A prince should act upon others as he might expect them to act upon him. A prince may act corrupt, cruel, and immoral, while appearing the opposite, for the means of avoiding hatred. He must be equipped with these qualities so he is able to do evil if required. This argument is justified through the strive for prosperity a prince seek for this state and the avoidance of hatred. A hated prince’s preach for peace and good faith will only result in a lack of support from his people and the loss of his state.
In Machiavelli 's perspective, rulers ignored tradition with a specific end goal to hold force, and men were normally awful animals that did not wilfully adjust to reason. Machiavelli says that a Prince must be savage for no man can be trusted. splitting among the general population results in a weaker state , and it will be in the long run ate up by a more weaker one. when that happens the ruler is the one nonentity of the state; his hobbies to keep power and request are straight-forward fixed to the hobbies of the state, Machiavelli says that in light of the fact that the Prince 's advantage are the preeminent of the state, he might do everything with a specific end goal to look after force, to forestall issue in the state. his explanation behind the irreverent behavior of a prince.
Men act as an ally in peace and leave when danger approaches or when the opportunity for personal gain is available. If a prince based its security, promises are not safe and if you need to buy security attempt to expect the same situation. Machiavelli ultimately a relationship that is based on love will be abandoned when it is necessary to make use of it because of the following: men are quick to abandon or betray a relationship based on love, but if it is based on fear having less likely to do so, feeling the fear of punishment Machiavelli continues to say. A prince to be feared, but must avoid being hated by his people and to ensure that the prince should refrain from the property and women of his people. If a prince is the head of an army that does not need to worry about the reputation for cruelty both because this will keep the army of the States.
As related earlier, catharsis aims to elicit pity and fear in order to purge such emotions from the audience. As such, the tragic hero’s punishment must not be considered entirely deserved otherwise it would be seen as justice and the cathartic effect would not take place. Instead, the punishment must be somewhat excessive so that pities the tragic hero for his misfortune as well as fears for their own lives after seeing the world is not always fair. However, in order to confirm that Oedipus’ punishment exceeds his crime, both must be identified. Oedipus’ crime is quite simply his attempt to escape his own fate.
Since Mussolini used his blackshirts who are Fascists to help make the event a reality, which shows him as a man with power. The March on Rome also helped the Facta government to resign, which helps to put Mussolini in the prime minister position. Another, significant reason is the activities of the Socialists and how they helped create a fear of Bolshevism, due to Mussolini using it to his advantage in a way to rise to
One aspect of Machiavelli’s theory which significantly contributes to his reputation as the “philosopher of evil,” is his advice to the prince on keeping their word to the public. In chapter eighteen, Machiavelli states, “a wise ruler cannot, and should not, keep his word when doing so is to his disadvantage, and when the reasons that led him to promise to do so no longer apply” (pg. 37). To simplify, Machiavelli says princes are obligated to lie in certain circumstances. He also states that while it is unnecessary for the prince to have positive qualities, such as honesty, trustworthiness, sympathy, compassion, or be religious, it is essential for the prince to be viewed so by the public (pg.
The Prince and Leviathan both show the extent to which the political power depends on the weaknesses of the people. At the same time, sharing similarities in terms of approach to the problem and the basis for its observation, the works are devoted to rather different aspects. Machiavelli focuses more on the ruler and his ability to govern or get power through the immorality or terror while pursuing his own desire for getting power or keeping it. In contrast, Hobbes shows that the immorality and disorder within the society are a result of lacking the power and could be eliminated by the social contract delivering the governance the ability to make other people conform to the existing social rules. In any case, the political ideas of Machiavelli and Hobbes are, to some extent, of the same origin and, therefore, achieve similar results in terms of defining the authority and its principles while achieving those results is rather different
While Machiavelli advises a ruler to be feared by his people in order to best consolidate his power, I argue that the best way to live a political life depends largely on the circumstances: with different situations calling for the prince to employ different characteristics that would be most effective to each circumstance. Machiavelli’s call for vigilance and distrust may be valuable to a prince and the state he governs in some situations, but toxic in other situations, as it hurts the society he attempts to better. Machiavelli argues that while the prince may superficially have allies and advisors, he must remain alone and independent at heart. This seems to assume that Machiavelli wants the prince to harbor a fundamental distrust of others, encouraging constant vigilance in order for him to keep his place on the throne. Indeed, Machiavelli describes men in simple, untrustworthy terms:
He developed the said ideas while he was in the island. Prospero, however, haven't fully understand what is politics all along. This is when he observed the politics in Italy when it was established, is quite Machiavellian. Through his Machiavellian manipulation of religion with the help of the spirit Ariel, comes to observe human nature again. His idea of human nature were unfavorable due to the loss of his dukedom to his brother and adding Caliban's
However; it did quite the opposite, instead it brought more conflict and uneasiness to the people. While many disagree with Machiavelli’s points about what makes a good leader, I find them favorable. While leaders during this time were expected to please everyone, Machiavelli makes the point that it is not possible to do so. One argument he makes is “A man who wishes to make a profession of goodness in everything must necessarily come to grief among so many who are not good” (Machiavelli 669). This means that someone who is too busy meeting the wants of one group of people, the “good”, will cause the other group, the “not good”, to become upset.