Compare Machiavelli And The Model Of Governance

In the fourteenth century, the humanist philosopher Francesco Petrarch wrote a letter entitled How a Ruler Ought to Govern His Sate. Nearly a century later, another philosopher by the name of Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a book about governing, The Prince. The two documents show many similarities in content and theme. While the two wrote in similar subject matter, it is clear that these philosophers possess distinctly different viewpoints on how a ruler should govern. In Petrarch’s How a Ruler Ought to Govern His Sate and Machiavelli’s The Prince, both philosophers possess different opinions on how a ruler ought to govern. In particular Machiavelli pays specific attention to the importance of

In comparing and contrasting the governmental philosophies of the great thinkers Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli, I have found a pleasant mix of both of their ideas would be the best for America today. Lao-Tzu’s laisse-faire attitude towards the economy, as well as his small scale military is appealing to my liberal side, while Machiavelli’s attitude towards miserliness which causes low taxes appeals to the right wing. These great thinkers contradict the popular saying “all great thinkers think alike.” They have several ideas, such as taxes, that are the same, while other ideas, like the involvement of government in citizens' everyday lives are totally opposite. I shall start with

Niccolò Machiavelli, a Florentine philosopher and political aficionado from the 16th century and Socrates, a classical Athenian savant who lived during the 5th century B.C., are both judged as being forefathers to modern western political science and thought. The two great men both came from erratic epochs within their respective nations of Italy and Greece: wars, transitions of power, and domestic conflicts left their countries void of sustainable leadership and in desperate need of a brighter future. But despite being from equally hopeless times, their theories on how their societies (and ultimately, future ones) should function in order to prosper, are divergent. In this essay, I will argue that Socrates would

Despite living thousands of years ago, Socrates and Machiavelli were both influential thinkers whose works are still relevant today. These two great thinkers and philosophers wrote about and extensively studied political systems. The influences of their work can still be seen today in constitutions and governments around the world. Were it not for their transcendent works, there is a real chance today’s systems of government would look very different. While no governments today exactly match those advocated for by Machiavelli and Socrates, their writings surely influenced other thinkers later on in history. Both of these philosophers advocated for different leadership structures with the hope of creating fair and long-lasting states.

This compare and contrast essay will focus on the views of leadership between Mirandolla and Machiavelli. Mirandolla believes that leadership should not be false and that it should follow the rule of reason. He believes that leaders should strive for the heavens and beyond. On the other hand, Machiavelli believed that leadership comes to those who are crafty and forceful. He believed that leaders do not need to be merciful, humane, faithful or religious; they only need to pretend to have all these qualities. Despite both of them being philosophers, they have drastically different views on leadership, partially because of their views on religion are different. Mirandolla was very religious, and Machiavelli was a pragmatist, which means that

By looking at the readings of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke, there are a few distinctions between how the modern thinkers viewed politics versus the way the ancient thinkers believed politics should be. There are many topics both modern and ancient thinkers discuss in their writings, such as the purpose of politics, the science of politics, human nature, as well as the ideal regime. By doing so, these thinkers’ views on political topics such as these illuminate how they thought politics should work and who should be able to participate in the activity of politics.

On the heels of the Peloponnesian war, Socrates was blamed for corrupting the youth and disrespecting the Athenian gods and Athenian values. His defense or “Apology” and reaction after he was sentenced to death in “Crito” demonstrate his most basic philosophy and ideals of what a government should truly be like. Yet in a vastly different situation, Machiavelli, who lived during the renaissance of Italy experienced constant shifts of power which he wrote his book, “The Prince”. Machiavelli writes about how a leader or prince should conduct himself in order to keep and efficiently run a republic or principality. Although Socrates’ texts on the surface deal with his accusations, the texts give great insight as to how he thinks a government

Socrates and Niccolo Machiavelli were both incredibly influential in the development of Western philosophical thought, specifically in relation to ethics in politics. Machiavelli’s text The Prince, written during a period of political turmoil in Italy, outlines the necessary steps a prince must take to obtain both power and authority. Plato’s The Last Days of Socrates assesses the moral and ethical guidelines an ideal leader should possess through the beliefs and teachings of Socrates. While both texts had similar objectives, their opinions were quite contradictory. Socrates would have found Machiavelli’s concept of the “Prince”, and the government he creates to be both unethical and fundamentally flawed. Socrates places higher value on the maintenance and creation of justice, while Machiavelli stresses the process of obtaining and preserving power, unethical or not. Due to their differences in their ideas of virtue, knowledge, and justice it can be concluded that Socrates would not be supportive of the government in which The Prince proposes.

These views were evident, and perhaps promoted, due to the continual control of government by aristocrats. These rulers sought to improve their own interests over those of the poleis, and promoted their own values and ideas. Aristotle believed that the best form of governing should be decided by those governed and, although he believed democracy to be the best of the examples of government, believed that voting would both satisfy the citizens’ desire for equality and avoid revolutions such as those that result from the tyrannies that had come before.

Throughout the course of history, political philosophy has been dominated by two great thinkers: Niccolo Machiavelli and Socrates. Although both highly influential, Socrates and Machiavelli may not see eye to eye. When it comes to the idea of how an “ideal prince” would act, Machiavelli believes that they should lead through fear and follow a thirst for power, no matter the cost. Socrates, on the other hand, believes that they should lead through morality and have a healthy thirst for knowledge. Overall, these two would not exactly agree on what the actions of a good leader would look like or how a political system should be run.

Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli are considered to be the earliest political thinkers of a modern state in which civilization lives coercively, being governed by an organized system of government. However, the basic differences stand where the means to acquire a state with a sovereign or princely figure are based on two differing concepts. Moreover, the two modern political thinkers’ philosophies vary significantly, resulting in diverse opinions on what a modern state ought to encompass in terms of its legitimization and motives. Even though Hobbes and Machiavelli embody different perspectives on the acquisition of power; their common end is the foundation of a modern state even though the means to satisfy this end are divergent. While

What one can take away from both the implicit and explicit criticisms given by Xenophon and Aristotle is that political life is incredibly messy and problematic and, moreover, the best regime, the telos of political life, may not be unattainable. Both works indicate that virtue must be a main component of the regime, yet it appears human beings have difficulty remaining virtuous in the face of 1) material wealth and 2) the allure of

In "The Politics", Aristotle would have us believe that man by nature is a political animal. In other words, Aristotle seems to feel that the most natural thing for men to do is to come together in some form of political association. He then contends that this political association is essential to the pursuit of the good life. Finally he attempts to distinguish what forms of political association are most suitable to the pursuit of this good life. In formulating a critique of "The Politics", we shall first examine his claims as to what is natural to man and whether the criterion of the natural is sufficient to demonstrate virtue. We shall then examine what it is about political association that

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.

     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.