Preview

Aristotle Vs Machiavelli

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
765 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Aristotle Vs Machiavelli
Aristotle creates a metaphorical map directing the reader to a destination known to him as magnanimity. Vices such as vanity, boastfulness, and excess anger, are all concepts which Aristotle insinuates that a magnanimous person should not be comprised of (CITATION). Though, he also mentions deficiencies such as pusillanimity, self-deficiency, and patience which a magnanimous person should have (CITATION). An individual who can balance between both these virtues and vices is what Aristotle would deem a magnanimous person (CITATION). Applying this concept to political leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Abraham Lincoln, and Donald Trump, lends a description of who is fit to lead a country effectively in order promote overall human ecstasy. This is …show more content…
In the Prince Machiavelli describes how a leader should act in order maintain a kingdom or power (CITATION). Machiavelli indicates that it is more beneficial for a ruler or leader not to be generous or merciful, and how one should break promises if it goes against one’s own interests (MACHIAVELLI). Essentially, Machiavelli indicates that a leader should be self centered in order to maintain a leading role (CIATION). Trump is not by any mean merciful, in fact he is rather merciless in regards to his treatment of people of Mexican descent (NEW ARTICLE CIATION). Mansfield mentions that to Trump, winning dishonorably is more important to him than winning honorably (CITATION). To a Machiavellian Prince this would prove to be accurate as well, as Machiavelli would not place much value on something honors, but rather more value would be placed on what a leader values (Machiavelli citation). Though, Mansfield mentions that Trump goes against one Machiavellian principle: insulting his opponents. Machiavelli indicates that one should not leave their opponent living after an insult, for an opponent is able to get back at a leader is this is done (MANSFIELD
Continue Reading
View Writing Issues

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    A Comparison of the Writings of Machiavelli and Lao Tzu
    • 514 Words
    • 3 Pages

    A Comparison of the Writings of Machiavelli and Lao Tzu

    Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.…

    • 514 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Thrasymachus Vs Machiavelli
    • 267 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Thrasymachus Vs Machiavelli

    In Machiavelli’s Prince virtu is defined as a man that is characterized by strength, courage, skill, decisiveness, ability, and the ability to do whatever is necessary for the greater good of the state. On the other hand, in Plato’s Republic Thrasymachus believed that justice was best defined as that which is done to benefit the stronger, meaning that in a democracy democratic laws are just and in tyranny, tyrannical laws are just, and this applies to all other forms of government.…

    • 267 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Comparing Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince And Discourses
    • 325 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Comparing Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince And Discourses

    Throughout The Prince and Discourses, Niccolò Machiavelli talks in great length, and seems to endorse, power, deception, and cruelty. There is one passage in particular that I found to contradict Machiavelli’s viewpoint on dominance and to support the fact that he is perhaps a classical republican. The way Machiavelli praises Rome in Chapter 2 of Discourses shows that he believes there is a way to make the system work without a “prince” being feared by his subjects.…

    • 325 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Better Essays

    Lao-Tzu vs. Machiavelli
    • 1382 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Lao-Tzu vs. Machiavelli

    Government is the essential authority of a country or state, which directly affects society because it provides key securities. How directly involved should the government be in the personal lives of society? To answer this I will look to the ideas of Lao-tzu (sixth century B.C.), believed to be author of the Tao-te Ching, and Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527), author of The Prince There are few ways in which they are similar, but have very opposite views and ideas of government.…

    • 1382 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
    Read More
  • Better Essays

    Lao-Tzu vs Machiavelli
    • 1508 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Lao-Tzu vs Machiavelli

    When utilizing the rhetorical strategy of comparing and contrasting in relationship to literature, a number of pieces of can qualify. In particular, the idea of leadership is arguably one of the most written about topics with regard to comparing and contrasting. Throughout history, it can be argued that the majority of successful societies have been based upon effective divisions of leadership. Accordingly, in their pieces of literature, The Tao-te Ching and The Qualities of the Prince, Lao-tzu and Machiavelli have sought to convey a more complete and concrete understanding of their respective definitions and duties of a ruler (leadership). The theme of political leaders and their intricate relationship with society indeed validate itself within both texts. However, both Lao-tzu and Machiavelli approach this issue from almost entirely opposite positions, though sharing minute similarities. Lao-tzu appears to focus the majority of his attention on letting problems or situations take their course, and consequently good would prevail. On the contrary, Machiavelli advocates the necessity for a successful leader, or prince, to take control of his deeds, and the skills or qualities necessary to maintain power. Since both writers propose a question as to what is in essence the same dilemma, effective leadership, it becomes almost natural literary etiquette to contrast the two in an effort to better understand what qualities a prosperous leader must possess. Despite each author’s contrasting approaches to rhetoric, they agree that a ruler should avoid being hated and despised, but disagree in areas such as government involvement in citizens’ everyday lives.…

