Niccolo Machiavelli And Saint Augustine

Machiavelli tackles the question “is it better to be loved or feared by people?”. Giving his insight on the matter, it is clear to see the benefits and downside to both. Every prince should desire to be perceived as a kind ruler rather than cruel one. However, he must avoid misusing or overusing his compassion. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel, yet his oppressiveness ended up resulting in peace and unity in Romagna (Machiavelli,trans; W. K. Marriott). Meanwhile on the other hand of mercifulness, when the Florentines tried to avoid cruelty, this allowed Pistoia to be destroyed (Machiavelli,trans; W. K. Marriott). Machiavelli argues once a

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

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

Philosophers have unique and yet similar ways of interpreting life through a variety of different values and beliefs appointed to oneself. Some philosophers have the ability and courage to stand up to what they are trying to accomplish or for what they believe in, even if consequences follow their actions. Machiavelli and Plato have different perspectives and goals in their writing, however their stories also have some underlining similarities such as being non-Christian. This paper will be examining some of these similarities and differences that can be found in Machiavelli’s “Prince” and Plato’s “Apology” and which thoughts I would come to agree or disagree on.

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

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.

Machiavelli was not concerned with whether a person was inherently good or bad, nor was he concerned with whether the elites exploited the weak. He was only concerned with whether an individual was competent or incompetent. A cruel dictator who kept his state in check would be look upon more favorable than a weak, but good-mannered politician who is unable to secure any influence. “Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; yet his cruelty restored Romagna, uniting it in peace and loyalty. If this result is considered good, than he must be judged must kinder than the Florentines…” (Machiavelli, p. 59) In Machiavelli’s eyes, the end justifies the means which is the central underlying message in his work, “The Prince.” Machiavelli was one of the first to suggest the realism of politics and that practical methods were superior to moral actions. At the time, many people would look to religion and to the Church for guidance in state affairs. The Church’s power was great at the time because many European rulers were Catholic and would often seek to the Church for guidance or mediation. In fact, Machiavelli disliked the immense power the Church had and advocated for secularism in politics. Machiavelli believes that religion was holding people back from effectively governing states and that they needed to use their own intuition instead of their own religion and idealism. “I deem it best to stick to

In the novel “Prince,” Niccolò Machiavelli shares his perspective of the ideal manner by which a prince should run a state. He discusses his standpoint on topics such as humanism, politics, religion, and tradition, but his opinions on the topic of human nature seems to be the most emphasized. The core of these opinions is that men are only interested in themselves, and they are content as long as they are not being oppressed. He claims that men are hypocrites who admire qualities in others, such as generosity and integrity, that they themselves do not possess. And although men can be trustworthy and considerate in good times, they will immediately turn on each other in times of trouble.

Major’s article, however, suggests that Machiavelli derived many of his ideas concerning human nature from classical and Christian authors. Major contends that only Machiavelli’s response to human nature is unique. Parel illustrates that Machiavelli did use Christian and classical sources while forming his own concept of justice. These articles also illustrate how Machiavelli viewed self-preservation and fear. Parel argues that Machiavelli believes the crux of human experience is the fear of the unknown. Majors also illustrates how anticipating the unknown was important to the success of the Romans. Both articles also suggest that Machiavelli’s viewed the usage of force as being essential to his concepts of morality and justice. They also both argue that Machiavelli did not believe humans could be inherently moral or just. Both articles mention the importance of self-preservation and highlight that Machiavelli believed war and self-preservation were intertwined. The main difference between the articles is the author’s viewpoint on how Machiavelli used Christian and classical

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,

‘Why does Machiavelli believe that it is necessary to sometimes act “against religion” (Machiavelli, p. 63). Would Augustine agree?’ In this essay I am going to discuss “why Machiavelli believes that it is necessary to sometimes act ‘against religion’” and also share my opinions on the comparison of Augustine, and if he would agree with the views of Machiavelli.

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

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

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

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.