Essay on Comparing and Contrasting Mirandolla and Machiavelli

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

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 takes a drastically different view on renaissance leadership, placing emphasis on obtaining and

Machiavelli, sees this as an impractical and impossible way to lead. Machiavelli has the stance that “the conditions of human life make it impossible to exercise all those qualities” (Machiavelli 33). Machiavelli’s expresses his rational thought process on how government can be ruled. His experience working for the Florentine republic and then the Medici government allowed him to see what works and fails in effective leadership as both those governments saw failure. Machiavelli recognition that the leaders are only human and cannot be perfect.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once stated, “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” For centuries, philosophers, kings and many more have been on a quest to determine what it takes to become a great ruler and to maintain power. Between the Middle Ages (500 A.D.) and the Renaissance (1500 A.D.), in the books The Prince and The Life of Charlemagne, Niccolo Machiavelli and Einhard displayed their idea of what the theory of leadership is. Based on the ideas expressed in each text it appears as if virtu, amorality, and religious practices made the difference in what it took to become an effective leader during the Middle Ages.

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

It is essential prior to judgement on whether Machiavelli is a political amoralist or not to take into account The Discourses and the essence of their meaning. The Prince alone I grant can be mistaken for a how-to-be-a tyrant handbook with it’s absolute theories and some what lack of civility, where “the end justifies the means';. But it’s intention is assuming the political leader is already of moral standing and possess such qualities of integrity and virtue to be expected of one in the position of leadership. “Everybody sees what you appear to be,few feel what you are,and those few will not dare to oppose themselves to the many,who have the majesty of the state to defend them;and in the actions of men,and especially of princes,from which there is no appeal, the end justifies the means'; “Thus it is well to seem merciful,faithful humane,sincere,religious and also to be so.'; Effectively what seems as ruling with an iron fist is best expressed in terms of need. The 16th Century political unrest Machiavelli is influenced by would best be unified by such absolute power due to it’s degradation and lack of structure. So therefore it would not be seen as immoral with respect to it’s time. And looking at it from a wider more advanced perspective although the technique may appear rigid if it creates the desired unification

According to legend, just before his death, Niccolo Machiavelli told his friends that had remained faithful to him up until the very end about a dream he had had. In his dream, he had seen a group of peasants, wretched and decrepit in appearance. He asked them who they were. They replied, ‘We are the saintly and the blessed; we are on our way to heaven.’ Then he saw a crowd of formally attired men, aristocratic and grim in appearance, speaking solemnly of important political matters. Again, he asked them who they were and where they were going. ‘We are the damned of Hell’ was their answer. Machiavelli later remarked that he would be far happier in Hell. This story was from Viroli’s Niccolo’s Smile (“The Mask and The Face”). The crowd of

Many criticize Machiavelli for taking a too cruel approach to leadership. Truly, he only takes a very realistic view of the world, and focuses on doing what is needed to be done. His philosophy can be summarized, “It is better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both,” (Ratner). Essentially, both are necessary to be respected, but if love cannot be maintained, fear is the motivator a leader should pursue.

He points out that leaders have succeeded in keeping the peace and ruling a successful kingdom when the people fear them and respect their power. Machiavelli states that if a leader is to soft and merciful, the people will not respect him, leading to chaos and lack of respect for leadership. Machiavelli makes a strong argument for his position, and most likely had a strong impact on how leadership was viewed.

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

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.

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).