    • 1508 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Aristotle Vs Lavoisier
    • 380 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Aristotle Vs Lavoisier

    Looking at the same information from different perspectives paves the way for progress because it allows for the same information to be seen from different views to allow more ideas about the information, like in the case of Aristotle vs. Lavoisier and the case of Mendeleev and the periodic table.…

    • 380 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Better Essays

    Lao-Tzu vs. Machiavelli
    • 1620 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Lao-Tzu vs. Machiavelli

    Government is the essential authority of a country or state, which is directly, affects society because it provides key securities. Two of history’s greatest thinkers Lao-tzu, authors of the Tao-te Ching, and Niccolo Machiavelli, author of The Prince have similar but very contrasting ideas of government, and how people should be governed.…

    • 1620 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Machiavelli The Prince Research Paper
    • 1111 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Machiavelli The Prince Research Paper

    While Machiavelli believes that the higher road should be taken whenever possible, there are situations that may require that a leader set aside traditional morality in favor of cunning and trickery. As a pragmatist, he sees morality as a barrier to success in certain cases: "…it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain his position to learn how not to be good." (Machiavelli, 127) Machiavelli's prince must learn how not to be good, because "…it is not necessary for a prince to have all of the above-mentioned qualities, but it is very necessary for him to appear to have them." (Machiavelli, 135) As a leader, the prince is subject to specific standards by the people and must always have a favorable and consistent public…

    • 1111 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Machiavelli The Prince Quote Analysis
    • 224 Words
    • 1 Page

    Machiavelli The Prince Quote Analysis

    Even if his country was laid to ruin, Machiavelli would show great distain if its president were to promise to pardon his people to uphold his own consciousness then what is needed for the welfare of the nation. To process a kind heart is a grand gift, however it’s a weakness others will abuse making you open to manipulation from neighboring kings. Machiavelli argues that”… it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them.” To be able to truly rule over a land, you must be ruthless in your action, yet be cleaver to appear benevolent to avoid enemy ploys. This is a point Machiavelli points out as “Those who rely simply on the lion do not understand what they are…

    • 224 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Better Essays

    Machiavelli vs. Castiglione
    • 1540 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Machiavelli vs. Castiglione

    Machiavelli's philosophy was that "The end justifies the means." This meant that the end result is the most important, and how you got there was of no importance. The Prince was a book of advice to rules on how to found a state and how to stay in power. Machiavelli explained in his book the many different ways to gain power. One way was to acquire land. The four methods that he discusses to acquire more land is: Your own arms and virtue, fortune, others' arms, and inequity. To Machiavelli, the word virtue meant manliness and strength. Machiavelli also advocates the use of evil to achieve any goals. He gives an example of Agathocles of Syracuse as a proof that this works and will enable the prince to rule the land peacefully through fear. "Born of a potter, this one always had an iniquitous life throughout his years: nonetheless, he accomplished his iniquities with such virtue of spirit and of body that, having joined the militia, he rose through its ranks to become praetor of Syracuse. Being established in rank, and having decided to become prince and to keep with violence and without obligation to others what had been conceded him by agreement... ...one morning he convened the people and the senate of Syracuse, as if he had had to deliberate things pertinent to the republic; and at a preordained nod…

    • 1540 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
    Read More
  • Better Essays

