| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "HOBBES VERSUS MACHIAVELLI": |
|
|
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, $ 89.95
»
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."
| |
|
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, $ 35.95
»
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. "
| |
|
Machiavelli, Hobbes and Ridley Scott's "Gladiator", 2002.
An analysis of the representation of power and its abuse according to Machiavelli and Hobbes as seen in the world of Ridley Scott's "Gladiator".
3,150 words (approx. 12.6 pages), 4 sources, $ 115.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper will examine the political philosophies of Machiavelli and Hobbes in application to the question of the use and abuse of power in "Gladiator". It will be seen that Machiavelli and Hobbes would agree that the insane villain, Emperor Commodus, was actually an insightful political leader. While the movie collapses the distinction between the personal and the political - with the whining, incestuous Commodus contrasted unfavourably with the "family values" of Maximus - neither Machiavelli nor Hobbes considered personal morality of any significance in the arena of political life.
| |
|
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, $ 103.95
»
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."
| |
|
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, $ 40.95
»
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."
| |
|
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, $ 62.95
»
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.
| |
|
Machiavelli and Hobbes, 2002.
A look at the view of philosophers Machiavelli and Hobbes on leadership.
1,220 words (approx. 4.9 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 41.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the conditions on which an interloper can be accepted or rejected by the citizens of a newly captured country. The conditions are based on the philosophical works of Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli. The paper shows that both Hobbes and Machiavelli believe that it is futile to reject someone off hand because such rejection would only result in waste of energy and nothing else. They feel that there are some important attributes which make a ruler strong and worthy of our respect and thus he should be rejected only if he doesn?t possess the right attributes.
From the Paper
"A ruler who is able to command respect whether through the use of force or otherwise need not be rejected because he is likely to prove more beneficial for the country than the weak leader he overthrew. In the light of our current understanding of politics, we may find this argument rather strange in nature. But the truth is that today we do not think in terms of what is good for our country and rather become irrationally sentimental when someone threatens to overthrow our government. We must remember that as long as a ruler is capable of running the country well and is respected by his people, he need not be rejected. In the case of an interloper, we must first study the situation from all possible angles before deciding on our next course of action."
| |
|
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, $ 30.95
»
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."
| |
|
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, $ 80.95
»
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)."
| |
|
Locke, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Rousseau, 2002.
Compares the philosophies of John Locke, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau.
1,523 words (approx. 6.1 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The philosophies of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau encompass a spectrum of thought on how a state should be governed. This paper discusses how at one end is the cynicism of Machiavelli and, to some extent, Hobbes. Their ideas are countered by the democratic optimism of Locke and Rousseau. It shows how, at the heart of each of these essays is each philosopher?s assessment of the fundamental character of people and how much they can be trusted to govern themselves.
From the Paper
"Throughout The Prince moral codes seem irrelevant to the business of running a state. The survival of the sovereign is the highest priority. At times Machiavelli seems to be writing guidelines for tyrants. According to him, a prince is safer if he is feared rather than loved. It is easier, Machiavelli maintains, for people to offend, or betray, someone they love than someone they fear. How is that fear instilled? ?Fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.? ( Santoni 120 ).
In Leviathan , Hobbes, like Machiavelli, stresses the importance of a powerful sovereign, however his philosophy of government seems less tyrannical than that of Machiavelli. ?During the time when men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man.? (Santoni 143)."
| |
|
Machiavelli and Hobbes, 2006.
A look at the contribution to philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes.
1,304 words (approx. 5.2 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli gave us some highly acclaimed philosophical works, which contain their views on every subject connected with politics, government and rights of citizens. It looks at how Thomas Hobbes was positively influenced by Machiavelli in his views on politics and government. It also looks at how Machiavelli in his book "The Prince" focused on factors such as fear and force when describing the attributes that he felt a ruler must possess in order to rule effectively.
From the Paper
"Human nature was another very important subject of the political theories of both Hobbes and Machiavelli. Hobbes and Machiavelli's views on human nature cannot be seen as aligned to each other since the latter basically focused on wretchedness of human soul while the former was more concerned about the factors that influenced or basically created the human nature. According to Hobbes human nature could be explained in terms of voluntary and involuntary motions. (p. 118) He was of the view that men are motivated by passion such as anger, hunger, despair, joy etc. This resulted in action which could be termed either good or evil based on how it affects mankind. Machiavelli on the other hand did not believe in Hobbes' implied equality of men. "
| |
|
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, $ 63.95
»
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 ...."
| |
|
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, $ 97.95
»
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. "
| |
|
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, $ 53.95
»
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' 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, $ 70.95
»
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."
|
|
|
