Niccolo Machiavelli's Passage In A World Of Ideas

Anywhere you go, there will be a community ruled by a leader. The qualities of leaders play a vital role in the success or failure of a society; if these qualities are effective, it allows the country to be successful and the ruler’s to fulfill the country’s needs. However, the absence of effective leadership qualities result in severe effects towards the country. When comparing the thoughts of Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli, it becomes obvious these two authors have different beliefs on how to be an effective leader. Machiavelli was a historian in Italy, a diplomat, a philosopher, a politician, and a writer during the era of the Renaissance. Lao-Tzu, during the 6th century, was an ancient Chinese philosopher. These two authors approach at almost entirely different positions. For this reason, it is a natural progression to collocate the two in an effort to better understand the qualities a leader should possess. To prove their philosophies, Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli have sought to reach a more complete understanding of each other’s thoughts on the subjects of war and weapons, qualities of leaders and the people, and how to govern.

He discusses that the prince have military knowledge, love and fear, trustworthiness, and good and bad reputations. He deeply believes in the art of war. "...a prince must not have any objective nor any thought, nor take up any art, other than the art of war and its ordering and discipline; because it is the only art that pertains to him who commands. And it is of such virtue that not only does it maintain those who were born princes, but many times makes men rise to that rank from private station; and conversely one sees that when princes have thought more of delicacies than of arms, they have lost their state." He also writes about whether it is better to be loved or feared, stating that it is best to be feared, but not hated. Love can change in an instant, and it is better to always have control, even if the prince must be feared. Patriotism and dedication to the state was also a very important aspect. In conclusion, Machiavelli strived for power and strength by any means possible. Through violence and fear, the end result would be worth it to him.

author of Prince. They are both philosophers but have totally different perspective on how to be a good leader. While both philosopher’s writing is instructive. Lao-tzu’s advice issues from detached view of a universal ruler; Machiavelli’s advice is very personal perhaps demanding. Both philosophers’ idea will not work for today’s world, because that modern world is not as perfect as Lao-tzu described in Tao-te

Distinguishing the differences between Lao-Tzu’s Tao-te Ching, written in the early sixth century B.C.E., and Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Qualities of the Prince, composed in 1513, can be shown through major points that both pursue opposing opinions. Whether it is their view of war, their stand on leadership, or even how they believe the ruler should be perceived, Lao-Tzu and Niccolò Machiavelli always seem to be on a different page. Through their pieces of work, one can see how their views differ. Between Lao-Tzu wanting nothing but peace and harmony and Machiavelli seeing a need for power and fear, both are on two very different ends of the spectrum.

Lao-Tzu is not exactly polar opposite of Machiavelli, although he is close. He believes that man in a state of nature is generally good and not greedy. What makes man greedy is overemphasis on material

When reading both of these stories, I was always hung up on what exactly I thought a good leader is. Lao-Tzu states in his work, “When the Master governs the people are hardly aware that he exists.” His proposal says that the ruler shouldn’t inform the people about all of his ideas, and that the less they know the happier they will be in the end. This idea of a leader, who is somewhat under the radar, completely contradicts Machiavelli’s idea, that a ruler must be feared to be effective. As I thought more about this I felt as if I was slightly more in sync with Machiavelli’s viewpoints. People today need to have an authority figure in which they fear so that they will obey laws. In a world filled with crime, more fear might lead to less law breaking. But is fear the only trait one should have to be an effective leader? In

Government is the essential authority of a country or state, which is directly, affects society because it provides key securities. Two of history’s greatest thinkers Lao-tzu, authors of the Tao-te Ching, and Niccolo Machiavelli, author of The Prince have similar but very contrasting ideas of government, and how people should be governed.