    The Prince Rhetorical Analysis
    • 2621 Words
    • 11 Pages

    The Prince Rhetorical Analysis

    (Strength of argument): For Machiavelli, he believes that a prince should be feared than loved by the people and he specifies, “..a wise prince should build his foundation upon that which belongs to him, not upon that which belongs to others; he must strive only to avoid hatred, as has been said” (Jacobus 47). However, in this case, his argument can be flawed and turned against him. (Tempering the Position): Although Machiavelli does a really great significant job of using logic, reason, and history to convince his readers the proper way a prince should rule; however, he didn’t imply support to show how a prince to avoid being hated by his people because, he too knows, that there will be some people who will learn to hate one from their actions they perform. (Conversation): As a matter of fact, I have experienced a situation similar to what Machiavelli doesn’t want to happen. I am not at all a prince, but I have had people hate me for my beliefs, my attitude, or my actions. There was this one time where this girl began to grow this hatred towards me just because I kicked a pit-bull so he wouldn’t bite this little 6-year old I baby sat. My intention wasn’t to harm the dog, but it was the only way to buy me some time to be able carry the boy back inside my house safely. Even though this act I committed was considered animal cruelty, I had to do it to save the child. However, the girl still went against me on this action, so there goes to show that people can hate someone else because of how they see and…

    • 2621 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Better Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    The Prince/Man of All Seasons: Ethics
    • 841 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The Prince/Man of All Seasons: Ethics

    Machiavelli believes that a Prince should break his promises to man because man is evil and will break his promises to the Prince. I believe this theory to be true. If one desires to be a successful Prince, one must be able to understand and accept that evil characteristics are in all men. I also believe in order to be successful, it is necessary to take into account the fact that one may have to arouse fear in ones people in order to preserve and keep them well off. At times it may be necessary that those who hold power are the ones who are most inhumane; if this is held with low regard, one may bring collapse to their people, and unto oneself. However, as someone in power, one cannot be so merciless as to alienate ones people. There is a balance that must be kept. There may be certain situations where one feels a compelling need to lie and be deceitful; however, as a general rule, to maintain credibility one be trustworthy and loyal whenever possible. As a Prince, one must come off as moral and self-sacrificing but know at times that might not be the case. Machiavelli knows that for a Prince to be successful, his people have to be loyal and respectful. If one gains the respect of his people, both aspects will be successful and benefit…

    • 841 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Difference Between Aristotle And Hobbes
    • 1112 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Difference Between Aristotle And Hobbes

    Happiness isn’t something that can be completely defined. It’s interpreted in distinct ways, some believe it to be a value, while others see it as an emotional state, but everyone sees it as something they want to achieve in life. Hobbes believes that human happiness is nothing more than, “continual success in obtaining the things you want when you want them” (Hobbes 27). Hobbes argues against many philosophers, saying that our happiness is rooted in materialism. Some people may agree with this, thinking if they had more money or certain things than all or most of their problems would be solved and they could finally be happy. For some this could actually be possible, if Hobbes’ philosophy is entirely correct.…

    • 1112 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Plato, Machiavelli
    • 512 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Plato, Machiavelli

    Machiavelli says the prince only has to seem good, not be good. Plato insists that seeming is bad, being is good.…

    • 512 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Machiavelli vs. Erasmus
    • 643 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Machiavelli vs. Erasmus

    I believe that both of these views, to a certain extent and in certain situations, are still relevant today. With some people, the parts of the population that seek only to gain in their lives, and not contribute to the betterment of society, I would say that the Machiavellian approach would be of better use. Because he is right, a lot of men are ungrateful, fickle, deceptive, avoiders of dangers and eager to gain. With these kinds of people, they will try to take what they can without regard for who they crush, so the only way to keep them in check is their fear of the punishments they might receive. We obviously don’t have to worry about them killing someone for political reasons like in the times when “The Prince” was written, but I would say that seizure of property is still a punishment used today. That is the first thing people go for when seeking punishment or reparations; money, possessions or property. I think love of country, not necessarily the person running it is the best way to get devotion from people. So I disagree that those people who follow out of love are less reliable. Especially right now, as a member of the armed forces, I can speak for myself a many of my comrades that we don’t agree with most, if anything, our current leader says or does. But we follow his orders anyway, because we love this country, and that is greater than any personal reason for not following our President. If anyone even tried to use the fear approach, they would never even get elected. That is why they have propaganda and the occasional commercial telling all the good deeds they do, not saying who they punished for not agreeing with them. So maybe in a country where democracy doesn’t decide the leader, Machiavelli’s approach might be used, but in ours, I would say only for small portions of the population would it be useful.…

    • 643 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More

Related Topics