When the Renaissance dawned over Europe’s Dark Ages, half a millennium of intellectual thought, long unchallenged, found new opponents on all sides. Aided by the printing press, fresh ideas in science, art, and religion spread freely across the Western World, falling under the scrutiny of an ever-expanding population of the literate. With this widespread intellectual excitement came greater individualism, more celebration of human achievement, and stronger focus on the secular world—a major shift from the heaven-focused outlook of the Middle Ages, in which people felt they were little more than the feeble playthings of fate. But are human beings really able to change their destinies through their choices? Are they capable of good? Three …show more content…
He then explains that with the proper preparation, fate can be held at bay, and he provides an example of a river that often floods. Although nothing can be done when the flood has already come, the calamity can be prevented altogether if dikes and dams are built up in strategic places beforehand (Machiavelli 85). In this chapter, he also mentions that, in general, men are successful when their methods are suited to the circumstances. Therefore, if a man can adapt to new situations by becoming flexible enough to know when his usual methods will not work, he will have more power to navigate changing affairs (Machiavelli 85-86). The attitude presented in The Prince brings up an interesting paradox: although Machiavelli champions the free will and cunning of the elite prince, he seems to hold the autonomy of the masses in low esteem, assuming throughout his book that mankind in general is selfish, simple, and unreliable—the opposite of the cool, calculating prince that Machiavelli idealizes. In fact, almost all his advice to the aspiring leader seems to be based on a completely pessimistic view of human nature, perhaps because Machiavelli thinks it safest to assume the worst. For example, on page 59, he writes, “For this may be said of men generally: they are ungrateful, fickle,
He placed emphasis on how a prince should do anything to maintain and increase their own powers – it was apparent that he felt the individual needs of a prince in terms of the power and authority was important and that a prince should do whatever he felt necessary to protect the state and as a result it would mean a prince’s position as a ruler was also prodected. [Wheeler, 2011] Machiavelli placed a large amount on the emphasis on the fact that a prince must be seen to be a moral - but he is able act un-morally if it contributes to the good of the state or provides him with more power. He must be loved by the people and he must also be feared in order to maintain his role as a ruler of a state. Machiavelli argued that if a prince cannot be both loved and feared - it is better for him to be feared as more people would be scared to question him and afraid of the consequences that may follow. This results in more power and authority for the prince but at the same time it means that the prince is less accountable. This is a benefit for the prince but no for the people living within the state that Machiavelli is suggesting (Macmillian, 2006)
In other words Machiavelli says that human nature praises certain qualities and blame others, but there is no way that humans can do all the good things while avoiding the bad things. What makes a "good prince" in the eyes of Machiavelli is one that figures out how to not take so much blame when he does wrong, and tries to do as many good things as he can. For example regarding generosity and miserliness, Machiavelli says to be considered truly generous, one must be miserly at times:"A prince, therefore, being unable to use his virtue of generosity in a manner which will not harm himself... should, if he is wise, not worry about being called a miser; for with time, he will come to be considered more generous..." (53) In one final contrast, according to Machiavelli in regards to courage and cowardice, mercy and treachery he says "That every prince must desire to be considered merciful and not cruel; never the less, he must take care not to misuse this mercy...Therefore, a prince must not worry about the reproach of cruelty, when it is a matter of keeping his subjects united and loyal" (55). According to Machiavelli,
In The Prince, Machiavelli begins by defining virtue as being able to lead with fear and not invoking hate. As evidence he conjures a situation where a prince will give his citizens “hope that the evil will not be for long” (73) which in turn makes his subjects keener toward him. However, virtue is more than this initial definition. In Chapter 3 Machiavelli suggests that a prince needs to be able to see into the future of his people and should live on their land so they are able to understand the needs of their people. (44) By living with his people Machiavelli implies that they the prince will be more understanding of the issues and will be able to overcome them before it turns into something catastrophic. A prince must form strong bonds with their citizens, and not become hated.
18). A true prince in Machiavelli’s eyes is someone that the nobles, people, army, and neighboring states will be dependent on. To Machiavelli humans are by nature power hungry and greedy and that as long as there is dependence on the prince whether it is due to heredity, fear, or a variety of other factors, he will remain in power.
