Free Essays on Machiavelli

Machiavelli and More are each often described as â€Å"humanists.† Does it seem reasonable to you to group them together as part of the same â€Å"movement† or intellectual trend? Explain why or why not. A most complete definition of humanism describes it as, â€Å"an intellectual movement that stressed enjoyment of all aspects of life, and especially of the ideas and values of pre-Christian civilizations, such as those of Greece and Rome; the interest in individualism, including stress on man as an end in himself, rather than as merely one cog in the vast machine of the Church.† Thus far in this course we have studied two Renaissance figures that are typically described as humanists: Niccolo Machiavelli via The Prince, and Sir Thomas More in Utopia. In The Prince, Machiavelli uses the major corpus of the work to convey his observations concerning principalities. In addition to analyzing the types of difficulties that a prince might encounter, he describes how a prince comes to power and retains his position. In More’s Utopia, we find a treatise on ethics and human nature along with, above all else, a condemnation of pride, disguised in the painting of the portrait of a perfect world. Most important to the ideals of humanism, we see through both works that Renaissance man has evolved greatly from how his Medieval counterpart was viewed as a miniscule, analogous piece of the all powerful church. It is the individualism of this new character on the world’s stage, the Renaissance man, which creates the perfect setting for a return to Roman-Athenian ideals such as self-interest, worldly possessions, and a much greater concern for life than the afterlife. By staunchly defending these ideals, Niccolo Machiavelli emerges as a true humanist, while in abhorring them Sir Thomas More appears only a social critic. In Book I of Utopia, More struggles with the question of how he, a good man by the moral standards of the day, can serv... Free Essays on Machiavelli Free Essays on Machiavelli Machiavelli and More are each often described as â€Å"humanists.† Does it seem reasonable to you to group them together as part of the same â€Å"movement† or intellectual trend? Explain why or why not. A most complete definition of humanism describes it as, â€Å"an intellectual movement that stressed enjoyment of all aspects of life, and especially of the ideas and values of pre-Christian civilizations, such as those of Greece and Rome; the interest in individualism, including stress on man as an end in himself, rather than as merely one cog in the vast machine of the Church.† Thus far in this course we have studied two Renaissance figures that are typically described as humanists: Niccolo Machiavelli via The Prince, and Sir Thomas More in Utopia. In The Prince, Machiavelli uses the major corpus of the work to convey his observations concerning principalities. In addition to analyzing the types of difficulties that a prince might encounter, he describes how a prince comes to power and retains his position. In More’s Utopia, we find a treatise on ethics and human nature along with, above all else, a condemnation of pride, disguised in the painting of the portrait of a perfect world. Most important to the ideals of humanism, we see through both works that Renaissance man has evolved greatly from how his Medieval counterpart was viewed as a miniscule, analogous piece of the all powerful church. It is the individualism of this new character on the world’s stage, the Renaissance man, which creates the perfect setting for a return to Roman-Athenian ideals such as self-interest, worldly possessions, and a much greater concern for life than the afterlife. By staunchly defending these ideals, Niccolo Machiavelli emerges as a true humanist, while in abhorring them Sir Thomas More appears only a social critic. In Book I of Utopia, More struggles with the question of how he, a good man by the moral standards of the day, can serv... Free Essays on Machiavelli Machiavelli "The best fortress a ruler can have is not to be hated by the people, for if you possess fortresses and the people hate you, having fortresses will not save you". I feel that Machiavelli’s intention was to let the ruler of Florence, Lorenzo de Medici know that he must change the way he is ruling Florence because, A prince must act with dictatorial power in order to maintain his position. Machiavelli believes that Lorenzo de Medici does not act with dictatorial power, but with greed which is considered a fault. Machiavelli states that a prince can share power with the people, since a prince can trust the people much more than he can trust the nobles. Nobles can not be satisfied if a ruler acts honorably but the people can be satisfied, because their aims are more honorable than the nobles. The people are not unforgiving and greedy so the prince can place more trust in the people. Since the public can be trusted, the prince can empower the people. â€Å"A leader must seem firm and moral to the people, and show positive results from his leadership†. I agree with Machiavelli, people are the ones that you don’t have to worry about, because they have nothing and giving them authority will make them feel important. By the people feeling the way they do, the ruler will be supported. This is what Lorenzo de Medici should do. This compellation was meant to help him, not hurt him. I think that Lorenzo de Medici took this in a bad way. He probably felt that Machiavelli was telling him how to rule Florence, which would be considered an insult to his authority.... Free Essays on Machiavelli Machiavelli â€Å"It is better to be feared than loved† This is one of the most interesting topics that was brought up in the movie that I felt would be fun to write about. The different between being feared and loved is a very fine line sometimes, through the years many different leaders have bordered on the two in their leadership. Machiavelli obviously firmly believed that it was much better to be feared than loved, but as always there are two sides to every argument. I agree with Machiavelli in some ways because fear is a good way to rule people. If they fear you they will generally not bother you in any way in fear of you harming them or someone close to them. With his opinion on being loved, I believe he felt it made the ruler vulnerable; it made them look weak and easy to attack and overthrow. The problems that I see with Machiavelli’s point of view is that in order for you to be feared you have to set an example, and the problem with setting an example is you have to use someone as that example. I personally am not one who thinks you should have to hurt or kill a person in order for others to follow you. I could never go out and kill a bunch of people for the reason of setting an example to others. The other quote of Machiavelli’s quotes that I want to discuss is â€Å"the end justifies the means†. This is a very controversial quote that I feel can apply in some instances but is not appropriate in others. Take for instance the situation in providence with the mayor. Providence was in rough shape a few years ago but Mayor Cianci cleaned up the city and made it into the beautiful city that is today. But along the way of the reinvention of the city he had to do a few things that weren’t exactly 100% legal. Now I'm not exactly sure how much he did and to who he did it to, but it seems to me that in this case he really didn’t do anything that was that bad. Stealing a little money and shaking down a few people was r...