Niccolo Machiavelli And Thomas Hobbes

In the fourteenth century, the humanist philosopher Francesco Petrarch wrote a letter entitled How a Ruler Ought to Govern His Sate. Nearly a century later, another philosopher by the name of Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a book about governing, The Prince. The two documents show many similarities in content and theme. While the two wrote in similar subject matter, it is clear that these philosophers possess distinctly different viewpoints on how a ruler should govern. In Petrarch’s How a Ruler Ought to Govern His Sate and Machiavelli’s The Prince, both philosophers possess different opinions on how a ruler ought to govern. In particular Machiavelli pays specific attention to the importance of

The story “lord of the flies’’ by William Golding, the novel correlates to the philosophical views of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. John Locke was an English philosopher that surmised man's natural moral compass would point towards good, Locke's philosophical writings stated “ that individuals in a state of nature would have stronger moral limits on their actions. Essentially, Locke thought that our human nature was characterized by reason and tolerance. People, Locke believed, were basically good’’ ( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2). John Locke thought if people were given no rules they would make a paradise, flourishing in law, order, and structure, Thomas Hobbes believed people were naturally cruel and chaotic, with a need of a strong ruler to make decisions. Hobbes stated, “Who felt that mankind was inherently evil and required a strong central authority to ward off this inclination toward an immoral behavior, Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish’’( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2 ). Thomas Hobbes believed a strong iron-fisted ruler was needed for the safety and well being of a society. The ideals of man in a natural state, follow Thomas Hobbes philosophical view represented through Jack's brutish and monarch like attitude which lead to them living in a dystopian society.

Leadership is the most important quality for the head of any nation, or any other political leader. To be a good leader, you must have many attributes that qualify you for such a huge responsibility. There are good crisis leaders who would fail in a period of "calm." What is clear, is that leadership is a complicated concept. We have consistently found that good leaders have passion and values, confidence yet humility, knowledge and realism; Having these attributes and the ability to use them and develop them in others is the foundation for reaching goals and being successful in a leadership position. Henry David Thoreau and Niccolo Machiavelli are two men who have influenced some of the most influential people in the world, as the two were writing to different audiences, it 's easy to see why their ideologies might clash or unite; Henry Thoreau and Niccolo Machiavelli both use an abundant amount of rhetorical strategies in both of their stories, including ethos, pathos, and logos; both of the stories also have their fair share of differences.

By looking at the readings of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke, there are a few distinctions between how the modern thinkers viewed politics versus the way the ancient thinkers believed politics should be. There are many topics both modern and ancient thinkers discuss in their writings, such as the purpose of politics, the science of politics, human nature, as well as the ideal regime. By doing so, these thinkers’ views on political topics such as these illuminate how they thought politics should work and who should be able to participate in the activity of politics.

"But my hope is to write a book that will be useful . . . and so I thought it sensible to go straight to a discussion of how things are in real life and not waste time with a discussion of an imaginary world; for the gap between how people actually behave and how they ought to behave is so great that anyone who ignores everyday reality in order to live up to an ideal will soon discover he has been taught how to destroy himself, not preserve himself."

The Renaissance was a time of classical revival and a turning point from the Middle Ages to the Early Modern period in the course of history. Ancient texts and artifacts became sources of inspiration for intellectuals and artists alike, and the desire to emulate—or even surpass the achievements of the past prompted them to study antiquities closely and saw them as models and guidance. People were consciously distinguishing themselves from the medieval thoughts and using history to make something new for their own era. In the field of political philosophy there’s no exception. Niccolo Machiavelli is perhaps the most representative and groundbreaking figure of this trend in political philosophy. With his erudition in ancient literature, histories and political thoughts, Machiavelli draws various sources from antiquity to critic and response to the political environment of histime. While one may find seemingly discrepancies in The Prince and The Discourse on the First Ten Books of Tius Livy, the use of histories as guide to demonstrate or propose ideal rules is apparent in both works. We should note that synthesizing ancient philosophy or thoughts with contemporary thoughts is nothing new. Thomas Aquinas, for example, reconciled Aristotelianism and Christianity in his work Summa Theologica, using ancient antiquity to back up his Christian beliefs. What is so noteworthy in Machiavelli is his emphasis and

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

In the 18th century, a fierce debate broke out among many philosophers about the nature of the human psyche. Many argued whether humans in a state of nature were constantly at war with one another or whether these same humans were peaceful in their natural setting. From this debate, many other important philosophical arguments arose over the state of human nature. One of the most important arguments was the discussion of equality between human beings. Many authors believed that natural inequalities existed between human being. While others debated that human inequality was either negligible or completely non-existent. Within this debate, two thinkers, Thomas Hobbes and Adam Smith, came down with complex arguments on the equality of human beings. This essay will begin by walking through the argument of each influential thinkers. After establishing the argument of each writer the essay will then make the argument that Thomas Hobbes has a greater commitment to the idea of natural equality based off his that even though natural differences exist these are so negligible that their existence is unimportant.

Niccolo Machiavelli and John Locke are, in simple terms, two vastly different kinds of people. They were separated by nearly two centuries, and lived in two different countries. Despite their contradictions on sovereignty, both Locke and Machiavelli shared a primary concern- the betterment of society.

Secondly, when we ask the question, what is freedom, we are not simply asking for a definition. We are seeking to find some truth in regards to liberty. We don’t ask this difficult question in order to get some sort of dictionary definition, we ask this question in order to gain insight. We ask this question to know how we should live our lives and how our government and other institutions should act in respect to liberty and our freedoms. Berlin’s two conceptions not only provide us with a definition, but also helps us determine how our society and laws should progress.

The shift from the medieval era to early modernity in the political sphere is notably exemplified in the writings of Niccolò Machiavelli. Two of Machiavelli’s works, The Prince (1532) and Discourses (1531)

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

I have always found great interest in the infamous Niccolo Machiavelli and his ways of thinking; my eye was drawn to him long before I knew I would be studying at Colorado State and even before I had any interest in politics. It was from young man know as Tupac Shakur, and let me tell you it is great to finally understand who Machiavelli is and the things he has done for the outlook on politics after hearing about how much respect and praise he got from the iconic rapper of the 1990s. In this paper I will be analyzing and contrasting Thomas More’s “Utopia” and Machiavelli’s “The Prince” and their ideas on subjects that include good governance and social orders, key reforms, and who should be held responsible for providing good governance and an orderly society.

Although misunderstood when introduced to society during their time, Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince and Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan have been two of the most influential political works in history. The Prince and Leviathan, although seen as immoral and almost wicked works of their time, have guided many political thinkers, even America’s own Thomas Jefferson, on the subject of governance and power. This paper will compare the similarities and differences between both works in terms of the historical settings in which they were written as well as between the two distinct political philosophies presented by each man. More specifically, this paper will differentiate the purpose of power between Machiavelli’s theory of an absolute ruler separated from morals and ethics compared to Hobbes’ reasoning for a necessary and absolute ruler to put an end to the chaotic “state of nature” he presents.

J. R. R. Tolkien’s Lord of The Rings Trilogy Revolved around the story of a ring that contained immeasurable power. While this ring was desirable, it was equally dangerous; wearing it led to corruption and insanity. (Tolkien) While The Lord of the Rings was simply a fantasy, it conveyed a real message about the danger produced when a man is given power. For centuries, men have pondered over ideas similar to this; how much power is too much power? And how much power should a man employ to hold an ideal government? This governmental “ideal” is what Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince strived to achieve and how Tomas Hobbes’ governmental steps in The Leviathan resulted. During the dramatic changes of the Italian Renaissance, The Prince was