Lao-Tzu And Machiavelli's The Qualities Of The Prince
Is Government Good or Bad?
“In Discussion: Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli’s view on Government”
“The Master leads by emptying people’s mind and filling their cores, by weakening their ambition and toughening their resolve. He helps people lose everything they know, everything they desire, and creates confusion in those who think that they know.” (Page 19). This passage supports a number of readings. All of them centered on government. The definition of government is the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it. Peter Bondanella insinuated, “The twentieth century has contributed a number of important …show more content…
“Proceeding to the other qualities mentioned above, I say that every prince must desire to be considered merciful and not cruel; nevertheless, he must take care not to misuse this mercy. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; nonetheless, his cruelty had brought order to Romagna, united it, restored it to peace and obedience.” (Page 41). Cesare Borgia lived from 1476-1507. He was known for his brutality and lack of scruples, not to mention his exceptionally good luck. He was firm ruler, son of Pope Alexander VI. To support this George Wilson wrote, “The Prince has been much maligned as a work that advocates cruelty. But steadfastly concerned for the common good, the author distinguishes between well- and ill-used cruelties. He warns, for example, that in conquering and annexing a hereditary state, a prince will not be secure until he kills the entire bloodline of the former ruling family. The general community, however, is to be left alone to practice its familiar customs without interference. There are two concerns—to extinguish the family of the hereditary prince, the people whom the new prince has dispossessed, and to leave the taxes and laws of the community undisturbed. In other words, the prince should not subject the entire community but rather a select few to cruelty. These few unfortunates are victimized because doing so would secure the new prince's …show more content…
According to Yan Hektor, “From the perspective of human activities and the interactions between human beings, holding the belief that a person is not an automaton is compatible with a variety of attitudes that may have very different practical and ethical consequence. For example, viewing a human being as having a soul can lead to many different kinds of moral attitudes: one may think that the salvation of the soul of a human being depends on the grace of God or that a human being, having a soul, deserves unconditional respect. Since such beliefs remain lifeless if disconnected from people's actual ways of living, this suggests that it is attitude or action that gives meaning and significance to human practices and the ‘language game.’ In this sense, attitude and action are important conditions that belong to our complex practices.” I believe that what Hektor wrote really supports passage thirty-seven from the Tao-te Ching text. This passage states, “The Tao never does anything, yet through it all things are done. If powerful men and women could center themselves in it, the whole world would be transformed by itself, in its natural rhythms. People would be content with their simple, everyday lives, in harmony, and free of desire. When
“In Discussion: Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli’s view on Government”
“The Master leads by emptying people’s mind and filling their cores, by weakening their ambition and toughening their resolve. He helps people lose everything they know, everything they desire, and creates confusion in those who think that they know.” (Page 19). This passage supports a number of readings. All of them centered on government. The definition of government is the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it. Peter Bondanella insinuated, “The twentieth century has contributed a number of important …show more content…
“Proceeding to the other qualities mentioned above, I say that every prince must desire to be considered merciful and not cruel; nevertheless, he must take care not to misuse this mercy. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; nonetheless, his cruelty had brought order to Romagna, united it, restored it to peace and obedience.” (Page 41). Cesare Borgia lived from 1476-1507. He was known for his brutality and lack of scruples, not to mention his exceptionally good luck. He was firm ruler, son of Pope Alexander VI. To support this George Wilson wrote, “The Prince has been much maligned as a work that advocates cruelty. But steadfastly concerned for the common good, the author distinguishes between well- and ill-used cruelties. He warns, for example, that in conquering and annexing a hereditary state, a prince will not be secure until he kills the entire bloodline of the former ruling family. The general community, however, is to be left alone to practice its familiar customs without interference. There are two concerns—to extinguish the family of the hereditary prince, the people whom the new prince has dispossessed, and to leave the taxes and laws of the community undisturbed. In other words, the prince should not subject the entire community but rather a select few to cruelty. These few unfortunates are victimized because doing so would secure the new prince's …show more content…
According to Yan Hektor, “From the perspective of human activities and the interactions between human beings, holding the belief that a person is not an automaton is compatible with a variety of attitudes that may have very different practical and ethical consequence. For example, viewing a human being as having a soul can lead to many different kinds of moral attitudes: one may think that the salvation of the soul of a human being depends on the grace of God or that a human being, having a soul, deserves unconditional respect. Since such beliefs remain lifeless if disconnected from people's actual ways of living, this suggests that it is attitude or action that gives meaning and significance to human practices and the ‘language game.’ In this sense, attitude and action are important conditions that belong to our complex practices.” I believe that what Hektor wrote really supports passage thirty-seven from the Tao-te Ching text. This passage states, “The Tao never does anything, yet through it all things are done. If powerful men and women could center themselves in it, the whole world would be transformed by itself, in its natural rhythms. People would be content with their simple, everyday lives, in harmony, and free of desire. When