Differences Between Machiavelli And Lao-Tzu

710 Words3 Pages
Contrasting of Two
Machiavelli’s and Lao-tzu views on human nature, morality, and their form of writing are very different, but then again, they are individual people from different times. They are not only different, but also similar in multiple ways. A difference people can view between the two is also one is viewed as good and the other bad. Their differences lay with their writing technique as well as their views on human nature and morality. The reason for this is because they are from different times; therefore, the result is their views on their writing technique, human nature, and morality are very different.
The first difference between Machiavelli and Lao-tzu is their rhetoric styles. Lao-tzu was telling how to follow the Tao. It’s almost very biblical in a sense because he was talking about his type of religion. Machiavelli however wrote a how-to book on power. He wrote on how to achieve it and how to keep power once the person achieved it. Another difference in rhetoric is the type of language they chose to write in. Lao-tzu used a traditional Chinese form that corresponds to aphorism. Lao-tzu believed strongly in changing people for the better so that what he set out to do. “The Master Leads by emptying people’s minds and filling their cores, by weakening their ambition and toughening their resolve” (Lao-tzu 23). He meant by that was to erase the bad and put in the place of that something useful and by doing these things Lao-tzu believed he was contributing to
Get Access