Lao-tzu founded and wrote about his beliefs in order to guide others that wanted to follow in his path. He described the way of life, and the best way to do it. It was for both his followers, and for future rulers and politicians. He believed that if the people should be governed under Taoism. Like Lao-tzu, Machiavelli wanted to write for his followers, and the leaders that would rule behind him. His writing were ‘instructions’ on how to be a prince, or a ruler of some kind. His writings would be able to be read and followed for centuries to come. Gerald Lee Ratliff is the award-winning author that has depicted Machiavelli’s life through in one of his writings, and said “Machiavelli's purpose was to describe the realities of political life… many modern politicians have read The Prince, and no doubt they have learned something from it. (Ratliff) ” These people weren’t always the best, including followers like Adolf Hitler. These rulers must have listened closely when Machiavelli, in The Prince, said “Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.” There were also young princes in the monarchy era that governed their people by the way Machiavelli said to. In both ways, for good or evil, these writers set guidelines for future generations and
Niccolo Machiavelli, a political philosopher and diplomat during the Renaissance, wrote based on his belief as result of incidents he had actually experienced. "His works often contrast two forces: luck (one's fortune) and character (one's virtues)."p.35 Machiavelli's writings on "The Qualities of the Prince" focus on advise for monarchial leaders to follow in order to keep their power. Machiavelli's main theory is that princes should retain absolute control of their territories, and they should use any means, and do what ever it takes to achieve this goal. The adjective "Machiavellian" has become despised and it is used to describe a politician who manipulates others in an opportunistic and deceptive way.
In my attempt to compare the past and the present, I must explain to you the inner thoughts and workings of an ancient icon known as Niccolo Machiavelli on his publication “The Prince”. To do this, I must first start with explaining the brighter side of an ill fate. William Enfield suggested that “The Prince” was a ridicule of Machiavelli’s own perception of political leaders in his time. All in all, declaring that the book was written to “pull off the face of tyranny” and that “men were always fickle, liars, and deceivers” (Enfield, William) as the reporter points out in his article summary as well. Machiavelli’s personality makes this idea a double standard because of the fact that he wrote of breaking the bond of love and even trust if
Niccolo Machiavelli was a unique politician, philosopher, and writer who lived in Florence, Italy during the European Renaissance period of the late 15th and early 16th centuries. He is most famously known for writing his ruthless handbook for rulers, The Prince, during his time in exile in 1513. This contentious piece of literature has been fondly referred to as “the guidebook for tyrants and totalitarians,” according to the documentary, Machiavelli: The Prince by director Jett Rink. However, the document has also been credited with positively paving the way for ethnic and religious toleration, individual rights, and modern democracies all throughout history; and it inevitably set the stage for future governments to come. In this way, it is
Machiavelli draws a parallel between politics and a theatrical performance. He directs the actor towards success and a standing ovation. Similar to a director, Machiavelli uses his political theory to guide the ruler towards a successful state and re-election. Furthermore, just like a play A state undergoes a life cycle based on a correlation between repeated history and static human nature, and the cycle’s movement from order to chaos, and chaos to order is generated by ability and tranquility, this is supported by the line “For ability brings about tranquility, and tranquillity laziness, and laziness chaos and chaos ruin” (pg.557). A downfall and resolution interact with one another in a play, similarly a state rises when it has reached
Machiavelli writes the ‘Prince’ while away in exile which by most people, is interpreted as his manual or guide on how to rule. It is quite clear that he demonstrates political interest and advocacy in his work through the many stories of past rulers he shares as examples of what to do and what not to do. An example of a ruler who came from a lower position, meaning no riches or status, was Agathocles (son of a potter, who became the King of Syracuse) (Machiavelli  2006) which is similar to the status of the man Plato speaks of, Socrates. However, Machiavelli speaks for power politics and the importance of the ruler being in total control since “a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others” (
1.During the time period that Machiavelli wrote the Prince, Italy was tons of different group of cities and states. Each one of them was trying to gain control and power over the others. Along with the small civil wars over power, other countries such as the Spanish, Germans, and the French. The French had an ally with one of Italy’s oldest and most powerful cities of Florence. When the French were defeated by the Pope, Florence was also taken out. Florence was important to Machieavelli because it was where he served as a diplomat and a counselor for thirteen years. When Florence was taken over, Machiavelli nearly escaped execution and was later charged with exile. He was not allowed to come back to his beloved city. Machiavelli continued
Throughout history, each and every leader has different ways of leading their people. Many thoughts are expressed how to lead a country wisely, however, thoughts change as time grows on and a new era emerges. When comparing The Qualities of the Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli and Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching by Lao-Tzu, both men have very different opinions and strategies to lead their people. Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli have dissimilar opinions on war and military matters, the good qualities of a leader, and the nature of their people. When Lao-Tzu approaches a problem or an issue, he allows the majority of the problem to take its course and fix itself and let the good come out on top. Machiavelli’s methods promote the necessity for a good and successful prince to take control of his issues and the skills necessary to maintain power at any cost. However, both Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli were both philosophers who cared about how their people viewed them.
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
While Thoughts From The Tao-te Ching by Lao-Tzu and The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli are both pieces of work that serve as ground rules or guidelines for a ruler on how to rule a country, the two authors’ prepositions vary tremendously. One author takes on a susceptible viewpoint, while another takes on a much more conservative outlook. There are many factors as to why they differ so much. Even though Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli both provide intricate structures as to how rulers should run their state, there are extreme differences between the two.
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
Niccoló Machiavelli was born on May 3, 1469, in Florence, Italy. This was during the golden ages of Florence, a powerful point in its history. His parents were Bernardo
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).