Tao Teh King And The Prince: An Analysis

Emperor K’ang-hsi was one of the greatest Chinese emperors of all time. Ruling from 1662 to 1722 he was also one of the longest ruling emperors in Chinese history and for that matter the world. K’ang-hsi brought China to long-term stability and relative wealth after years of war and chaos. Jonathan Spence writes from the eyes of K’ang-hsi getting his information from K’ang-hsi’s own writings. Though a little biased towards himself this book still provides important insight into his mind. Emperor of China is divided into six parts; In Motion, Ruling, Thinking, Growing Old, Sons, and Valedictory.

He placed emphasis on how a prince should do anything to maintain and increase their own powers – it was apparent that he felt the individual needs of a prince in terms of the power and authority was important and that a prince should do whatever he felt necessary to protect the state and as a result it would mean a prince’s position as a ruler was also prodected. [Wheeler, 2011] Machiavelli placed a large amount on the emphasis on the fact that a prince must be seen to be a moral - but he is able act un-morally if it contributes to the good of the state or provides him with more power. He must be loved by the people and he must also be feared in order to maintain his role as a ruler of a state. Machiavelli argued that if a prince cannot be both loved and feared - it is better for him to be feared as more people would be scared to question him and afraid of the consequences that may follow. This results in more power and authority for the prince but at the same time it means that the prince is less accountable. This is a benefit for the prince but no for the people living within the state that Machiavelli is suggesting (Macmillian, 2006)

author of Prince. They are both philosophers but have totally different perspective on how to be a good leader. While both philosopher’s writing is instructive. Lao-tzu’s advice issues from detached view of a universal ruler; Machiavelli’s advice is very personal perhaps demanding. Both philosophers’ idea will not work for today’s world, because that modern world is not as perfect as Lao-tzu described in Tao-te

Government is the essential authority of a country or state, which is directly, affects society because it provides key securities. Two of history’s greatest thinkers Lao-tzu, authors of the Tao-te Ching, and Niccolo Machiavelli, author of The Prince have similar but very contrasting ideas of government, and how people should be governed.

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

Throughout history, it can be argued that at the core of the majority of successful societies has stood an effective allocation of leadership. Accordingly, in their respective works “The Tao-te Ching” and “The Prince”, Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli have sought to reach a more complete understanding of this relationship. The theme of political leaders and their intricate relationship with society indeed manifests itself within both texts, however, both Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli approach this issue from almost entirely opposite positions. Lao-Tzu appears to focus the majority of his attention on letting problems or situations take their course and allowing good to prevail. On the

Throughout ancient history, there have been a number of ways that human beings have attempted or succeed in governing people. There has been an assortment of religions or philosophical ways that were said to be the best way to lead people, in order to gain power, or whatever their goal might be. Many of these ideas went against each other, saying the other one was wrong. One example of this was Niccole Machiavelli and his philosophical view, through The Prince, that said it was better to be feared than loved as a ruler. Then there is the ancient ‘religion’ of Taoism that was founded by Lao-Tzu. In Religion of the World, it describes the basic virtue of this religion, “Taoists believe that if they

The text “Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching,” by Lao-Tzu, is a philosophical text that addresses government and how one should live their life. This outlines a leader's outlook at how to behave for a prosperous government. The ruling government described by Lao-tzu is minimal and having the people act of their own accord. Largely, this text disavows a materialistic view, it promotes relinquishing desires, power, and wealth. The main arguments made are logical and emotional and try persuade that an individual can achieve happiness once base desires are eliminated and they can look beyond themselves and have compassion for others.

In The Prince, Machiavelli explains what a good and successful prince should be like. He advocates a strong, cutthroat authority figure and encourages the winning of power by any means necessary. The main theme in The Prince is that mob rule is dangerous, for people know only what is good for themselves and not what is good for the whole. The common people, in Machiavelli’s view, “are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours”. He believes that these commoners should be

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.

Niccolo Machiavelli stressed that “one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved…for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.” He felt that a true leader must be cunning and deceptive, winning the hearts of his people through power and influence. If he could not be liked, he could at least get by knowing he has intimidated these below him into submission. However rash or cruel this may seem, Machiavelli’s argument is not one to be countered easily.

A family of monarchy which tortured Machiavelli for months causing him great suffrage and sorrow. He writes to Lorenzo “May I trust, therefore, that Your Highness will accept this little gift in the spirit in which it is offered: and if Your Highness will deign to peruse it, you will recognize in it my ardent desire that you may attain to that grandeur which fortune and your own merits presage for you.” This enough is confusing because if this is the same principality that caused so much suffering why dedicate a book to let their reign continue into longevity? As to add to this confusion, Machiavelli explains how a prince should use cruelty and violence correctly against the people. To use cruelty and punishment all at once so that the people learn to respect you by fear. He includes that if you had a choice on either being loved or feared, be feared for love can change as quick as it came. Fear of punishment, people would avoid and be subservient. He also goes on to put out that a prince must be cunning like a fox yet strong and fearsome like a lion. To use Realpolitik, morality and ideology left out for the world is not these things as you should not be as well. Furthermore, Machiavelli explains what must happen when a new ruler overtakes a new city and the people in it. “And whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it,

This is best highlighted when Machiavelli writes about the virtú of the prince. He says, “are those who have known how to manipulate the minds of men by shrewdness; and in the end they have surpassed those who laid their foundations upon loyalty” (Prince 286). Instead of always leading a virtuous lifestyle, a prince must appear to be virtuous so they can manipulate the minds of the uneducated. This line by Machiavelli really strikes me to be interesting especially in today’s political world. As we all know, many politicians read Machiavelli as part of their understanding to help win elections and staying in office. However, this comes as no surprise because not only does Machiavelli crave power, but so do our own politicians. The Prince is not a text about living a virtuous life or doing what is in the best interests of the people, it is about manipulating minds and keeping power. Likewise, with this way of conducting political authortiy some trouble could

re such, the prince must always respond with such. Whereas Machiavelli laces his historical points with a wealth of evidence and detail, he tends not to provide significant explanations for many broad generalizations on human nature. Machiavelli clearly demonstrates that through his negative and pessimistic view on human nature, that the common citizen is only part of the equation which keeps the prince in power. Machiavelli also believes that unless we assume that human nature and behavior is unchanging, how can we study and understand the actions of people in the past. The lessons and principles derived from the study of the past could be applied to the present, therefore Machiavelli’s view on human nature will always be a negative one. Without virtue and without adhering to any sort of moral code, the prince, is able to consolidate his governance over the common people through intimidation and brute force.

As long as the Prince prospered, the people would do anything to honor him. Human nature should always be in the back of the Princes’ mind Machiavelli argued, but even he can fall victim to certain inhumanities. Machiavelli figured it was a necessary evil to punish those who broke the law, because it took a strong and sometimes cruel Prince to rightfully rule a kingdom. Machiavelli made a very personal connection to the way men treated family, when he claimed, “Men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.” One would hope that the death of a Father is more important than the property they would receive from his passing, but not Machiavelli. His faith in humanity, so it would seem, has hit rock bottom. Unlike another key political philosopher of his time, John Locke, who offers a compelling contrast to Machiavelli on human reason.