Machiavelli And Lao Tzu Comparison Essay
Nick Cramer
Mr. Cramer
Honors English III
29 August 2013
Compare and Contrast Essay
Loved or Feared, but Not Despised
Two leaders by the names of Lao Tzu and Niccolo Machiavelli had two opinions on how one should lead their people. To be a leader, one must guide in the way they think is the best way to live. As humans, love and fear is something that surrounds us in our day to day life. Some, like Lao Tzu prefer to show love and to be loved, while some, like Niccolo Machiavelli, have the preference to be feared. To be loved means to be cherished, and that was Lao Tzu’s goal as a leader. To be feared means to be frightened, just like Niccolo Machiavelli was viewed. Lao Tzu and Niccolo Machiavelli share their common differences, but also …show more content…
Taoism, according to the dictionary was a philosophical system recommending a life of complete simplicity and naturalness and of noninterference with the course of natural events, in order to attain a happy existence in harmony. Lao Tzu was a believer in spontaneous order. Lao Tzu said “Practice not doing, and everything will fall into place”, Lao Tzu believed that the world was in prefect order, and when men tried to disrupt, change, or govern, they would mess the order of the world up (Tzu 3). Lao Tzu believed that committing to doing nothing was governing at its best. He believed that a well-governed people are free, with the freedom of decision, the freedom to achieve, and the freedom to live. Lao Tzu also emphasizes what virtues a ruler must possess, rather than step by step instructions of what to do. Lao Tzu was anti-materialistic, including the lack of wealth, and power. He believed being anti-materialistic was vital to being a good leader. Last of all, Lao Tzu said “Next best is a leader who is loved”, so above all, be non-existent; but next is be loved (Tzu 3). He was a leader that said to be compassionate with yourself for the benefit of others. To summarize Lao Tzu, one could say that he was a leader that was fond of the idea of spontaneous order, a leader that emphasized to be anti-materialistic, and a leader that puts his people before himself. A leader that may differ from Lao Tzu goes by the name of Niccolo …show more content…
They both believed that having leaders was essential to a country. Without leaders there would be no order, which could lead to chaos. They both share the idea of being despised is never better than being feared, or loved. If one is despised, no one will follow their ways, which creates a bad leader. Lao Tzu and Niccolo Machiavelli both value their beliefs, and believe that their way is the right way, and that there is no other way. They both see life simple for their people because they have provided a way of life for everyone to live by. If all of their people followed their ways, they believe that life will be simple and free. Similarities are sometimes hard to find, but Niccolo Machiavelli and Lao Tzu share a
Mr. Cramer
Honors English III
29 August 2013
Compare and Contrast Essay
Loved or Feared, but Not Despised
Two leaders by the names of Lao Tzu and Niccolo Machiavelli had two opinions on how one should lead their people. To be a leader, one must guide in the way they think is the best way to live. As humans, love and fear is something that surrounds us in our day to day life. Some, like Lao Tzu prefer to show love and to be loved, while some, like Niccolo Machiavelli, have the preference to be feared. To be loved means to be cherished, and that was Lao Tzu’s goal as a leader. To be feared means to be frightened, just like Niccolo Machiavelli was viewed. Lao Tzu and Niccolo Machiavelli share their common differences, but also …show more content…
Taoism, according to the dictionary was a philosophical system recommending a life of complete simplicity and naturalness and of noninterference with the course of natural events, in order to attain a happy existence in harmony. Lao Tzu was a believer in spontaneous order. Lao Tzu said “Practice not doing, and everything will fall into place”, Lao Tzu believed that the world was in prefect order, and when men tried to disrupt, change, or govern, they would mess the order of the world up (Tzu 3). Lao Tzu believed that committing to doing nothing was governing at its best. He believed that a well-governed people are free, with the freedom of decision, the freedom to achieve, and the freedom to live. Lao Tzu also emphasizes what virtues a ruler must possess, rather than step by step instructions of what to do. Lao Tzu was anti-materialistic, including the lack of wealth, and power. He believed being anti-materialistic was vital to being a good leader. Last of all, Lao Tzu said “Next best is a leader who is loved”, so above all, be non-existent; but next is be loved (Tzu 3). He was a leader that said to be compassionate with yourself for the benefit of others. To summarize Lao Tzu, one could say that he was a leader that was fond of the idea of spontaneous order, a leader that emphasized to be anti-materialistic, and a leader that puts his people before himself. A leader that may differ from Lao Tzu goes by the name of Niccolo …show more content…
They both believed that having leaders was essential to a country. Without leaders there would be no order, which could lead to chaos. They both share the idea of being despised is never better than being feared, or loved. If one is despised, no one will follow their ways, which creates a bad leader. Lao Tzu and Niccolo Machiavelli both value their beliefs, and believe that their way is the right way, and that there is no other way. They both see life simple for their people because they have provided a way of life for everyone to live by. If all of their people followed their ways, they believe that life will be simple and free. Similarities are sometimes hard to find, but Niccolo Machiavelli and Lao Tzu share a