Michael Olufunsho Fafemi Alan Rosiene HUM 2052 February 6 2018 Hamlet, The Claudius similarity and Machiavellism Shakespeare through the play Hamlet portrays many complex themes through the various characters in the play. Hamlet, the protagonist is in particular a mesh of various complexities and ideas. He is often caught in between his own opposing characteristics and these ultimately affect the course of his actions.
As a young child, I picked up many things from my parents. One of those things includes my personal morals. I would say that my parents did an exceptional job at allowing me to figure out my identity because they allowed me to develop a moral sense that helps me decipher right from wrong. I think that their words and lessons taught me how to be a functional part of society. In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses that a prince should be generous, feared, and always keep his word.
Introduction The question of what politics is has been a hotly debated topic around the world for more than two thousand years, from Ancient Greece to the 21st Century. Indeed, many philosophers including Aristotle, Dahl, Leach and Machiavelli, discussed their definitions of ‘politics’, with widely differing conclusions. However, despite the extensive debate, there is still no universally accepted definition of what politics is, let alone what it should be. Despite more contemporary efforts to define what politics is, these definitions can be called into question and requires much more diverse perspectives to define.
Though many view Machiavelli as evil, his teachings are better seen as harsh and stable. Richard III has much to learn from Machiavelli, for his rule is unstable and overly oppressive. Machiavelli makes the distinction that one should either gain the subjects' approval or should crush them unforgivingly, two opposite extremes. Richard, however, switches between his type of ruling: somtimes he orders people to die, while other times he manipulates them, sparing their life. As Machiavelli teaches his audience in his book The Prince, if one hurts his subjects in a not fatal manner, they will strike back, seeking revenge; and this is exactly what happens to Richard.
REAL-POLITIK: THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS “Let a prince therefore aim at conquering and maintaining the state, and the means will always be judged honourable and praised by everyone.” “For where the very safety of the country depends upon the resolution to be taken, no consideration of justice or injustice, humanity or cruelty, of glory or of shame, should be allowed to prevail. But putting all other considerations aside, the only question should be; what course will save the life and liberty of the country?” Machiavelli emphasized that being a good politician doesn’t always necessarily equate to being a good person. However, Machiavelli never praised immorality.
Machiavelli describes civil circumstances that are fit for republicanism and others that are fit for monarchical rule, possibly displaying an inherent contradiction. However, what this actually displays is the “Extraordinarily high value he attaches to political stability” (2000: p.44). This shows that Machiavelli stressed highly the necessity for a political system that guaranteed stability. Chapter LVIII of The Discourses is itself a dedication to the importance of political stability and how collective government can provide this, portraying another theme concurrent with his true political views.
Machiavelli’s fourteenth century work called The Prince was full of information, and advice on how to be a proper ruler over any domain. This information is only useful to princedoms which are uncommon in today’s world. Modern governments have a president or prime minister as their head of state, with dozens of representatives and ambassadors to do the job that a king, or prince, usually did alone. The fact that there are very few principalities left in the modern world shows Machiavelli’s work is obsolete. Passé advice is never helpful, or requested.
The reputation of Niccolo Machiavelli has reigned infamous for centuries, not least as a result of his most noted work ‘The Prince’ (1532) resulting in the term "Machiavellian’ being used today for anyone who is seen slyly to manipulate a given situation to their own advantage by means of shrewd political insight" (Barnett, 2006). Although Machiavelli is often regarded as a pioneer, of sorts, of political thought by contemporaries and historians alike, the direction and content of his work on ‘The Prince’ was not without contextual historical motivation. A growing trend around the sixteenth century was the ‘Principis’ genre of literature, translating literally as “mirror of the prince”. This essay will explore the contextual setting for Machiavelli’s development of ‘The Prince’ and evaluate whether a knowledge of Machiavelli’s life and times is really necessary to understand and interpret the text for either what many believe to be it’s intended purpose or solely the purpose of political guidance. The intention behind Machiavelli 's 'The Prince ' was to provide an advice text, true to the ‘Principis’ style of the time, detailing how to a Prince might go about appearing learned and legitimate of his position in the event that he may not actually be so (Bobbitt;2013).
The main influence on society are the people with the most power, who the average, everyday person aspires to be. What makes someone an “idol”? An idol is a person or thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered, a person who individuals yearn to be. People have a need to seek themselves in others, it is a characteristic of human nature to want to belong and fit in. This is what can make an idol or celebrity so influential and powerful.
Power is usually divided into two relating forces, consensual and coercive. These two defining dividends of power define the different types of leadership of which to truly define a leader as well as to manage and to maintain the subjugated as a factor of a primal exemplar of being the locus power. This study of power over another exemplifies the existence of The Prince. Machiavelli showcased the means of having power through the comparison of various leaders, which he called the "Prince", individually of course. These princes are the exemplars of power where one holds and other to take.