Political Analysis Of Niccolo Machiavelli And Thomas Hobbes

The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli was created as a gift to Lorenzo de ' Medici, this gift was what Machiavelli considered to be most precious, it served as an “opportunity of understanding in the shortest time all that I have learnt in so many years.” Written initially in Italian, Machiavelli used this gift as a chance to teach young Medici to how be a successful prince, but first let us better understand a bit more about Machiavelli’s early life and the events that occurred that lead him to write this primary source. .

Richelieu’s section regarding the power of the prince was particularly reminiscent of 15th century Italian political strategist Niccoló Machiavelli’s seminal work, The Prince. The Prince also deals with the management of one’s people, and argued

To begin with, an important theme to discuss is what the modern thinkers believe is the purpose of politics. Machiavelli believes that the purpose of politics is the glory and stability of the state, in which we will refer to as “statecraft”. Hobbes believes in the security of the population to be the purpose of politics. Hobbes wants ensure that the people’s lives are secure and that there is no opportunity of leaving them vulnerable to each other. Locke wants to protect certain natural rights: life, liberty and property. However, when Locke discusses in protecting and engaging people into politics who own property, it excludes the people who do not harbor property; which, at that time, was a majority of the population (234). Hobbes and Machiavelli are both interested in imposing order and avoid chaos. On the other hand,

The Prince was written nearly 500 years ago; it serves as a practical guide for successful ruling. The book's 26 chapters can be divided into four sections: Chapters 1-11 discuss the different types of principalities or states, Chapters 12-14 discuss the different types of armies and the proper conduct of a prince as military leader, Chapters 15-23 discuss the character and behavior of the prince, and Chapters 24-26 discuss Italy's desperate political situation. The final chapter is a plea for the Medici family to supply the prince who will lead Italy out of humiliation.

The concept of political power for both Machiavelli and Hobbes is to establish an absolute ruler. However, Hobbes concept of political power is more systematic than Machiavelli. In Hobbes state of nature life was “solitary, nasty, brutish, and short” and therefore an absolute Leviathan sovereign is needed; where people convey their natural rights to him for the purpose of security of life and society. Leviathan sovereign has all power and can make any decision as long as he protects the lives of his people then he is sovereign. Machiavelli concept of political power is more realistic than idealistic like Hobbes. Although Machiavelli employs the concept of virtue that he thinks a prince should processes in order to be successful a ruler, but

Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes both have compelling views towards liberty or freedom. In relation to politics, the term liberty and freedom is an essential contested concept. Because we have no complete agreement as to what these terms concrete definitions are, we will always have politics. The two thinkers have provided a framework of what these two terms mean which laid out a platform for what the terms mean today. Machiavelli expressed his views through his works, The Discourses and The Prince, where he wrote down his political beliefs and most importantly, the issue of freedom or liberty. Notably, Machiavelli praises Rome for its perfection and how liberty played a role in helping the greatness of the city in which he believes resulted from people ruling themselves. Hobbes, through his work The Leviathan, defined liberty or freedom as the absence of external impediments (Leviathan, 136). Hobbes had no interest in where these terms historically derived from, rather he sought to define these terms through his own discovery. Furthermore, Machiavelli provided a more complex model on how to protect freedom. I aim to present the views of the two thinkers pertaining to liberty or freedom, and argue how Machiavelli provides a more compelling view in comparison to Hobbes. The terms liberty and freedom will be used interchangeably throughout the paper since there are no concrete distinctions between them.

In this essay, I will be discussing the similarities and differences discovered in the writing of Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince and Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. Primarily, I will begin by explaining each of the authors’ approaches to obtaining and maintaining political stability; I will then identify the differences in their approaches. Secondly, I will discuss and compare each of their ideologies concerning humanity and then I will be highlighting their commonalities on the subject. Lastly, a conclusion will be provided consisting of my opinion.

Both Machiavelli and Hobbes have personal roots in violent historical times which are seen reflected in their respective theories about the use of violence in politics. The legitimate use of violence is a topic addressed by both theorists in their respective works, as read in Selected Political Writings and The Leviathan. Who has the monopoly over the use of violence, what its terms of use are, and what the consequences of its use are, are distinct from the works of both Machiavelli and Hobbes.

Thomas Hobbes and Nicholas Machiavelli embarked on the journey to create. Although depicted as nasty realists, closer reading into Machiavelli and Hobbes reveal the aspirations of idealists. Idealists who dared to imagine a different world, a world wherein man is not depraved and fallen — but is rather able to create. In effect, these idealist exalted man’s abilities rather than man’s depravity and banishment from the garden of eden. Machiavelli acknowledged that the practice of creating a political order in time meant only temporal glory is attainable, for fortuna will always win. Nonetheless, the heretical optimism of humanism created more problems than resolutions; creating stasis in chaos, time, change, creating a novel type of ethics, placing mankind in an objective position — namely, that of God’s —.Thomas Hobbes wrote during the English civil war. It appears to me that absolute claims to truth was the problem. Hobbes’ contemporaries were driven to kill because of absolute convictions, the solution is to create the skeptical man. A skeptical man with relative convictions is a governable, and more importantly, less likely to pick up a sword. Truth claims were Hobbes’ first casualty, as it is the conviction of absolutes which drove men to kill one another. The task Hobbes ventures into is extraordinary; to construct an argument for the absurdity or irrationally of the prevailing religious discourses! Hobbes nominalistic attack against language was the fiercest attack

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

First let us discuss the ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli in is piece “The Prince”. Machiavelli has a very independent controversial way of thinking and portraying his ideal form of governance in this text. The ideal and most effective from of governance for him is not in that of a republic but instead he insists in an autocratic regime. He argues that republics and other forms of government are too weak because of the corruptness of human nature. This book is written as a guide on how a prince should run his state or nation based on how and when he would come into this power. One of his main concerns in which he has been criticized for is his disregard to follow moral values so as to properly run the state, as well as

The Prince, written by Niccolo Machiavelli in 1513 in his native Italian language, was a book dedicated to Florence’s then leader Lorenzo de’Medici in an effort for Machiavelli to gain a position in Florence’s new government. The book was intended to help guide Lorenzo and other present and future leaders in gaining and maintaining power, more specifically to aid Lorenzo in unifying Italy under one ruler. Machiavelli lived during a time of great political strife in Italy as the small city-states of Italy, the Papal States, and the powerful states of Spain and

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.

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).

Beginning with the advent of universities in the eleventh century, European thinkers sought to use philosophy, religion and experience to solve the troubles of their day. As the centuries passed, so too did the methods of philosophers and theologians alike. Sixteenth and seventeenth century thinkers such as Machiavelli, Las Casas and Hobbes each had their own ideas on solving conflicts that each man experienced in his lifetime. In the sixteenth century, Machiavelli saw his proud Florentine republic brought back under the thumb of the Medici family. The change in leadership lost Machiavelli his position as secretary of war. However, rather than conspiring against the new regime, Machiavelli wrote “The Prince,” a guide to ruling principalities, in an attempt to revitalize his political career. At the same time, Las Casas argued against the slaughter and exploitation of indians in the New World. Las Casas witnessed first hand the destruction of the native populations in the New World and desired to end what he thought was unnecessary conflict between Europeans and indians. He wrote the book “In Defense of the Indians,” and orally presented his work in a debate against the proponents of Spain’s harsh policies toward the natives. A century later, Hobbes was caught in the wake of the English Civil War. His experiences during that time lead to the creation of his work “The Leviathan,” in which he lays out his view on how to avoid a devastating conflict like the civil war he