How Does Machiavelli Bring Us From A Medieval View Of Politics Of Power And Interests?

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.

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

Niccolo Machiavelli, a Renaissance philosopher and historian, is regarded as one of the founders of classical political philosophy and political science. To this day, scholars continue to debate whether the Florencian writer is more sympathetic to the few or the many. With some of his texts containing views contradicting the others, it is difficult to contend whether or not the philosopher is a true democrat. Despite many of Machiavelli’s seemingly democratic views and ideas, his personal ideology appears to be more of a Republican nature. His republicanism is most informed by his remarks on the people, nobles, and ideal state structure. Through analysis of his writings in ‘The Prince’ and ‘The Discourses’, and his ‘Letter to Francesco Vettori,

According Machiavelli, there are three ways that a nation can acquire powers. The first way is through skill. In chapter six, he has portrayed how the Romans proceeded in waging war against other nations. They had the motive of acquiring something at least possible expense. They used their skills in waging short and conclusive wars.

When reading Machiavelli's writing, one must quickly both differentiate and depersonalize the true feelings of Machiavelli, the person, as opposed to Machiavelli writing the book. Machiavelli's work is considered the finest treatise of political science, along with the academic birth of 'realism.' Ends do justify means in Machiavelli's text; however, one must understand that Machiavelli generally only supported violence for a greater purpose, and never more than necessary to retain stability. This was not Machiavelli's opinion alone but was the reality of Italian politics during the period.

Niccolò Machiavelli was a noticeable figure during the early sixteenth century. He is most famously recognized as the author of The Prince, a handbook for politicians which inspired the term “Machiavellian”. His writing also solidified his position as the father of modern political theory. His political view stemmed from observing the division of Italy into small city-state systems during the late fifteenth century. According to Machiavelli, the success of the city-states was dependent on the effectiveness of the autocrats who headed these states. Through observation, he saw what was necessary for an authoritarian state to be successful. He was bursting with theories, the first being that he believed that the state and its laws were a creation of man that must be protected by the prince. He also argued that conflict could be useful under the organization of a ruler. Another idea that Machiavelli strongly professed, was his thought that men are not equal. His belief was that some men

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

A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both

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

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

While reading “The Prince,” and beginning to understand Machiavelli’s manner of thinking, many people come to mind. From Princes to Presidents, the tactics that Machiavelli outlines in his famous text are near omnipresent in any person, or institution that relies on maintained power, such as a government. Though even outside of politics, or king-hood, these same tactics are applied. “Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool” ( HYPERLINK "https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/535702-religion-was-invented-when-the-first-con-man-met-the"Twain). With this quote in mind, here is a world-class con man, who was able to enthrall many fools & intellectuals alike. L. Ron Hubbard, or simply LRH to his followers, has demonstrated his

Niccolò Machiavelli is very well known as an important and influential Italian historian, politician, philosopher, and writer during the Renaissance. His book, Discourses on Livy, is a discussion regarding the classical history of early Ancient Rome, although it uses contemporary political examples and strays far away from the subject of Rome at times. It is presented as a series of lessons on how a republic should be started and structured. Most importantly, it constantly brings up the idea of corruption and corrupt people, which is not surprising because we all desire things and search for the simplest way to obtain it, even though the easiest way to obtain something might be a corrupt way.

Niccolo Machiavelli’s abstract work of The Prince discusses politics and government and focuses in not only acquiring power, but also how to maintain it. Throughout his work, one of the most prevalent yet disputed themes is between the acquirement of states between principalities and republics. The Prince shows a predominant and constant debate on which group will excel in acquiring power. However, despite Machiavelli’s harsh criticisms on principalities, his work does not solely praise or focus on the excellence of republics. In fact, as Machiavelli continues to speak and provide examples about the successes and failures of both republics and principalities, it becomes clearer that the lone purpose of The Prince is to merely provide tactics in political governance, instruction on how to maintain power once it is acquired, and most importantly, advice on how to become a great leader.

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).

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.