In the prince, the author explains that the concept of being a prince isn’t just getting the gold and waving at people as days turn into nights and as her or his majesty turns pure oxygen into carbon dioxide, in fact it’s the exact opposite of it. Machiavelli expects a prince with high virtù to be able to go
In The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli expresses that human nature is innately self-interested. The text itself is a political handbook that offers advice for the powerful elite on how to address arising conflicts, maintain and grow their political influence and power. Most notably among his advice is that it is preferable for a leader to be feared rather than to be loved when having both is not possible. Machiavelli, in chapter seventeen, explains that men are “ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely” (Kindle Location 1002).
Machiavelli was trying to tell them that if they didn’t “go with the flow” and change with the times then their power wouldn’t eventually exist, “...because the prince who bases himself entirely on fortune is ruined when fortune changes.” A leader that did “go with the flow” was Pope Julius 11. “...if he waited till arrangements had been made and everything settled before leaving Rome, as any other pontiff would have done, it would never have succeeded.” He acted as things were occurring and this went well for him. I also think, “The Prince” was a mixture of his opinions and some facts about past leaders and how they succeeded or failed.
In The Prince, Machiavelli explains what a good and successful prince should be like. He advocates a strong, cutthroat authority figure and encourages the winning of power by any means necessary. The main theme in The Prince is that mob rule is dangerous, for people know only what is good for themselves and not what is good for the whole. The common people, in Machiavelli’s view, “are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours”. He believes that these commoners should be
Machiavelli considers society an immoral place. According to Machiavelli as stated in The Discourses on Livy, “for as men are, by nature, more prone to evil than to good”. The Prince is a manual for being a successful ruler in an immoral society. Often times that success is met by committing immoral acts. Machiavelli, an outsider to the inner workings of government gives what he thinks are the critical tools to being a successful ruler in modern society. “Sometimes you have to play hardball” is a saying from today that I relate to his philosophies.
The Prince is essentially a guide book on how to acquire and maintain political power. We can think of it as a collection of rules and methods to achieve a level of superior authority. Its main focus is that the ends—no matter how immoral—justify the means for preserving political authority. While some may agree with this mindset of thinking many today dismiss Machiavelli as a cynic. The book shows rulers how it is that they should act to survive in the real world to maintain authority. While Niccolo Machiavelli’s ideas can be radical, they helped to spark a revolution in political philosophy. Although his ideas might have not been completely original, they were very different and unheard of at the time, The Prince, was published. Machiavelli uses many methods to convey his messages including biblical comparisons and of course metaphors. This character can be viewed in several manners. He is almighty and powerful, stopping at nothing to achieve his goals or have his ways. While this quality does qualify him to be a might leader it also raises the question of immorality. How far will one go to maintain order? Would you stop at nothing to achieve this task? Machiavelli shows this by saying, “it is
For centuries, people looked to religion for the answers to their greatest questions. The Church had a firm grip of how people viewed the world. God's will was to be followed without question and any attempt to explain a phenomenon without God's involvement was heresy. When the Renaissance began to spread across Europe, the qualities of humanism became more prominent. Scientific and rational analysis was becoming of great interest compared to supernatural explanations. Renaissance world-view can be characterized by a growing humanistic orientation that can be demonstrated by analyzing cultural artifacts from the era.
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
Having affirmed the value of free will, Machiavelli limits it by asserting that even though it may be possible to vary one's actions to suit the times, no one ever does. Machiavelli implies that this is because virtù is an inherent, natural quality that the prince cannot change. People act according to their character and cannot change their natures. This line of reasoning brings Machiavelli back to the pessimistic fatalism he rejected at the beginning of the chapter. If a prince cannot change his nature, success depends simply on being lucky enough to have a character suited to the times he lives in.
Machiavelli in his work informs the prince that even if he does possess certain qualities he shall always appear to his followers as retaining all of these qualities as shown in the following quotation “A prince, therefore, need not necessarily have all the good qualities I mentioned above, but he should certainly appear to have them… He should appear to be compassionate, faithful to his word, kind guileless, and devout… He should not deviate from what is good, if that is possible, but he should know how to do evil, if that is necessary” (Machiavelli 57). Machiavelli highlights that image is extremely crucial for rulers and they must alter the perceptions of their people in regard to him in order to appear in control at all times for the purpose of maintaining and sustaining control. This idea is overturning
Humanism allowed people to realize that everyone’s mind and thoughts were endless; the only constraint being the imagination. During the Renaissance the aspect of a human’s education was equally important in the creation of well rounded individuals.