| Papers [1-16] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "HOBBES MACHIAVELLI HUMANIST GOVERNING PRINCIPLES": |
|
|
Hobbes' and Machiavelli's Humanist Governing Principles, 2008.
This paper compares and contrasts humanistic governing principles in "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli and "The Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes.
2,263 words (approx. 9.1 pages), 2 sources, MLA, AU$ 102.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses how Machiavelli and Hobbes analyze the dictates of governing institutions, religion and ethics. The paper shows how these two philosophers often agree, but differ on varying principles of practicality for humanistic governing bodies. The paper shows the complexity of rational thought that exists between Hobbes and Machiavelli and explains how the nature of ethics becomes a dynamic that divides them.
From the Paper
"The manner of politics that one can see in The Prince by Machiavelli reveals much about the cruel, and often-lawless manner of governing that seeks to suppress the people being ruled by their leaders. He makes little argument for unrealistic manners of ethical guidance that might smooth over these forceful behaviors of the leading class. By these means he tells us much about how rules matter little in the quest for power and dominance over the lesser classes. In starting, Machiavelli refused to be deflected by utopian dreams or romantic hopes and by questions of right and wrong or good and bad in government. This is how Hobbes and Machiavelli compare, since they both seek realism in their quest to discover the best and most efficient way to rule."
| |
|
Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli, 2006.
This paper discusses the political views and philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 3 sources, AU$ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This political study analyzes the major ethical and moral foundations for governing that reside in the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, Aristotle, and Machiavelli. By understanding the premise of an ethical government in Aristotle's point view, the writer shows that the basis for a republican ethical and morality systems are a function of good political structures in government. However, the writer points out that Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli disagree with this point of view, finding that self-preservation for elites is the foundation of most governing bodies through the reality of human nature. Further, the writer notes that aside from the dogmatic philosophy of Aristotle that seeks to propose ethical standards in government, both Hobbes and Machiavelli are realists in their understanding of human nature and the often-cruel conflicts that reside within the quest for power.
From the Paper
"... the critical philosophical premise to human nature that ultimately helps one realize how persons that attain power utilize it not for the greater good, but for the self-preservation of the person that is not satisfied with their own portion of power. In this manner, Hobbes provides the deeper insight into governing bodies and how they function, since it is often the issue of self-preservation that often dictates government, whether it be called republican, monarchy, etc., and that power forces men to abide by constitutions and rules only for their own greater personal success. "
| |
|
Hobbes, Machiavelli and the Ancient Greeks, 2002.
A discussion of the similarity in beliefs of Hobbes, Machiavelli and the Ancient Greeks.
1,184 words (approx. 4.7 pages), 3 sources, MLA, AU$ 59.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the potential link between the philosophies of Hobbes, Machiavelli and the Ancient Greeks. It looks at how the form of ?democracy? we ascribe to the ancient Greeks was no more a democracy than we have anywhere in the world today. It evaluates how in the eras separating Plato from Hobbes, human nature has not really changed a great detail in the hope of finding a better destiny and how man is still reaching for a form of equality especially in politics. In particular, it analyzes the political beliefs of Hobbes and Machiavelli.
From the Paper
"Hobbes, for some reason, feels that there is more equality among men, both physically and intellectually. He sees ?infallible rules, called Science. . .as being not a native faculty, born with us. . .I find yet a greater equality amongst men, than that of strength" (Hobbes, 1985, p. 183). It is interesting that in the middle of the Seventeenth century, Hobbes would find that there seems to be more equality in terms of reason or intellect than in strength. But, what he seems to be really getting at is that there is an equality of ability, not necessarily of fulfilling that intellectual ability."
| |
|
Comparing Hobbes and Machiavelli, 2005.
Questions whether Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli agreed or disagreed on the foundations of good government through their works "Leviathan" and "The Prince".
846 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 2 sources, MLA, AU$ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The beginning of the paper talks about the foundations of modern political theory and how much of our understanding evolved from the work of these two authors, Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes, two of the earliest political theorists. The paper takes key arguments from both authors through their texts, "Leviathan" by Hobbes and "The Prince" by Machiavelli, on their views of human nature and how best to resolve the issues that arise from each of the works. Both arrive at the conclusion to allow the existence of an absolute monarch because, ultimately, his arbitrary rule benefits us.
From the Paper
"The ideas of good government and stability resonate throughout their works, leading us to surmise that both would favor a strong stable government as opposed to a weak or anarchical society. Government exists to protect its citizens from each other, to ensure their survival and prosperity; government regulates men and their interaction and therefore inevitably stabilizes society. Both men differ in their words alone, but the meaning behind those words are the same. Further, these words resonate in political theory today not as they spoke them but as fancy terms such as "Prisoners Dilemma" or "chaos theory", yet their origins come from political theorists long since deceased."
| |
|
Hobbes and Machiavelli, 2005.
