He must realise that the people are usually touchy on both these things. He is sure to be hated if he touches any one of them. No friends or foes, a Prince must realise that for the state there are no permanent friends or enemies. Accordingly, he should be on the look out of an opportunity to his advantage and should not miss it under any circumstances. A friend of today can become a foe of tomorrow as well.
In his natural state, men was more caring and cooperative, but with social contract, he is more individualistic and greedy (Bondanella 16). That is why, Rousseau does not believe in the good side of social contract. As Rousseau states, “I must make everyone see that since the bonds of servitude are formed merely from the mutual dependence of men and from the reciprocal needs that unite them, it is impossible to enslave men without first having put him in the position of being unable to do without another person” (Bondanella 32). As this statement implies, social contract enslaves men to unequal chances and opportunities according to Rousseau, but for Hobbes, it is the best form of self-protection. Otherwise, men cannot survive and become
Another thing is that Machiavelli states that there are lines that a prince should never cross in order to maintain order. For example, setting up military bases throughout the new state, this will only cause havoc to rise. What Machiavelli means is that if a Prince does such thing it will certainly upset the people. Which could lead these people to turn into enemies for the prince and would be capable of harm
To begin with, Machiavelli believes that a prince should learn attributes that are not typically considered good. In fact, in order to survive as a prince and hold onto a principality, one has to commit actions that are not virtuous. This is due to the fact that human beings do not live ideal lives. Although striving for goodness should be the action every man takes, this is not the case, and believing so is unrealistic. In order to be at all successful, a prince must be willing to do what is necessary; otherwise, other human beings will take advantage of him.
The man represents the use of combat through laws, while the beast uses force. A Prince with an idealistic view of the world does not know the value of the beast and in the eyes of his enemies he is weak; however, a Prince who knows only the value of the beast will ultimately be overthrown. Furthermore, the beast is much more complicated than pure violence: within it lies the lion and the fox. The fox is sly and misleading while the lion is threatening and bold. “The lion does not defend itself from snares and the fox does not defend itself from wolves (p.69).” The lion protect the fox from wolves, while the fox recognizes snares.
The ideal leader is neither loved nor hated, but respected. He cannot be too generous, because that increases people 's expectations of him and it is impossible to keep buying the people 's love as the price gets too high. Yet, the prince should not be hated due to his violent nature, because that rises up. The prince should act in ways that keep him in power and maintain his own power. He should be able to read the character and motives of others in order to use them for his own ends.
There 's no government quality of life but life is also the most important thing around. Hobbes define the state of nature as a product of human nature where “Life is nasty, brutish, solitary and short the war of all against all”. The violation of peoples one right, which in this case is life. According to Hobbes, in order to protect their lives people appoint a sovereign The sovereign keeps the people safe but, removes almost unlimited power in exchange Anything that weakest monarchy will lead to anarchy to the S.O.N and to war.
Conversely, it can be concluded that Mencius and Hsün Tzu are similar base on their process of thinking, also their continuous advocation on self-cultivation and education. Before the discussion, we need to clarify why the public claims Mencius and Hsün Tzu are the bipolar through their ideas of human nature.
Castiglione mentions that the courtier must do the following: avoid melancholy, always agree with the prince; and project good virtues upon the prince. Although these three actions are important to maintain for the purpose of setting an example, some may be unreasonable. As part of his persona, a courtier must not show signs of bad humor or melancholy. He must avoid foolish arrogance, lying, and boasting (125). I agree with this demand because the courtier has to be an image that motivates others in a way that they will not feel the need to express the same negative emotions.
It is precisely against the Wittgensteinian framework that the heavily-influential (as well as strongly criticized) Habermas's theory of communicative action and the concept of deliberative democracy were developed. Habermas utilizes Wittgenstein's conceptualization of language-games and a rule following in order to supply himself with the better foundations for his highly rationalistic communicative and political theories. He gives these Wittgensteinian ideas a new twist so as to build a theoretical framework which would explain a process of rational communication in a very much universalistic way. Moreover, by distancing himself from Wittgenstein Habermas goes on to present the idea of a deliberative democracy based on a rational communication. This Habermasian turn was later criticized by the famous political philosopher Chantal Mouffe who claimed that for a working model of democracy we should abandon the framework Habermas propagates and return to Wittgenstein's pragmatics.