the same principality that caused so much suffering why dedicate a book to let their reign continue into longevity? As to add to this confusion, Machiavelli explains how a prince should use cruelty and violence correctly against the people. To use cruelty and punishment all at once so that the people learn to respect you by fear. He includes that if you had a choice on either being loved or feared, be feared for love can change as quick as it came. Fear of punishment, people would avoid and be subservient. He also goes on to put out that a prince must be cunning like a fox yet strong and fearsome like a lion. To use Realpolitik, morality and ideology left out for the world is not these things as you should not be as well. Furthermore, Machiavelli explains what must happen when a new ruler overtakes a new city and the people in it. “And whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it,

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

Author’s Identity: Unlike many other previous writers on military thought, Machiavelli was not from pure or noble blood, although he was of enough social status to become literate. Instead, Machiavelli used his intellect to climb the social ladder the highest legs of Italian social order. From 1501 to 1521, Machiavelli worked as an influencer, author, and military leader. Rather than conceal his intellect to avoid prosecution or death, such as within a monastery, Machiavelli balanced a thin line between critical thought and appeasement in his allegorical experiences with Caesar Borgia.

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.

It is fundamentally important to preface the discussion hosted in this essay by addressing ourselves to the most mundane question-why consider Machiavelli in the context of philosophy, least of all, political philosophy? This question dominates any philosophical inquiries of the Machiavelli’s political ideologies. Put differently, do the contributions by Niccolò Machiavelli to the various salient discourses in the Western thought, most notably political theory, meet the requisite standard models of academic philosophy? Machiavelli essentially seems not to consider himself a philosopher. In fact, he overtly disapproved of any philosophical inquiries into his works. In addition, his credentials do not qualify him to be properly admitted within the realm of philosophy (NeDermAN, 2002).

Niccolò Machiavelli thoroughly discusses the importance of religion in the formation and maintenance of political authority in his famous works, The Prince and The Discourses. In his writing on religion, he states that religion is beneficiary in the formation of political authority and political leaders must support and endorse religion in order to maintain power. However, Machiavelli also critiques corrupt religious institutions that become involved in politics and in turn, cause corruption in the citizenry and divisions among the state. In the following essay, I will examine Machiavelli's analysis of religion and discuss the relationship between religion and politics in Machiavelli's thought.