A comparison and contrast between the theories of Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli.
1,840 words (approx. 7.4 pages), 2 sources, APA, AU$ 92.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines, compares and contrasts the theories of Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli regarding man and politics. The paper focuses on Machiavelli's formulation of human nature, virtue and politics. Then the paper looks at Hobbes' dissatisfaction with Machiavellian political theory.
From the Paper
"Two of the best known modern philosophers who have taken up questions regarding man and politics or man and his life in civil society are Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. Machiavelli writing almost ...."
| |
|
Political Thinkers: Hobbes and Machiavelli, 2002.
Examines how both Hobbes and Machiavelli conceived of, defined and justified power / authority over a community.
1,650 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 3 sources, AU$ 90.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Many medieval political thinkers observed that power and authority came first from God and then from a social mandate. In "Leviathan", Thomas Hobbes proposes that power comes from the social mandate first. He makes this assertion on the basis that it is within the human nature to secure its life through banding together with others to form a community. Each community, then, is held together by a common desire for protection from the wild while maintaining isolation of the self from others. One person, and in Hobbes' view it really doesn't matter who, must be able to make decisions on behalf of the community, that person, even if he/she does not enjoy unanimous support, becomes the sovereign. Hobbes' concept of authority and power, then, stems from the belief that people have leaders because such people are necessary to maintain the unification of society and thus maintain the protection of the people from the wild. Niccolo Machiavelli had a slightly different idea as to the justification and origin of power and authority. Machiavelli concurs with Hobbes that a sovereign is necessary for the unification of the society. But, rather than being the arbitrary selection of a society, the Machiavellian sovereign is, by necessity, a member of an established and influential family, a man with long blood-lines to other rulers who, by nature of his heredity, has less cause to offend others and thus rules effectively through his urbane nature.
| |
|
Hobbes versus Machiavelli, 2005.
This paper discusses justice and political reality, through examining the philosophies of Hobbes versus Machiavelli.
2,250 words (approx. 9.0 pages), 2 sources, AU$ 129.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer notes that the 17th century British political philosopher Thomas Hobbes presented in his Leviathan a theory of justice and political order based on reason. The writer then points out that in the course of his argument, Hobbes creates the figure of the Fool who contradicts Hobbes' theory of justice and social order and advocates in its place a view of society based upon the selfish pursuit of individual advantage. The writer discusses that while Hobbes' Fool is a rhetorical device designed to better allow Hobbes to present his arguments, many of the views Hobbes' attributes to this Fool, resemble those of the Renaissance Italian political philosopher Machiavelli.
From the Paper
"The 17th century British political philosopher Thomas Hobbes presented, in his Leviathan, a theory of justice and political order based on reason. In the course of his argument Hobbes creates the figure of the "Fool" who contradicts Hobbes' theory of justice and social order and advocates in its place a view of society based upon the selfish pursuit of individual advantage. While Hobbes' Fool is a rhetorical device designed to better allow Hobbes to present his arguments, many of the views Hobbes attributes to this Fool resemble those of the Renaissance Italian political philosopher Machiavelli."
| |
|
Hobbes and Machiavelli Compared, 2002.
A comparison and contrast of Hobbes "The Leviathan" and Machiavelli's "The Prince".
1,400 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 4 sources, AU$ 77.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper will be comparing and contrasting Machiavelli's book "The Prince" and Hobbes's book "The Leviathan". By this way of analyzing these books, we can see how they are similar and dissimilar in their scope in a political format.
| |
|
Hobbes, Machiavelli and Political Failure, 2008.
An analysis of the causes and consequences of political failure in Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince" and Thomas Hobbes's "The Leviathan".
3,468 words (approx. 13.9 pages), 2 sources, MLA, AU$ 142.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) can be assessed as theorists influenced by direct exposure to political failure and its resulting chaos. It looks as how Machiavelli suggested that the prince was a person who knew he could not have something for nothing, whereas Hobbes was inclined to place the citizen in similar shoes, needing to adjust to a directed social order aware that without small compromises, he would lose the order so needed and wanted to achieve his ambitions. The paper concludes that in the early 21st century, there is much in international political life to remind us of Machiavelli's "The Prince" and Hobbes' "The Leviathan" in different demonstrations of both leadership and political failure and how war, anarchy, alienation and social chaos do seem the prices of poor leadership approaches and the failure to provide what is needed.
