Machiavelli's View Of Humanism

The humanist movement brought about the inspiration of both Niccolò Machiavelli and Baldassare Castiglione during the Italian Renaissance of the fifteenth century. Machiavelli and Castiglione shared their beliefs about society in their published writings. The most notorious of Machiavelli’s works was The Prince, a take on the political structure and successes of western civilization. Castiglione’s most known publication, The Courtier, was heavily influenced by the works of Plato and Cicero and contributed heavy sections of dialogue. The writings of these two writers was truly visionary for the time and expressed the various opinions on how a specific faction of people should behave during the time.

The writings of Nicolo Machiavelli are the single most important example of this new humanist thought. Drawing from ancient Roman writers, Machiavelli developed a worldly concept of politics, and was one of the first in the modern period to discuss the virtues of republican government and a system of checks and balances. He is perhaps most famous for his rejection of Christian idealism in politics. Princes and other leaders, he argued, must view human affairs must as they really are, not as we hope ideally they should be. The rules of worldly power (best understood by the

Machiavelli states that human nature is inherently flawed in his work The Prince. People are selfish, easily deceived, and are never satisfied. Humans act in their own self interest, believe what their eyes tell them and are never truly happy no matter how many riches they acquire. These are traits which everyone possesses, but some choose to not take ownership of. While these traits do not make human nature evil, but rather easier to take advantage of. Machiavelli argues throughout the book that if a ruler understand how manipulate these fatal flaws they can rule them without getting over thrown.

In the Middle Age, many writers on political power had stressed the ethical side of a prince’s activity -- how a ruler ought to behave based on Christian principles. Machiavelli rejected this approach. From Machiavelli’s point of view, a prince’s attitude toward power must be based on an understanding of a human nature, which he believed was basically self-center. He wrote, “One can make this generalization about men: they are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers,

Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity,

A humanist is defined as one who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans. Niccolo’ Machiavelli can be thought of as a humanist. Although opinions on this differ greatly depending on whom you speak with. Machiavelli’s life consists of so many examples and lessons that he has learned throughout his life. Through my paper, I intend to examine his perception of morality based on his political writings and life experiences.

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".

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

The Prince Is not a good or bad example of humanism because all the traits the prince has are very valuable in humanism and the prince seemed like someone he believed in his people more than himself, but they wouldn't keep up their virtue and do dishonest thing but would justify it with “The ends justify the means”. The Prince Machiavelli wanted had to be strong and charismatic, he's going to have to make his people believe and hope when the times are bad, a leader should have a calm manner and concern for others. The leader should be charismatic because the people will agree with you. Everything is easier when you have people who'll support and back your ideas. The leader should have faith in their people like if they formed an army and they didn't look like they'd be successful he wouldn't

"The term Machiavellian refers to someone who is unscrupulous, cunning, cynical, and unprincipled"(Goods 1998). Many scholars agree that this particular adjective would have dismayed Niccolo Machiavelli, the man from whom the term is derived. In reality he has been attributed as being one of the brightest lights of the Italian Renaissance through his works as not only a writer, but also as an influential philosopher of history and political thought. His most famous work The Prince has been misunderstood due to the motives discussed and the blatantly honest language used. Many of his critics have condemned him for his pessimistic outlook of man as a whole and in doing so try to negate the bulk of his work. Yet even after over 470

While the moral codes of Humanism and Catholicism consider being deceitful to be wrong, from an amoral perspective, betrayal is unavoidable and comes with its own set of benefits. This is Machiavelli’s view in his 1513 work The Prince, in which he details the complexities of gaining and maintaining political power to his Italian statesman Lorenzo de’ Medici, from whom he hopes to regain a political position after shifts in the unstable Florentine republic. Machiavelli argues that people, particularly political leaders, should have flexible moral codes so that they can bend them when necessary. For him, betraying allies or betraying one’s own beliefs is acceptable, even beneficial, because it aids in making tough political decisions to

By the turn of the sixteenth century, the Italian Renaissance had produced writers such as Danté, Petrarch, Boccaccio and Castiglione, each with ideas rooted in the revival of Greek and Roman Classics, localization of the Christian traditions, idealistic opinions of women and individualism. From these authors spread the growth of the humanistic movement which encompassed the entirety of the Italian rebirth of arts and literature. One among many skeptics, including Lorenzo Valla, who had challenged the Catholic Church fifty years earlier in proving the falsity of the Donation of Constantine, Niccolò Machiavelli projected his ideas of fraudulence into sixteenth century Italian society by suggesting that rulers could only maintain power

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

He does not follow the idea of virtue established by Petrarch, he disregards the limitless possibility of mankind set forth by Manetti and he refuses to acknowledge the “god-like” qualities established by Della Mirandola. Because of these issues, it is impossible to consider Niccolo Machiavelli a humanist, since these concepts are the foundation to every humanistic approach. While Machiavelli’s novel was one of the most prominent works of the 16th century and furthered a new idea for the ruling class, it hindered the notions that many humanists held dear during the

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).