Machiavelli's Discourses

Niccolo Machiavelli was born on May 3, 1469 in Florence. Machiavelli was considered one of the most controversial political philosophers of his time. Machiavelli began working in the Florence government at a young age, employed as a clerk and later as an ambassador to the “Holy Roman Emperor Maximilan, the King of France and Pope Julius II.” Throughout his employment with the government of Florence, Machiavelli began noticing the effects that one person had over an entire country. In 1513 Machiavelli wrote what would be one of his most renowned works “The Prince,” in which Machiavelli expresses his political ideas of ruling a

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.

The Renaissance was a time of classical revival and a turning point from the Middle Ages to the Early Modern period in the course of history. Ancient texts and artifacts became sources of inspiration for intellectuals and artists alike, and the desire to emulate—or even surpass the achievements of the past prompted them to study antiquities closely and saw them as models and guidance. People were consciously distinguishing themselves from the medieval thoughts and using history to make something new for their own era. In the field of political philosophy there’s no exception. Niccolo Machiavelli is perhaps the most representative and groundbreaking figure of this trend in political philosophy. With his erudition in ancient literature, histories and political thoughts, Machiavelli draws various sources from antiquity to critic and response to the political environment of histime. While one may find seemingly discrepancies in The Prince and The Discourse on the First Ten Books of Tius Livy, the use of histories as guide to demonstrate or propose ideal rules is apparent in both works. We should note that synthesizing ancient philosophy or thoughts with contemporary thoughts is nothing new. Thomas Aquinas, for example, reconciled Aristotelianism and Christianity in his work Summa Theologica, using ancient antiquity to back up his Christian beliefs. What is so noteworthy in Machiavelli is his emphasis and

Socrates and Niccolo Machiavelli are two of the most renowned influential political theorists in history. Their most acclaimed works, Apology, and The Prince appropriately created the basis for various political ideologies that are still being used in today’s society. Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 1513 as a gift to the Medici family who controlled Florence at the time. The Apology was written by Plato in 399 BC who was one of Socrates students and admirers. Most of our knowledge on Socrates philosophies and theories originate from the writings and dialogues of Plato. Machiavelli and Plato lived during times of uncertainty, violence and political fragmentation however they both had different perspectives on what makes a good prince.

Prompt 1: Machiavelli quite simply has a pessimistic view on humanity. As he mentions in, The Prince, “…it is necessary for anyone who organizes a republic and institutes laws to take for granted that all men are evil and that they always express the sickness of their spirit whenever they have the opportunity..(181-182).” I don't believe that Machiavelli thought that man was completely evil, but rather, they will do as they need to get what they want. He believed that man is quite fickle in nature, and whenever an opportunity in self gain presents itself, that man will take it. Man is weak, selfish, and corruptible. Rousseau on the other hand, didn’t share the less than ideal outlook at man.He said,

In The Prince and the Discourses, Machiavelli asserts his views of a political leader during a

treatise that debates the politics and strategies of an effective rule of a principality. Machiavelli

A family of monarchy which tortured Machiavelli for months causing him great suffrage and sorrow. He writes to Lorenzo “May I trust, therefore, that Your Highness will accept this little gift in the spirit in which it is offered: and if Your Highness will deign to peruse it, you will recognize in it my ardent desire that you may attain to that grandeur which fortune and your own merits presage for you.” This enough is confusing because if this is the same principality that caused so much suffering why dedicate a book to let their reign continue into longevity? As to add to this confusion, Machiavelli explains how a prince should use cruelty and violence correctly against the people. To use cruelty and punishment all at once so that the people learn to respect you by fear. He includes that if you had a choice on either being loved or feared, be feared for love can change as quick as it came. Fear of punishment, people would avoid and be subservient. He also goes on to put out that a prince must be cunning like a fox yet strong and fearsome like a lion. To use Realpolitik, morality and ideology left out for the world is not these things as you should not be as well. Furthermore, Machiavelli explains what must happen when a new ruler overtakes a new city and the people in it. “And whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it,

Is someone were to chop Barack Obama’s head off and sit it on white house soul and become the country’s next president would people like him? If that same person were to cut off Adolph Hitler’s head and became the next president would people like him? Why would you like someone who just assassinated your ruler? Why wouldn’t you like someone who just killed your dictator? Most would like the ruler who replaced Hitler more. D’Orco was a cruel ruler so many of the citizens could not do anything about it. Borgia could though he didn’t have to he executed D’Orco he did because he wanted to appear as favorable to the citizens. Machiavelli says that Borgia is the best role model for any new ruler because he did all the things that a ruler should

The maintenance of a state requires the ability to act in accordance to the times. The Hobbesian and Machiavellian discourses in relation to the legitimacy of violence are distinct, nonetheless, bring forth significant arguments. Machiavelli claims that leaders ought to be good as long as the times permit, however, the leader with virtu ought to prepare to enter into evil when forced by necessity. Contrary to popular belief, Machiavelli does not endorse violence, rather he provides advice to those who wish to maintain their state or creation and in spite of the ravaging forces of time. The advice of Machiavelli is selective as it is geared to those who wish to maintain their state, not those preoccupied with salvation. In my understanding, Machiavelli advises that in order to maintain a political order, leaders ought to acquire virtu and not remain obstinate or operate with eternal principles. The Hobbesian account of the legitimacy of the use of violence is based on a notion of exceptionalism, which is the distinctive characteristic of the sovereign. Whereas Machiavelli appeals to effects, Hobbes’ defence of the legitimacy of violence is intrinsically necessary to the notion of sovereignty. By definition, the sovereign is sovereign or exceptional to commit violence. For example, the governing laws of physics make it impossible for man to walk on water, except when the law-giver walks on water. It is in the nature of the sovereign to determine exceptions, any act 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

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.

Niccoló Machiavelli is perhaps the greatest political thinker in history. He was a historian, musician, a poet, and he wrote comedies. He liked poetry as much as he liked philosophy. Machiavelli wrote and collected poems. His works, which are inspired by his life experiences, have been read by many of the worlds greatest politicians. Niccoló Machiavelli’s writing was influenced by the Medici family, the Soderini government in Italy, and his own diplomatic career. His great work, The Prince, is legendary for its impact in politics and its controversial proposals.

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).

Niccolo Machiavelli is considered the father of modern political science. Living in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth-century's, Machiavelli was a citizen of the city-state of Florence where he served as a secretary to the city council and as a diplomatic envoy for 14 years. The Prince was published five years after his death and is regarded as his most famous work. The Prince is an articulate and precise explanation of the way to use the lesson of history in politics as an example to learn and build ideas from. The Prince can be broken up into four parts. Firstly, Machiavelli explains how a prince gets a state. Secondly, he explains how a prince holds on to a state. Thirdly, he