Outline:
Introduction
Machiavelli on Political Failure
Hobbes on Political Failure
Lessons of being a Bad Leader, or a Bad Subject
Concluding Remarks
From the Paper
"Both Machiavelli and Hobbes had few illusions about human nature and the difficulties of governance. Machiavelli saw political failure as owing directly to the nature of the leader and whether or not he was a prince, in a person astute and evolved enough to wield power, and as Hobbes agreed in places but also expected subjects to understand that beyond a symbolic leader they needed to see their own culpability when political systems fell to pieces, that they were merely parts of the same organic social machine. Political failure meant that one party of another was not complying as necessary to make the machine function and that this should be recognized. In other words, whatever kind of leader or ruler was produced, human unwillingness to put cooperation ahead of competition and greed, or a failure to respect the law towards other anarchy would bring political failure's result in the anarchy of which human beings were also much afraid. "
| |
|
Authority: Hobbes and Machiavelli, 2007.
A comparative analysis of Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince" and Thomas Hobbes's "Leviathan" with respect to authority and the matters concerning it.
1,277 words (approx. 5.1 pages), 0 sources, AU$ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how two of the most studied political philosophers in history include Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes and how these innovative thinkers, possessed an ingenuity and insight displayed in their political writings that would revolutionize how people perceived politics unto this day. In particular, the paper looks at how Machiavelli acknowledges the need for a governing authority to maintain order and protect its people. The paper then compares how the idea of sovereignty is much more ambiguous in "The Prince " than in the writings of Hobbes.
From the Paper
"The commonwealth is created in lieu of such circumstances. It is the embodiment of a common authority founded by the collective need for protection and prosperity. Hobbes states that civil obedience comes from the people's love of "ease and sensual delight", and their fear from fear of death or wounds. On the matter of maintaining such a state of order Machiavelli also emphasizes the importance of authority to create a sense of love and fear amongst its people. Specifically discussed in Machiavelli's writings are the various degrees to which violence must be employed by the authority, in order to create a more effective government through the fear of its people. "
| |
|
Hobbes and Machiavelli, 2004.
This paper compares ideas on government and control by Thomas Hobbes in ?Leviathan? and by Niccolo Machiavelli in ?The Prince?.
1,580 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 2 sources, MLA, AU$ 75.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper explains that Machiavelli and Hobbes have similar views of society and on the function of government; the major difference between the two writers is that Machiavelli describes the leader as using power and fear in a more obvious way, while Hobbes?s view is based on a society where control is built into a system, with this motivating people to want to obey the rules of society. The author points out that a similarity is that both writers reject the traditional ideas of religion as a means of maintaining control. The paper relates another similarity between the works, which is that they are both based on looking at the real world, not some ideal world that does not really exist.
From the Paper
"Hobbes also extends this by arguing that differences in religious beliefs are actually a major threat to a stable government. Since religious beliefs cannot be forced on individuals and cannot be made to be the same, Hobbes argues that they can remain in society, but they cannot be the basis of maintaining order. To maintain order and control, Hobbes argues that there must be something that applies to everyone. Since religious or Christian ideas cannot take on this role, Hobbes concludes that government and religion need to be separated."
| |
|
Hobbes and Machiavelli, 2002.
Compares "Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes, and "The Prince and The Discourses", by Niccolo Machiavelli.
650 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 3 sources, AU$ 38.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This three-page undergraduate paper discusses Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, and The Prince and The Discourses, by Niccolo Machiavelli in terms of the relation of citizens to a sovereign, and the justification of a sovereign for their actions.
| |
|
Machiavelli the Religious Humanist, 2006.
This paper examines the life and accomplishments of philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli while also defining the true meaning of humanism and its relevance to Machiavelli's view on religion and the world in general.
2,516 words (approx. 10.1 pages), 6 sources, MLA, AU$ 111.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents clear and specific examples and lessons learned by Machiavelli which greatly impacted his views on life and religion which garnered him a reputation as a brilliant and well respected philosopher. The writer of this paper contends and proves that Machiavelli was also a religious humanist by focusing on his impact and involvement in both the political and religious arenas. This paper examines the early roots of humanism and religious humanism which have been traced back to the Renaissance era. This paper defines humanism as a naturalistic view that rejects the supernatural or ideas that cannot be proven by logic or science. This paper examines the views and opinions of Machiavelli who clearly thought things through very much in style associated with the humanistic philosophy which promotes self thought and reflection, while urging others to think for themselves.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Niccolo Machiavelli
Humanist
Machiavelli as a Humanist
Conclusion
Works Cited
From the Paper
"Machiavelli would certainly concur with the notion that religion creates distortions and ironies. But Humanists as a group also have underlying problems within their own ranks because they do not agree on certain facts. For example, Modern Humanism splits into two sub-categories, secular and religious. The dispute is between these factions. "The fact is that many Protestants, Catholics, and Jews--along with secular humanists--believe in and teach the theory of evolution in biology courses." Ironically, Secular and Religious Humanists seem to share similar worldviews and therefore follow similar principles which was confirmed when each factions created and signed the Humanist Manifesto I in 1933 and the revision in 1973. Religious Humanists who are secular have an understanding that human beings do have personal and social needs."
| |
|
Political Failure in Machiavelli and Hobbes, 2008.
