The Relationship Between Machiavelli And Machiavelli On Relationship Between Rulers And Subjects

Author: The speaker of the excerpt is Niccolo Machiavelli. Machiavelli is considered to be the first political philosopher. Employed as a diplomat of the state, Machiavelli wrote Histories, a book about the decline of prestige of Italian city-states. The Medici family had a grudge against Machiavelli, and therefore exiled him from Florence. After the powerful Medici family exiled him to his house in the countryside, Machiavelli wrote The Prince in attempt to make his political ideology known, and in hope to be reemployed by the state.

The political situation that prompted Machiavelli to write The Prince was that Italy wasn’t a unified country yet. It was a bunch of city states.

The 16th and 17th centuries were a powerful time for European monarchies. Absolutism had taken hold, allowing Kings to have powerful rules over their states. This was due to the absolute monarchies that had taken hold and the belief in a divine right that kept them there. This allowed the countries under the rule of powerful monarchs to thrive and prosper. Absolute monarchies and the belief in a divine right to rule made absolutism a period of prosperity in 16th and 17th century Europe.

Niccolò Machiavelli suggested in The Prince that a ruler should behave as both a fox and a lion, being both loved and feared. There are clever rulers who were strategic, courageous rulers who were effective, and successful rulers who possessed both qualities. Elizabeth I of England and Henery IV of France were two great rulers from Europe that were able to personify Machiavelli 's advice.

Hobbes and Machiavelli were both advocates of self-preservation in their philosophies, although Hobbes placed higher priority on the idea of self-preservation more so than Machiavelli. Their views on glory, courage, and honor differ greatly from each other and as a result affect the level of emphasis they place on the value of self-preservation. Hobbes believed that self-preservation was the reason for entering a social contract and that fear of a violent death was the driving force behind leaving the state of nature. Machiavelli argues that the point of Government is for self-preservation.

Take Niccolo Machiavelli’s infamous Renaissance-era political treatise The Prince and recently deceased modern pop icon Prince, and upon first glance, they do not have much in common beyond a name. But an in-depth comparison reveals stunning parallels between Prince’s life and Machiavelli’s theories, allowing brand-new insight into their mutual focus on a number of age-old themes.

The first half of the Age of Enlightenment saw Italy more as a spectator as opposed to an active participant within the ever-changing affairs of Europe. Italy could not yet incorporate the growing ideology of the Enlightenment due to the Roman Catholic Church that governed the land. However, with the decline of that absolute ecclesiastical authority near the latter half of the eighteenth century, Italy gradually delved into enlightenment thought, and slowly became part of the movement that was dominating Europe. The continuance of scientific research ensued, which led to studies in history and archaeological science. Recognition of social conditions throughout Italy influenced the study of economics and socio-political issues. These new philosophies proved to be the main concerns within the intellectual community as the eighteenth century progressed. (Yawney 1,3-4)

Throughout the course of history, political philosophy has been dominated by two great thinkers: Niccolo Machiavelli and Socrates. Although both highly influential, Socrates and Machiavelli may not see eye to eye. When it comes to the idea of how an “ideal prince” would act, Machiavelli believes that they should lead through fear and follow a thirst for power, no matter the cost. Socrates, on the other hand, believes that they should lead through morality and have a healthy thirst for knowledge. Overall, these two would not exactly agree on what the actions of a good leader would look like or how a political system should be run.

There has been controversy between scholars about author Niccolo Machiavelli. His two famous works The Prince and The Discourses are two books which discuss monarchy and republic government and how both need to work to be efficient. The question asked is how can the author of The Prince also have written The Discourses? How can Machiavelli write about a republic with separation of power, then write about how a new established monarchy can work and survive? We will discuss the ideas set forth in both books and decide whether or not Machiavelli works are consistent or contradictory.

In life, it is important for us to have and abide by moral values that encourage us to be good people throughout our lives. In the New Testament and Machiavelli’s The Prince, both works express the moral values that one should live by. The New Testament expresses the morals of a Christian life, those you should follow to live a Godly life that has purpose. In The Prince, Machiavelli details a guide that one should use to gain and protect power when being a leader. These two works were written for different purposes, yet they agree on many aspects that would be considered to be good moral ideologies. The main difference is that Machiavelli is understanding in that, especially in a position of power, one cannot always act as the most

The Renaissance, a revival of antiquity starting in Italy around the middle of the 14th century, had broad implications for the way western society would operate thereafter. It would no longer focus on the church and its dictates, although they would still play a part. It would no longer have its government seated in Rome, with small pawns of the church controlling the land, although the church would still have a hand in government. It would no longer shun the vast stores of knowledge created in the past and ignored for a thousand years, although opponents would remain. The ideas of humanism, individualism, and secularism would come to play a role in society as they had in the past. Niccolo Machiavelli lived in a time when the

Nowadays, it is politically impossible to commit to paper a "training guide" for leaders. There are innumerable detractors to any possible stance or strategy a leader might adopt. As a result of this, all "training" must take place behind closed doors, far from the prying eyes and ears of the news media or the public. But this has not always been the case.

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.

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).