The Source of a Prince's Happiness and Misery in Augustine’s City of God and Aquinas’s On Kingship and Machiaveli's The Prince

In Augustine’s article “Virtue and the Human Soul,” happiness is discussed in great detail. What makes a man happy? How do we obtain this happiness and where does

Augustine also emphasizes knowing happiness in eternal things rather than in what is grounded in phsycial senses, or the corporeal. This is illustrated through his encounter with a drunken beggar in Confessions: “For what he had gained with a few coins...that is the cheerfulness of temporal felicity (Augustine 97).” The wine will run out; that euphoric drunkenness will eventually die and he will again be unhappy. The importance of humility is also a factor in his encounter: “True joy he had not, but my quest to fulfill my ambitions was much falser...He had acquired wine by wishing good luck to passers-by, whereas I sought an arrogant success by telling lies (98).” He realizes the beggar is not truly happy, however views the beggar’s state as even superior to his own in that the beggar is not living in perpetual anxiety. This idea of humility becomes most important to Augustine’s philosophy of happiness. Happiness, he asserts, is knowing God the creator, something independent of the corporeal. Both Augustine and the

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

Machiavelli’s description of a desirable prince is one who induces fear, but avoids hatred. Machiavelli contends that “when it is necessary for [a prince] to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he

In The Morals of the Prince Machiavelli expresses his presumption on how a prince should act. He expresses that a prince should be feared, merciful, stingy, etc. He is right because if a prince is loved and too generous then people will take advantage of him and that will lead to his down fall. A prince must act appropriately to remain in power. Machiavelli gives his best ideas to keep a prince in power.

Niccolo Machiavelli’s most famous book, The Prince, contains the most valid information for a prince, a president, and even a king, to keep hold of their own power. Machiavelli tells about the importance and power of political action, his opinions, and most of all philosophy at it’s finest. Throughout the twenty-six chapters of this book he describes the bold, brave, practical, and powerful prince and how the prince’s life should be lived. Machiavelli’s view of human nature is used as justification for his political advice to princes. Niccolo Machiavelli was very intelligent, motivated, and dedicated while writing this book, he attempts to inform princes how to come to power by being powerful; he determines if nature and the environment a prince lives in is the cause of their failure and success.

Both Plato and Augustine offer unusual conceptions of what one must acquire to live a truly happy life. While the conventional view of happiness normally pertains to wealth, financial stability, and material possessions, Plato and Augustine suggest that true happiness is rooted in something independent of objects or people. Though dissimilar in their notions of that actual root, each respective philosophy views the attaining of

St. Augustine and Aristotle have very contradictory ideas of happiness. Though they both believe that they had made a discovery and found what it takes to experience true happiness. To Aristotle, happy humans are naturally political beings who strive to live in a self-sufficient, political city. For St. Augustine, happiness is grasped through a higher faith in God rather than a heavy political mind. While the ideas of a more political life may seem very safe and natural, St. Augustine believes that ensuring a happy life is the aim of the church and not the responsibilities of a Polis.

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.

Niccolo Machiavelli and Karl Marx developed theories concerning wealth and poverty in our society, as well as different types of governments. For instance, Machiavelli supported a capitalist economic system, unlike Marx, who embraced socialism in the society. Machiavelli wrote a book "The Prince" that explained how to be an effective leader. The theme of the book is "the end justifies the means." A person could or should do whatever is necessary to achieve the desired goal. According to Machiavelli, there is no concept of a perfect ruler, but only effective or ineffective leaders. Therefore, he claims that there are no fair fighters, but only losers and winners. Contrary, Marx embraced democracy as good practice for the government. This paper will analyze whether Marx would buy Machiavelli 's thought that states "desired ends justify undesirable means" (Weng 1).

Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince examines the nature of power and his views of power are still somewhat in existence today. I'll discuss this in this essay, emphasizing the following theses. Machiavelli discusses power over the people, dictatorial power, and power with people, shared power. While it is possible for power with to attain greater prevalence in society, it will not completely eliminate power over. In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses two distinct groups of people, the political elite, including nobles and other princes, and the general public. Today in the United States, the first group, the political elite, includes political leaders, religious leaders, business leaders and the leaders of

"Machiavelli identifies the interests of the prince with the interests of the state." He felt that it was human nature to be selfish, opportunistic, cynical, dishonest, and gullible, which in essence, can be true. The state of nature was one of conflict; but conflict, Machiavelli reasoned, could be beneficial under the organization of a ruler. Machiavelli did not see all men as equal. He felt that some men were better suited to rule than others. I believe that this is true in almost any government. However, man in general, was corrupt -- always in search of more power. He felt that because of this corruptness, an absolute monarch was necessary to insure stability. Machiavelli outlined what characteristics this absolute ruler should have in The Prince. One example of this can be seen in his writings concerning morality. He saw the Judeo-Christian values as faulty in the state's success. "Such visionary expectations, he held, bring the state to ruin, for we do not live in the world of the "ought," the fanciful utopia, but in the world of "is". The prince's role was not to promote virtue, but to insure security. He reasoned that the Judeo-Christian values would make a ruler week if he actually possessed them, but that they could be useful in dealing with the citizens if the prince seemed to have these qualities. Another example of Machiavelli's ideal characteristics of a prince

Machiavelli goes on in Chapters Fifteen through Twenty Three to discuss his advice to the reader in the ideal behavior and characteristics of a prince. He mentions that doing good would only lead to the ruin of a prince’s kingdom. He claims that a prince should be stingy and cruel as opposed to generous and merciful. He then, of course, adds in examples of successful rulers who were both moral and immoral alike. A prince should break promises more than he keeps them, according to the author. He also suggests that, while behaving in the aforementioned ways, a prince should do his best to avoid being despised by leaving his subjects’ land and women alone and by undertaking great projects to boost his reputation. As suggested at the beginning of Chapter Nineteen, a prince should not be “fickle, frivolous, effeminate, cowardly, [or] irresolute,” (70). ¬¬¬He should also choose wise, as opposed to flattering, advisors.

Prowess refers to an individual’s talents, while fortune implies chance or luck. A prince who manages to gain power by relying on his own prowess will succeed at maintaining power because his prowess will have built him a firm foundation for ruling. Princes who succeed due to the sway of fortune or the goodwill of others lack a basis from which to rule and will have difficulty building it quickly enough to prevent power from slipping out of their hands. Thus, although princes who rely on fortune reach their position easily, maintaining that position is extremely difficult. Therefore it is commendable that a prince succeeds on their own prowess, which will help build stronger fundamentals for themselves. He will have the loyalty of his army, which is analogous to the allegiance of the boss’ employees and the respect of leaders of surrounding principalities, which is also comparable to the esteem of other companies. Overall, the more self-reliant this authority figure is, the more he will prove capable of success as he will be better equipped to deal with problems 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.