Lao-Tzu's "Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching" and Machiavelli's "The Qualities of a Prince" both have the ultimate goal of making better leaders. The tactics that each writer chooses to present as a guide for the leader are almost opposite of each other. Today's American government would benefit from a combination of the two extreme ideas. Lao-Tzu's laissez-faire attitude towards the economy, as well as his small scale, home defense military is appealing to a liberal person. Machiavelli's attitude towards miserliness and lower taxes, while being always prepared for war, would appeal to a conservative person. The writers are in agreement on some issues, such as taxes, but other ideas,

The most obvious difference between Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli are their moral perspectives and beliefs. Lao-Tzu is very mellow and easygoing person. He believes that the best government is one that runs itself, in the sense that the government should have very little control. Lao-Tzu is very passive. In his section titled Thoughts of the Tao-te Ching, Lao-Tzu says, “The world is sacred. It can’t be improved. If you tamper with it, you’ll ruin it. If you treat it like an object, you’ll lose it” (208). This quote strengthens the claim that Lao-Tzu believes in a government with little control. This is most accredited to his religion. He is a person of the Tao, and he is very reliant on the ‘Master’, or the god of Taoism. He believes that the Master controls everything, yet does nothing in the sense that people hardly are aware that the Master exists. Because of his knowledge of the Tao and the expectations of the Master, Lao-Tzu

Throughout history, it can be argued that at the core of the majority of successful societies has stood an effective allocation of leadership. Accordingly, in their respective works “The Tao-te Ching” and “The Prince”, Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli have sought to reach a more complete understanding of this relationship. The theme of political leaders and their intricate relationship with society indeed manifests itself within both texts, however, both Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli approach this issue from almost entirely opposite positions. Lao-Tzu appears to focus the majority of his attention on letting problems or situations take their course and allowing good to prevail. On the

Lao-Tzu believes that a ruler should be barely noticed. “When the Master governs, the people are hardly aware that he exists.” (Lines 16-17) He is also very against violence and is a huge believer in a leader should not wage in war. Machiavelli, again contradicts Lao-Tzu’s views. He, on the other hand, views a government as a strong leadership. Very controlling and demanding. The way he views government could resemble to a dictator. “Machiavelli’s view points on a governing system relates to dictatorship. This is the government that is in absolute power exercised by a dictator. A dictator is a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force.” (Harris) Clearly, Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu have different opinions on how a ruler or leader of a government should rule or

Since the being of time, humans have sought out law, or government. Governments have been set in place all throughout the world to try to maintain peace and order. As easy as it sounds, governments can be demolished without the right leader. However, that is the catch, what makes a good leader? Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of the Prince” and Lao-Tzu’s “Tao-te Ching” gives some ideas on how a leader should control their government. Although Machiavelli’s and Lao-Tzu’s ideas do not quite go hand and hand, there are some similarities. They both spoke similarly on how people should feel about their leader. Lao-Tzu views one of the best qualities of a leader is being loved by his people. On the other hand, Machiavelli believes the best is to be loved and feared, but sense he thinks that is impossible he had rather just be feared. Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu are more opposite than alike. According to Machiavelli, war should be a profession of a prince. He suggested a prince to think about war all the time and know the surroundings constantly. However, Lao-Tzu suggests a leader not to force war on anyone because the outcome will result in revenge and not to waste time preparing for war. Also, they had different views on what to do with their money. Machiavelli insisted on saving his income for preparation of war, whereas Lao-Tzu believed in sharing his money throughout the people.

Machiavelli’s The Prince majorly conveys his feelings that a prince should be feared rather than loved, but that he should never do anything to be hated (The Prince, 61). However, he should utilize cruelty if it is the best interest of the state (The Prince, 60), regardless of morality. He often mentions that the ends justify the means, so the prince must do whatever is needed to keep power and control because to be morally good often leads to bad ends (The Prince, 56-57).

Niccolò Machiavelli was brave enough to give the leaders of his day a how-to guide. In this work, The Qualities of a Prince, we are given a point-by-point description of what a leader should do to effectively lead his country. Machiavelli explains that, because leadership is (obviously) a position of command, "[war] is the only profession which benefits one who commands. " (p. 33)

Machiavelli’s The Prince can be utilized as a guidebook to answer: “How best can a ruler maintain control of his state?” Therefore, if any employer reads it as a how-to-book rather than just a work of political theory, they can be seen as the ruler while the state would be the rest of the employees. If this is followed like an agenda, the sole purpose of government is not the good of the people but the stability of the state and the perpetuation of the established ruler’s control. It would define the city as an entity existing to serve its ruler rather than its populace. Obtaining the support of the people is not a goal in itself, but rather a means for ensuring that the city remains fortified.