In “The Prince,” Machiavelli discusses the terms and procedures he believes a prince should take to govern his society. Many perceive his views on human nature and leadership as evil and cruel towards his people. He justifies his views on human nature as he draws examples from the tactics and traits of successful leaders from the past. His ideas are comprised from justifying the means of his actions by its ends. Machiavelli selects the aspects of admirable historical figures to produce and describe his ideal prince.
Machiavelli opens The Prince with a dedication to Lorenzo ‘The Magnificent’ de Medici. Machiavelli adopts a remarkably deferential tone which highlights the power gap between himself and the ruler of Florence. The author emphasizes his social inferiority and presents his writing as beneath Medici “I judge this work unworthy to come into your presence” (10). Yet, Machiavelli aims to legitimize his counsel to the eyes of Medici for advising him is the highest political position that Machiavelli may aspire to reach for he was born a commoner. With that in mind, the author underlines that Medici would benefit from the outlook of a well-read ordinary citizen like Machiavelli.
As Paul Fox states, “Louis was less than a complete despot, and no tyrant” (Fox 142). There is great value in Fox’s statement because in his writings, Fox examines and extracts Louis XIV’s political theory directly from his manuscripts in order to investigate his ideology. Through Fox’s exploration of a primary source that was tied directly to the King’s own accounts, it can be justly concluded that Louis XIV was not a “complete despot.” While Louis XIV’s incredible focus on aggrandizement distinguishes him from most absolutists, Louis was distanced from pure despotism through an acceptance of his own “subordination to the Divinity” (Fox 140). This submission to God restricted Louis XIV’s actions and barred him from acting in too brutal of a manner.
An ideal ruler, to Machiavelli, must not only have the power and authority of a lion, but must also be cunning, like a fox, “ A prince being thus obliged to know well how to act as a beast must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from snares, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognise snares, and a lion to frighten wolves”. A clever fox would be able to recognize and avoid snares, or pitfalls that come with ruling, and an authoritative lion would show dominance to the wolves, or political rivals. Ralph opted to solve his problems typical of a chess player, strategic and tactical and expressing his inner “fox”. He knows after Jack’s actions resulting in the fire going out, he must act strategically to ensure the boys don 't keep “breaking up (82)”.
Published propaganda intensified the demand for change, but the motion to sever ties with Britain wasn’t popular. Thomas Paine’s pamphlet was a solution to sway colonists and justify the necessity of independence. In Common Sense, Thomas Paine articulates the illegitimacy of the British government. Particularly, Paine focuses on dismissing the idea of hereditary succession while arguing for equality of man. He asserts that as a whole, the colonies have the ability to succeed without attachment to Britain, and this is the time to fight the royal force.
In line seventeen, Jefferson claims that the objects of a government have the right to revolt if they sense their rights are in danger and select new figures. This appeals to logos because he exemplifying that the governed are the ones in power by revolting against the government. Overall, Jefferson makes a good argument as to why Great Britain should relinquish control of America. He gives insight of the unpredictability and instability of human nature and delivers the offences Great Britain has committed. He clearly uses rhetorical strategies, such as diction and syntax to get his message
Referring to the works of Niccolo Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu in succession highlight how truly at opposition the messages are. In spite of the fact that both works aim to create a model of a good leadership , «Tao-te Ching» by Lao-Tzu discusses peace, straightforwardness, and giving the universe a chance to work its will, while «The Qualities of the Prince» by Machiavelli emphasizes the significance of war, and the common depravity of men. There are no specific reasons that these two methods of reasoning ought to be in agreement, one written in the sixth century, and the other the sixteenth, however they are comparable in that they are very honored among society and the quotes taken from the content are frequently cited and considered insightful,
Machiavelli said it best in his book The Prince, "It is Better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both. " The main characters of The Lord Of The flies by William Golding, Jack and Ralph, both share the similar goal of becoming leader. As Jack being feared and Ralph being loved, throughout the book you perceive that being feared as a leader maintains order, causes stability, and embodies a sense of respect. Love comes, and it goes. The fact that it's fickle causes it to be an untrustworthy ground to build leadership on.
He uses Ralph and Piggy to describe the well-educated that attempt to grasp civilisation, but ultimately fail to deliver. His symbol of Roger as an ordinary person that breaks loose of the chains of society once disconnected from it. Finally, the nature of Jack is a depiction of the power hungry that will do anything to lead. Firstly, Golding uses Ralph and Piggy to portray that human nature is hidden by society to continue civilisation.
On the other hand, when you are feared people will take you serious and show you more respect because they know that you are cruel and you don’t show any mercy. Also “It is impossible for the new prince to avoid the imputation of cruelty, owing to new states being full of dangers” it states in The Prince, Chapter IV. Basically he has to be cruel in order to protect himself and his title as the Prince. If Macbeth was asked the question, is it better to be feared or loved, I think Macbeth
Indeed, Athens is the first democracy in action, but the city-state exemplifies democracy’s faults rather than its merits. For example, the demagogues Thucydides presents in his History of the Peloponnesian War will hijacked and bend the system to their own selfish needs. Furthermore, humans naturally act towards selfish and barbaric interests and are unfit to rule themselves as demonstrated in natural lawless states such as the Plagued Athens or the Corcyrean Civil War. Lastly, as a state grows in power and becomes more imperialistic, the themes of empire and democracy become incompatible and the state must choose between maintaining an empire or an ideal democracy. Theses weaknesses dispel the flawless ideal that surround democracy and show
A truly powerful leader is cruel and shows little to no accounts of mercy but rather use cruelty to bring order and restore peace and obedience in societies; moreover, while avoiding being hated. Machiavelli argues that a prince should not worry about the criticism of cruelty when it is a matter of protecting his citizens and ensuring they are united, loyal, and obedient. Furthermore, excessive mercy allows for disorder to arise and prosper while creating a dysfunctional society that hurts the future of a prince’s power and credibility. A prince should avoid being hated, but still show no mercy as it establishes him respect and shows his strength, influence, and compassion as a good leader; also, institutes more peace, harmony, and order in
Voltaire came to a belief in the possibility of a political democracy, however in a restrained version. (Arnold 67). Though when it comes to the question of political democracy, Voltaire demands here are mainly based on specific restraints to individual liberty when it comes to a particular system of justice. This is where the liberty of the individual is understood only in the sense that he is granted certain privileges. Louis XIV had turned France into becoming an extremely hierarchical society with the king at the top and then looking down on everyone else.
Literary Paper Two of the most important people that have different perspectives on how they feel about war is Machiavelli and Lao- Tzu’s. They talk about how to be a great leader in different ways. One of the biggest differences is their aspects on war. Machiavelli point of view is that leadership should be your only profession and your only focus, that it’s very important to be ready and have a skilled army to be a successful ruler.
The Ancient-modern debate involves two main tenets and philosophers Boethius and Niccolo Machiavelli and both have extremely different and even contradictory views of politics and whether morality comes into play and how. Boethius covers the classical side of the debate where he gets some of his ideas from other philosophers in the classical rea like Plato and Socrates. Niccolo Machiavelli covers the modern aspect of the debate. Both speak on similar themes like the conception of happiness, the role of “Lady Fortuna” or Fortune and politics. The ancient or classical view of in the Ancient modern debate of human nature is that humans are naturally good and naturally political.