Machiavelli’s Political Ideas and Influence

The United States of America is a global superpower, boasting the most dominant military and strongest economy of the international community. But yet, many of the ideas imbued in this nation are the same as those penned down in Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, written in 1513. Dedicated to the ruler of Florence, Lorenzo di Piero de’ Medici, the book advises leaders on how to conquer principalities and preserve power in said region and endorses several immoral methods. Despite differences caused by the transformation of the world after five centuries, The Prince manages to predict various aspects of America and its government. Although Machiavelli’s writings are in regards to 16th century politics, many of the concepts discussed in the political

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.

One of the three major themes of the Prince would be Hatred. For a prince to remain in power he would have to avoid the hatred of all the people. It wasn’t necessary for a prince to be loved by his people but it’s even better that he is feared by his people, but in fact if a prince is feared by his people it could be the cause of his downfall.

He placed emphasis on how a prince should do anything to maintain and increase their own powers – it was apparent that he felt the individual needs of a prince in terms of the power and authority was important and that a prince should do whatever he felt necessary to protect the state and as a result it would mean a prince’s position as a ruler was also prodected. [Wheeler, 2011] Machiavelli placed a large amount on the emphasis on the fact that a prince must be seen to be a moral - but he is able act un-morally if it contributes to the good of the state or provides him with more power. He must be loved by the people and he must also be feared in order to maintain his role as a ruler of a state. Machiavelli argued that if a prince cannot be both loved and feared - it is better for him to be feared as more people would be scared to question him and afraid of the consequences that may follow. This results in more power and authority for the prince but at the same time it means that the prince is less accountable. This is a benefit for the prince but no for the people living within the state that Machiavelli is suggesting (Macmillian, 2006)

A prince has plenty to worry about during times of war and everyone is out to get you so you must be greedy and heinous in times of war. The prince declares that the nation state comes first before individuals.

He explains that, “...a natural difficulty which exists in all new dominions, because men change masters willingly, hoping to better themselves; and this belief makes them take arms against their rulers…” (Machiavelli 6). Hence, in order to be an effective ruler, a prince must overcome the aforementioned challenge. Moreover, he must also be pragmatic, unbound to moral consciousness or traditional scruples, heavy-handed, sleuth, defend his state with a domestic military (as mercenaries only provoke the weakening of a state), and take whatever lengths he must to solidify his strength and capabilities to rule, brutality being a welcomed measure so long as the “ends justify the means”, while also not oppressing the people.

At first glance, Socrates and Machiavelli appear to have a lot in common.  They both lived in a time of political unrest and violence. They both dealt with uncertain surroundings in their societies. Most importantly, they both tried to use philosophy to improve their society. However, there was also an important difference between them. While Socrates was a moral philosopher whose goal was to search for truth and knowledge, Machiavelli was a political philosopher whose goal was to create a lasting society with a Prince that could hold power. Because of their clashing ideals, it is unlikely that Socrates would be supportive of a Machiavellian political system or Prince, though there are specific aspects of the society that Socrates would

In The Prince, Machiavelli explains what a good and successful prince should be like. He advocates a strong, cutthroat authority figure and encourages the winning of power by any means necessary. The main theme in The Prince is that mob rule is dangerous, for people know only what is good for themselves and not what is good for the whole. The common people, in Machiavelli’s view, “are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours”. He believes that these commoners should be

The Renaissance, a revival of antiquity starting in Italy around the middle of the 14th century, had broad implications for the way western society would operate thereafter. It would no longer focus on the church and its dictates, although they would still play a part. It would no longer have its government seated in Rome, with small pawns of the church controlling the land, although the church would still have a hand in government. It would no longer shun the vast stores of knowledge created in the past and ignored for a thousand years, although opponents would remain. The ideas of humanism, individualism, and secularism would come to play a role in society as they had in the past. Niccolo Machiavelli lived in a time when the

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

What must be understood is that the throne is always in jeopardy and someone is always there to try to knock the prince off his pedestal. This is a prime understanding that a prince must have, and fuels the infamous argument by Machiavelli that it is better to be feared than loved. Machiavelli explains that, for the most part, love is very subjective and eventually will subside unless further concessions are made to appease his subjects. In addition, people only care about their personal conveniences and a prince would have to overextend himself if he were to be loved by all. Fear, however, is not subjective and has a universal effect on all his people. Fear can be attained by sporadic violent acts. One must understand, however, that massive amounts of violence can not be done because it would portray the Prince as tyrant, and might stir up his people to revolt against him. The acts must be calculated, concise, and serve a direct purpose not only to his benefit but to the people’s also. Despite what might be assumed, Machiavelli is really developing a principality based around the people, where the Prince’s actions are merely to save his own head from the chopping block.

For centuries, periods of history have been defined by their distinct values, their tastes in art, music, literature, and politics. If you hear the term "Romantic Era" your mind is immediately transported to hear the soft music of Lizt, Schubert, or Chopin, and your eyes begin to see waves of the soft colours found in the paintings of Turner, Goya, and Blake. You might even begin reciting a line from a poem by Lord Byron or a quote from one of Jane Austen 's beloved novels. Even if we do not know specific names of people from that era, we will get a feeling, or a sense of what it must have been like, simply from the things we have heard about it. Sometimes, phrases we commonly use today are even named after periods of time in history, which characterize an aspect of this time periods values and ideals. An example of this is the modern term "Renaissance Man".

Relying on the needs of the society of that time, Machiavelli comes to the conclusion that the most important task is the formation of a single Italian state (Machiavelli 15). Developing his thoughts, the author comes to the following inference: only a prince can become a leader capable of leading people and building a unified state. It is not a concrete historical personality but someone abstract, symbolic, possessing such qualities that in the aggregate are inaccessible to any living ruler. That is why Machiavelli devotes most of his research to the issue of what qualities should the prince possess to fulfill the historical task of developing a new state. The written work is constructed strictly logically and objectively. Even though the image of an ideal prince is abstract, Machiavelli argues that he should be ruthless, deceiving, and selfish.

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).