Montaignes Ideas On Human Nature

In general, Machiavelli believes people are fundamentally self-interested and unreliable. He writes “Men are quick to change ruler when they imagine they can improve their lot.” (The Prince) Machiavelli looks at all men as stupid and irrational, incapable of knowing what is actually best for them. He believes that men would opt for a diet that taste better and completely ignore the fact that there may be a hidden poison within the food because men are so accustom to taking care of their self interest over everything else they are blind to the actual deception of man’s evil intent. In his eye’s all men are greedy, yet gullible, so they are easily acceptable to manipulation and cons. Human nature is nothing more than men behaving as if there is no difference between the nature of man and animal. Just like animals, men possess both good and bad qualities that allow them to survive within the presence of a community. Because man is so anxious to avoid danger, he is able to keep his self interest at bay most of the time. Machiavelli suggests the reason this happens is because a lot of the time people’s self interest actually intertwine. (Erb) The difference between Augustine and Machiavelli is that while Machiavelli feels that all human behavior is conceptual from birth, Augustine believes that men choose to be

With each philosopher comes a different theory and approach to life, but a common thread amongst a great many of them is this tone, this speaking with certainness and authority. For instance, in the famous quote by Rene Descartes, “I think, therefore I am,” comes with it a type of assertiveness. Montaigne’s approach, however, comes in contrary to Descartes. Rather than coming across as definite and without doubt, Montaigne speaks very modestly and even query. In his “Of the Inconstancy of Our Actions,” Montaigne states, “I have nothing to say of myself entirely, simply, and solidly without mixture and confusion” (4-5). So, rather than saying, “I think, therefore I am,” Montaigne seems to first ask, “What is it that I think, why do I think that, and how does this get back to me?” all while trying to put the “pieces” of his character together. Also, the simple fact remains that one cannot heighten their image or affirm their stature without first fully knowing what their image or stature is. And Montaigne seems rather uneasy to make such announcements. Rather than having explanation marks, Montaigne would hang questions for nearly every statement he would make; he did not feel he was capable of developing a grand plan or theory behind things, and this modesty can be found in the initial purpose of his

The possibility of discovering what an ideal society would be portrayed as is an impossible feat. This is impossible because the ideal society is all subjective. I agree with Montaigne that the basic society, that is ignorant of their potential creativity and imagination, can create an ideal society. I do not agree however, that a complex society is only the things he says it is, brutal and greedy. I believe that he has overlooked all the good qualities that a basic society can

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

4. '84: Compare and contrast the views of Machiavelli and Rousseau on human nature and

In regards to Montaigne 's statement on page 23 in Apology for Raymond Sebond, I would deduce that he was using the metaphor of nature and natural tendencies in opposition to man 's vain, self-seeking façade that displaces God the creator. Montaigne 's statement appears to (on the surface at least) value mans naturalistic tendencies and graces in a much better light than our own vain-striving presumptions that claim that our "competent utterances" hold the very answers to the "right" way in which to conduct oneself. Montaigne constantly uses the contrast of animals and humans with the former representing a more pure, natural existence that I assume is to be

When King David considered the majesty and greatness of God, he felt insignificant by comparison, and asks, "what is man that you are mindful of him?" In Psalm 8 of The Bible, David stands in awe of the majesty of the Lord, and when he realizes how vast and magnificent God truly is, he is even more amazed that God would take the time to notice him - a mere mortal man. Buried deep in the human psyche is the desire to explore the subjects that give human life meaning, and the question of what it means to be human has been a source of contemplation for as long as recorded history. The Renaissance essayists, Michel de Montaigne and Sir Francis Bacon, with their immense minds and insatiable curiosity, used the literary form of the 'essay ' in an attempt to capture the world in its entirety and its diversity: every thought, every experience, and every inquiry in their work questions the intrinsic value of humanity. The intelligence and imagination of these two essayists becomes a 'small universe ', in which the individual can articulate the way in which humans think about the world and their relation to it. Montaigne 's essay, "Of Experience" (1580-92), and Bacon 's "Of Studies" and "Of Truth" ( 1625) are critical meditations that raise fundamental questions about the nature of human endeavour, and suggest that knowledge of what it means to be human is to be found in observation through experience, rather than through reason alone.

In contrast, Rousseau had a generally positive view on human nature though a rather negative view on modern society. He proposed that humans had once been solitary beings and had learned to be political. He believed that human nature was not fixed and was subject to changed. Likewise, he believed that man was good when in a state of nature, but was corrupted by society as shown in his quotation, "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Also differentiating himself from other humanists, Rousseau taught that the sciences and the arts were not beneficial to man. Rousseau believed the general will must always be right and to obey the general will is to be free.

Machiavelli considers society an immoral place. According to Machiavelli as stated in The Discourses on Livy, “for as men are, by nature, more prone to evil than to good”. The Prince is a manual for being a successful ruler in an immoral society. Often times that success is met by committing immoral acts. Machiavelli, an outsider to the inner workings of government gives what he thinks are the critical tools to being a successful ruler in modern society. “Sometimes you have to play hardball” is a saying from today that I relate to his philosophies.

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

human nature is dark and disobedient. He wrote in his book “the prince” that an

Montaigne believes that it is necessary to trace our actions to the circumstances, situation, and context with which it happened, without creating a judgement. It is not possible to create a proper judgement without all of the information, just like one cannot find the solution without all

Human Nature and society are two very controversial subjects. People can never seem to agree on what is human nature or how society should work. Why you may ask? It is because no one truly knows because everyone has different ideas. Sir Thomas More and Michel de Montaigne are prime examples of how they may seem to have totally different ideas, but they do indeed have some similarities. Although Sir Thomas More and Michel de Montaigne both believe human nature is best in a simpler form; More argues in order to have a simpler life they must be governed through a utopian society, where Montaigne argues the barbaric lifestyle is superior.

Envision living in a nation that has achieved the paramount form of society, one that is ideal in its ethical, social, and political facets. Simple to imagine but impossible to replicate, and that is, according to Plato’s Theory of Forms, because the physical world is a poor copy of these ideas, these forms, even the ones closest to perfection are imperfect. That is why a utopia can not be attained in reality. Although, in Montaigne’s Of Cannibals, it is proposed that the natural state is the closest to accomplishing this. The ideas set forth in this work, chiefly the concept of cultural relativism, influenced Shakespeare in his writing of The Tempest, and the characters Gonzalo and Caliban portray

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