Machiavelli on Religion Essay

The military campaigns of the Caesars made Rome one of the largest empires of the ancient world. Suetonius conveys through his writings that being a good military leader and a good Caesar were synonymous. Augustus, who Suetonius thought an excellent leader, reunited the eastern and western halves of the Roman Empire ( 51) and greatly expanded Romes territory (53). Augustus “showed not only skill as a commander, but courage as a soldier” in the eyes of his contemporaries (47). On the other hand, both Caligula and Nero, considered poor leaders by Suetonius, had very limited military success and aspirations. Only once did Caligula initiate a military exploit, and it was rife with his madness. His campaign into Germany was on a whim and all he accomplished was receiving the surrender of a

Fabius, Scipio, and Hannibal were all good leaders but they all had different qualities. Fabius was wise and patient, which meant that he could not be tricked and ambushed in battle. Scipio was clever but rash. He managed to conquer several nations but he made some decisions that could have destroyed his army. Hannibal was warlike and inspiring, but also unwilling to accept blame. He managed to hold an army made of several different nations together for a while, but did not take the blame when things fell apart. In my belief, Fabius was the best general because clever ideas and inspiring speeches are less important than patience and wisdom.

Machiavelli stressed that no art can deliberately aim at a negative result. As a realist, Machiavelli was concerned with reality and not how things could be. He was significantly influenced by his own failures in public life.

Niccolo Machiavelli knows the importance of deceit to the ruling class too. Machiavelli says “It is not essential, then, that a Prince should have all the good qualities which I have enumerated above, but it is most essential that he should seem to have them,” (page 46 The Prince) because “men in general judge rather by the eye than the hand.” (page 47 The Prince) To Marx, money allows this type of transformative deception; however, to Machiavelli this ability seems to be more of a character trait. Machiavelli says this can be achieved by appearing to be the “embodiment of mercy, good faith, integrity, humanity, and religion.” (page 47 The Prince) The first four characteristics, he says are the least important when compared to the last. Appearing religious is achievable by being complacent to the Catholic Church and wearing the “cloak of religion”, according to Machiavelli. This “cloak of religion” allows “pious cruelty”, and with his cloak a prince appears justified in his actions, no matter how cruel. (page 59 The Prince). Marx also knows the power of religion to quell the lower class, as the cliché goes, “Religion is the opium of the people.” (Lecture Notes 3/6/13) Religion keeps the poor pacified because they are living for a better afterlife. They are also willing to blindly follow

This compare and contrast essay will focus on the views of leadership between Mirandolla and Machiavelli. Mirandolla believes that leadership should not be false and that it should follow the rule of reason. He believes that leaders should strive for the heavens and beyond. On the other hand, Machiavelli believed that leadership comes to those who are crafty and forceful. He believed that leaders do not need to be merciful, humane, faithful or religious; they only need to pretend to have all these qualities. Despite both of them being philosophers, they have drastically different views on leadership, partially because of their views on religion are different. Mirandolla was very religious, and Machiavelli was a pragmatist, which means that

Machiavelli’s interpretation of human nature was greatly shaped by his belief in God. In his writings, Machiavelli conceives that humans were given free will by God, and the choices made with such freedom established the innate flaws in humans. Based on that, he attributes the successes and failure of princes to their intrinsic weaknesses, and directs his writing towards those faults. His works are rooted in how personal attributes tend to affect the decisions one makes and focuses on the singular commanding force of power. Fixating on how the prince needs to draw people’s support, Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of doing what is best for the greater good. He proposed that working toward a selfish goal, instead of striving towards a better state, should warrant punishment. Machiavelli is a practical person and always thought of pragmatic ways to approach situations, applying to his notions regarding politics and

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

People are unlikely to overthrow a ruler that they fear, for they dread the punishments of failure. If the ruler is not feared by the people, he will eventually upset enough of them that they will rise up against him. They will overthrow him because of his perceived weakness, and his name and image will be shamed in the eyes of both his government and his people. Machiavelli believes that the state is completely separate from the ruler’s private life. No matter how immoral or heartless the ruler may be in private, only his public image is important. A ruler can be a terrible, sleazy person on their own time, and when not involved with matters of the state, but at any time when the leader is involved in politics and the state, you cannot afford to injure the image of the ruler or else anarchy will develop. With this kind of rebellion can come revolution, war, and many other tragedies that could be otherwise avoided.

Although the political life of Niccolo Machiavelli is quite interesting when analyzing his views on government and religion, his personal life and experiences were equally a representation of him as a humanist. He was described by some as never offensive and possessing a genuine understanding of human weakness. Niccolo formed a quite

Machiavelli has long been required reading for everyone intrested in politics and power. In The Prince Niccolo M

When reading Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince, one can't help but grasp Machiavelli's argument that morality and politics can not exist in the same forum. However, when examining Machiavelli's various concepts in depth, one can conclude that perhaps his suggested violence and evil is fueled by a moral end of sorts. First and foremost, one must have the understanding that this book is aimed solely at the Prince or Emperor with the express purpose of aiding him in maintaining power. Therefore, it is essential to grasp his concepts of fortune and virtue. These two contrary concepts reflect the manner in which a Prince should govern while minimizing all chance and uncertainty. This kind of governing demands violence to be taken, however

Niccolò Di Bernardo Dei Machiavelli was one of the first major philosophers to pull away from the religious side of reason. Breaking away from traditional views and values he became a modern thinker by looking at power through naturalistic and realistic senses. Unlike the views of Hobbes, Machiavelli had a contrasting view on the idea of a sovereign. Where Hobbes would explain a ruler to be fair and never unjust towards his people, Machiavelli would suggest a Prince must be ruthless, but not hated. Machiavelli also believed “A prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rule.” The art of war was something Machiavelli believed a prince should always have in mind at all times. He believed that it was through war that one

When reading Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, one can’t help but grasp Machiavelli’s argument that morality and politics can not exist in the same forum. However, when examining Machiavelli’s various concepts in depth, one can conclude that perhaps his suggested violence and evil is fueled by a moral end of sorts. First and foremost, one must have the understanding that this book is aimed solely at the Prince or Emperor with the express purpose of aiding him in maintaining power. Therefore, it is essential to grasp his concepts of fortune and virtue. These two contrary concepts reflect the manner in which a Prince should govern while minimizing all chance and uncertainty. This kind of governing demands violence to be taken, however this

Niccolò Machiavelli thoroughly discusses the importance of religion in the formation and maintenance of political authority in his famous works, The Prince and The Discourses. In his writing on religion, he states that religion is beneficiary in the formation of political authority and political leaders must support and endorse religion in order to maintain power. However, Machiavelli also critiques corrupt religious institutions that become involved in politics and in turn, cause corruption in the citizenry and divisions among the state. In the following essay, I will examine Machiavelli’s analysis of religion and discuss the relationship between religion and politics in Machiavelli’s thought.

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).