Machiavelli Vs Lao Tzu

How should leaders approach the ideas of peace and war? This question has fascinated those in positions of power for ages. Ancient Chinese philosopher Lao-Tzu believes that war should only take place in the direst of situations and should not be considered virtuous (61; sec. 31). On the contrary, Niccolo Machiavelli, a fifteenth-century Italian philosopher, states, “A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war…” (86). While Lao-Tzu formulates an ideal approach to war and Machiavelli a practical one, neither one of their strategies would be effective in the real world; leaders must conduct their military with a balance of serenity and brutality.

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.

An absolute that Machiavelli states for a prince is that they, “ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and disciplines” (88).

Machiavelli wrote “A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its discipline; because that is the only profession which befits one who commands;” He discussed that a Prince’s duty is war and only war. This lead to the second issue, war, which existed as long as the existence of human kind, as I am writing this essay there are still wars going on all over the world. According to

Lao-Tzu’s stand on war is not what one might expect; he believes that peace has more power than war and that all men with a good set of morals look down upon the men who seek to fight. Along with war being an unnecessary product of compromise, Lao-Tzu view’s weapons as a disgrace as well; this idea is shown on page 209 when he adds, “Weapons are the tools of violence; all decent men detest them.” He later then states, “There is no greater illusion than fear, no greater wrong than preparing to defend yourself, no greater misfortune than having an enemy,” (page 210). Lao-Tzu detests war and sees it as a shame to even take part of the hate that is involved with fighting. On the other hand, Machiavelli suggests that it is fit for a leader to show close to perfect fighting techniques on and off the battlefield. War is shown as a lesson of fortitude for leaders during his time, Machiavelli explains, “Its institution, and its discipline; because that is the only profession which befits one who commands; and it is of such importance,” (page 221). He later discusses, on page 222, how a leader must train in his free time to prepare and become the most powerful fighter of all the men by mentioning, “and in peacetime he must train himself more than in time of war; this can be done in two ways: one by action, the other by the mind.” One can conclude that Machiavelli defines a strong leader through both psychological warfare and hand to hand combat. He also sees war as a learning curve for the men who wish to become a leader; Machiavelli’s understanding off a strong leader

Government is the essential power of a country, which directly influences society because it provides somewhat of a security blank for those who are affected by it. Lao-Tzu’s, “Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching,” along with Niccolo Machiavelli’s, “The Qualities of the Prince,” both discuss multiple characteristics that a leader should possess to be a successful. While their goal is similar, in which they both describe what it takes to become a better leader, their ideas concerning leading are conflicting.

In Mark Twain’s, “Advice to Youth”, and Niccolo Machiavelli’s, “The Morals of the Prince”, Twain and Machiavelli provide unconventional advice that is applicable both in their respective time periods and now. While Twain addresses youths within his work, Machiavelli addresses an older audience, particularly those in power or that seek a position of power. Twain presents advice that not only aids younger generations in navigating their youth, but also assures their reputation and character are not tarnished as they grow older. Much of Twain’s advice within his essay, “Advice to Youth”, is as relevant today as it was when published, although some aspects have become dated. Twain states, “There are many sorts of books; but good ones are for

In Chapter 14 of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, his claim is that a leader should put his focus totally on war. In the chapter Machiavelli persuades Lorenzo the Magnificent and the reader on how you should agree with his claim by explaining that you need to focus on war in order to be prepared when the time comes. Additionally, Machiavelli provides the example about how Philopoemen, Prince of the Achaeans, focused on every situation he could about war so that his soldiers would be prepared to fight. In Chapter 14 Machiavelli writes, “As regards action, he ought above all things to keep his men well organized and drilled, to follow incessantly the chase, by which he accustoms his body to hardships, and learns something of the nature of

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

A drop of water can break a mountain in half but so can a stick of dynamite. This is how the writings of Machiavelli and Lao Tzu can be tied in together. They both believed that their way of instructing a leader was the best way and for their time period they where right. Lao Tzu being from the 6th century BC and believing in the “Tao-te Ching” in contrast Machiavelli of the 16th century with the holy roman church attacking every Pagan. Both believing in a higher and the both Bibliographies preach two allowed two very different styles of living.

Lao Tzu has a completely different view on the way a leader should be on becoming a great leader through the Tao. Both of them have many differences and just a few similarities but they do have a certain vision on what they think a leader should be.

Machiavelli believes that the purpose of the government is to protect the state by any means necessary and to use the leaders subjects in a way that could further their own political agenda. This is proven by how in the translated version of the prince it says "he learns to know his country, and is better able to undertake its defense". (Marriott 2013, 15) This shows that Machiavelli believed that a good and powerful leader must be able to know his surrounding country in order to properly defend his state from war which in turns shows that he believes that the purpose of the government is to protect their state from any threat of war. As the lecture states Machiavelli argued that the people under the king’s rule are essentially objects to be used for whatever the ruler’s political agenda was. (Hillier 2015) This includes the subjects being used as soldiers of war to keep the

In every society, club, team, or government, some sort of leadership is in place. Leadership is important in any gathering of people in order to give guidance and direction. Different types of leaders can be found everywhere. Some people believe leaders should be kind and a friend-figure, while others like leaders who are no-nonsense and get things accomplished. One scholar, Pamela Spahr writes, “Some people consider leadership to be the ability to motivate and inspire followers. Others argue that leadership is the ability to get a job done no matter what. Both definitions are true,”(Spahr). Every person has their own definition of a leader. Is there really one right way to rule? This is a common discussion in order to help solve the world’s problems. Leaders help give the major population guidance. Machiavelli in his book, The Prince, outlines his perfect ruler, who is a man who uses strategic might to run the country. He uses power and cunning to gain power, and is not always truthful. On the other hand, Plato in his Republic says a leader is one who is trustworthy, and can relate to the people. Machiavelli and Plato present two completely ideas of leadership. Machiavelli’s viewpoint is extremely realist, while Plato talks in idealist views. The best leader, as outlined by Machiavelli and Plato, is Plato’s philosopher king because

Reasoning is a vital human trait that isolates one person from everyone else. It is believed that through human reasoning, a person’s intellectual capacity is bound to produce deductions due to presumptions. Due to these presumptions, reason is commonly viewed with the concept of rationality. John Locke and Karl Marx both believe in human reason and that man is innately rational and interested in the common good. On the other hand, Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli does not believe that humans are naturally good. In this paper, Machiavelli, Locke, and Marx’s standpoints are put into view.