Lao Tzu and Machiavelli have different perspective on how a leader should lead, one believes in a compassionate leader while the other believes in a cunning leader. These seemingly contrasting ideas can be combined to form an effective leader. Lao Tzu’s idea of a compassionate leader is compatible with Machiavelli’s idea of a cunning leader, because these ideas are complementary. For a leader to become respected and praised, one must be compassionate to one’s subjects. A leader must try to act for the benefit of the citizens, one must have empathy towards the people.
“Revisiting Agathocles” by Victoria Kahn reevaluates Machiavelli’s use of Agathocles in The Prince, attempting to read between the lines in order to differentiate between Machiavellian virtu and true glory. Despite the extensiveness of the argument, the entire article circulates around a single statement on page 35 of The Prince, “Yet one cannot call it virtue to kill one’s citizens, betray one’s friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; these modes can enable one to acquire empire, but not glory.” Kahn uses this brief mention of glory, and Agathocles’ apparent lack thereof, to justify her thesis that Machiavelli distinctly and purposefully separated the meanings of virtu and virtue, virtu and success, and success and glory
Both have different opinions on what a leader should or should not be. Even though Machiavelli and Lao Tzu are in two completely different time periods both of them do make great points
Then for Machiavelli he talks about how a prince should show no fear instead for him to show that he is the one with power. That a prince's people should fear him. Both authors go on to talk on how their people react based on the prince and princesse act. The authors then go on to explain how they should view and run their people. Both authors also reflect the fact that the way their people are going to act towards them is mainly based off of how they treat them.
In Niccolo Machiavelli's book, The Prince (1513), he evaluates on how a prince can be a successful leader. Machiavelli’s purpose of this guidebook was to construct his argument to the rising ruler Giuliano de Medici for when he comes to power in Florence. He adopts a casual but authoritative tone in order to convince the prince that Machiavelli’s evaluation on how to be the best prince, is the right thing for the prince to do without coming off as he knows more than the prince or is trying to intimidate him.. Machiavelli’s reference to previous rulers and whether their tactics failed or succeeded helps to benefit his credibility along with his allusion to historic text. He appeals to our logic by simply stating a prince can only do what is within his power to control, and his use of an analogy furthers his argument.
Lao-Tzu was an ancient Chinese philosopher and writer. He is known as the author of the Tao Te Ching, the founder of philosophical Taoism, and a god in Taoism and traditional Chinese religions. Niccolò Machiavelli was a writer of the Renaissance period. They are both philosophers that have completely different perspective on how a country should run and how the leaders should act. While both philosophers’ writing can be very useful to the government in some ways.
Otto von Bismarck Otto von Bismarck was the first chancellor of the German Empire. He was a master strategist who used realpolitik. As an aristocrat, he “adopted the liberal goal of national unity, giving the German Empire a broad political base” (Background essay). Otto von Bismarck could be considered Machiavelli's model of the ideal ruler in that, he was feared by his people and he used any ends to justify the tactics he used in bringing about the unification of the German states. Niccolò Machiavelli was a diplomat for many years in Italy’s Florentine Republic during the Medici family’s exile.
Machiavelli argues the perfect prince will be both feared and loved by his people, and if unable to be both he will make himself feared and not hated. Machiavelli believes it is much safer to be feared than to be loved because people are less likely to offend and stand up against strong characters, also people are less concerned in offending a prince who has made himself loved. Accordingly, Machiavelli believes generosity is harmful to your reputation and the choice between being generous or stingy, merciful or cruel, honest or deceitful, should only be important if it aids the prince in political power. All in all, Machiavelli believes the ruler must be a great deceiver and do what is essential to uphold power over the
For centuries, philosophers have provided us with a greater understanding of the world around us, providing suggestions as to how we might reflect upon, criticise, or improve the societies in which we live. This has allowed us to speculate on many topics, such as politics, ethics, and morality. Among many others, two of the most influential thinkers to this day are Nicolo Machiavelli and Immanuel Kant. Their writings, The Prince and An Answer to the Question “What is Enlightenment?” provide insight as to how societies should be ruled and set up in order for all people within them to be content.
In 1513, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote “The Prince,” telling rulers how they should rule. (Document 1) Many of the ideas in his book are shown in the ways these rulers governed their people. King Louis XIV believed if there were multiple people had power more would take advantage of it (Document 3) which is a major idea from “The Prince,” stating “for love is held by a bond of obligation, which, as men are wicked, is broken whenever personal advantage suggests it.” (Document 1).
Although Dante Alighieri and Niccolò Machiavelli lived in two different times, they both experienced political turmoil that impacted their lives. Living during times of conflict shaped the way they each looked at violence, virtue, and reason, which is evidenced in Dante’s Inferno and Machiavelli’s The Prince. Dante and Machiavelli both viewed violence, virtue, and reason as an interconnected triangle, but their realities created different ideas on how virtue and reason impact violence. Living a century apart, both authors’ lives show similarities. Both lived amid political turmoil that weakened Florence, and both were exiled from Florence because of politics.
The Prince and the Discourses, by Machiavelli as a gift to the prince. Because it was the best thing that Niccolo Machiavelli could give to him. He was trying to teach the prince ways to stay in power. Machiavelli even stated it himself “I can consider of this subject, discussing what a principality is, the variety of such states, how they are won, how they are held, and how they are lost” (Machiavelli xxiv). The main focus of his work was with monarchies because he did not care for republics.
Confucius, Aristotle, and Lao-Tzu—all incredibly influential thinkers—did not always agree on how one ought to live; where Aristotle believed that thought or study led to virtue, Lao-Tzu placed focus on inaction, and Confucius taught that rituals paved the way to the best life. A few ideas, however, tie Confucius closer to Aristotle than to Lao-Tzu. Because Aristotle also placed importance on names, emphasized the need to find a mean of behavior, and believed that rulers should most critically be moral, Confucius would have preferred Aristotle to Lao-Tzu. Names—Aristotle utilizes them, even though he recognizes the difference between what exists in reality and the form represented by its name, while Lao-Tzu, on the other hand, maintains that names only serve to put limits on the named, and, in fact run the risk of creating opposites. According to Lao-Tzu, “Recognize beauty and ugliness is born.
In Machiavelli’s book, The Prince, he maintains a harsh perspective on reality. His advice on how to maintain power leaves no room for compassion or generousity. While some may believe that these are qualities of a good person, Machiavelli believes these qualities lead to the downfall of rulers. He acknowledges that, in reality, it is impossible for someone to have qualities of a good person and simultaneously a good ruler. Machiavelli’s realistic outlook causes him to emphasize that it is better to maintain power through fear, rather than compassion.
Machiavelli has the most correct ideas on both controlling the people as a ruler and on being remembered as a great one. These two viewpoints had great influence during their time and for centuries to come, both with modern ideas and correct ideas even though they had a lot of contrast. Machiavelli’s The Prince may be thought of the more recognizable of the two in the present, but people in the present day have many of the same ideas that