A comparison of the causes and consequences of the political failure of Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli.
2,672 words (approx. 10.7 pages), 3 sources, MLA, AU$ 117.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the causes and consequences of political failure for Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli. It shows how the causes for each of their political failure were different, as reflected in their views of man and in the actions of men within their respective forms of government. The paper presents both Hobbes' and Machiavelli's views and then compares the results of their political failure.
From the Paper
"Hobbes favors an authoritarian government where the welfare of the people is assured by the paternal care of the Sovereign because it would make no sense that a Sovereign should oppress his people. The consequences of political failure are to plunge men back into the chaos of the state of nature, the "Warre of everyone against everyone, in which case everyone is governed by his own reason" (Lev., ch. 14, p. 64). Only when men subjugate themselves and their reason to the Reason of the Sovereign does the Power of the Sovereign ensure "peace and commodious living". It is in this way that "we make the commonwealth ourselves" (Six Lessons, Ep. Ded., p. 184)."
| |
|
The Principles of Thomas Hobbes and "The Lord of the Flies", 2008.
A review of the novel "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding as compared to the theories in "Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes.
850 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 2 sources, MLA, AU$ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses the novel "Lord of the Flies", written by William Golding, which is about a group of boys that become stranded on an island. The central idea of the novel is how these children try to form a civilized society, but ultimately fail. The paper relates that the original leader, Ralph, is overthrown by a corrupt leader Jack. What results is a primitive survival-based system. The paper concludes that the ideas that are presented in "The Lord of the Flies" about society, human nature and government are illuminated by the principles that Thomas Hobbes writes about in "Leviathan." The paper examines both of these works and shows how Hobbes' theory is interpreted in Golding's novel.
From the Paper
"As Golding shows in the novel, once Jack overthrows Ralph, all aspects of civilization are replaced with that of savagery. Hobbes writes that "if any two men desire the same thing, which never the less they cannot both enjoy they become enemies" (Hobbes 54). Jack wants to be leader from the begging. When Ralph is picked over Jack, Jack begins to desire the power that Ralph has. Ralph does not execute his authority correctly over the boys of the island in order to prevent a revolt. Once Jack takes power, chaos is guaranteed to ensue, because Jack is not the right person to lead the boys. He is both too corrupt and power hungry. Hobbes believes that the leader's motivation should be the same as that of the people; both should not want the state of nature/war to exist. Ralph does not want the boys to be in a state of nature/war, but when Jack takes power he returns the boys to a state of nature/war. For a society to be successful, the Leviathan dictates the importance of law and order. Once Jack overthrows Ralph, all concepts of law and order are lost."
| |
|
Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes, 2005.
This paper describes and compares the political philosophies of Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes.
3,765 words (approx. 15.1 pages), 15 sources, MLA, AU$ 150.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Machiavelli lived during the Renaissance, nearly 150 years earlier than Thomas Hobbes, yet it was he who envisioned the basis for the political pragmatism of the twentieth century; while Thomas Hobbes, who lived in the 16th century, was a political materialist in the classical tradition of Plato and Galileo. The author stresses that Machiavellianism, as a term, has been used to describe the principles of power politics and the type of person who uses those principles in political or personal life is frequently described as a Machiavellian. The paper includes a comparison of the Table of Contents of "De Cive" by Thomas Hobbes and of "The Prince" by Machiavelli to demonstrate that Hobbes is looking for a universal law of politic; whereas, Machiavelli is looking for a practical means of surviving real politics. Several very long quotes.
From the Paper
"For Machiavelli, historical change has two forms: (1) the motion of nature and, (2) the order or ordering that man intends. Nature's changes are unreliable; they can be good or bad, but man does not feel safe or grateful. Machiavelli lumps unreliable nature with fickle fortune as the first element of his view of the opposing forces of history. Human order, or as Machiavelli describes it, "orders and modes" (Preface), is devised by human virtu to overcome this sense of being at the mercy of nature or fortune and is the second element of the equation. Simply put, his context of history is a contest between virtu and fortuna. Machiavelli is not a mere observer of this contest. As a humanist historian, he bases his advice, or lessons if you will, on the contest. But unlike the other historians of his day, he does not teach the lesson by what was done, but rather by what should have been done. This clearly places Histories in the political instead of historical genre by modern standards."
|
|
|
