Sunday, March 10, 2019

The Contrast Between Machiavelli’s Writings and Lao-Tzu’s Opinion

Martin Martinez Eng 151-1856 2/19/08 The Contrast between Machiavellis publications and Lao-Tzus judgement Lao-Tzus writings offered a basis for Taoism, a religion formally founded by Chang Tao-ling in intimately 150 A. D. However, the Tao-te Ching is an ethical document as much as about good government as it is about moral behavior. Niccolo Machiavelli was an aristocrat who had his ups and d holds according the shifts in power in Florence. His writings encourage a prince to secure power by almost two means necessary.Lao-Tzus Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching and Niccolo Machiavellis The Qualities of the Prince both pitch important terminals of how to postage a better prince. Their views on government and the ways they attain their goals separately differ in method. Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu have very different aspects about how a prince should govern his bulk. Machiavelli dwells over the fact, whether it is better to be loved or attentioned. He counts that the best way to ma intain control over the people is by fear. Machiavelli says man is a sorry lot and atomic number 18 untrustworthy.In dedicate to upgrade control over his people he uses fear. Men are less(prenominal) hesitating about harming someone who makes himself loved then who makes himself feared. (44) Since man is so indecisive to betray someone who they fear, the prince remains in control of his people. The terror of penalization keeps the people in order, which en adequates a smooth running government. According to Machiavelli this fear is the only way for a prince to govern his people and avoid harm. Lao-Tzus thoughts are completely different from Machiavellis.Tzu believes in a smaller government, where the people actual govern themselves. He believes that the people should feel equal to the pattern and that the ruler must place himself below the people. Tzu stresses self control end-to-end the reading. Unlike Machiavelli he believes it is better to be loved than feared and he stat es that if you inadequacy to lead the people, / you must learn how to follow them (Section 66). Although Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu share a hotness for how a prince should reach his goals, their ideas are completely opposed to one nother. Machiavelli believes that a prince should be deceitful in accomplishing his goals. By breaking promises and being able to manipulate the minds of men are the keys to attaining a princes goals. According to Machiavelli princes who have accomplished the most are the ones who do not care for keeping their promises. Tzus opinion on the matter is simply do nothing. The Tao never does anything,/ yet through it all things are done(Section 31). The prince is to just let things happen and soon enough what he wants to achieve will happen.Lao-Tzu believes that formerly men and women are content with the idea of doing nothing, they can finally centre themselves and the whole world will be transformed by itself. The pacifist(prenominal) attitude of Lao-Tzu a nd Machiavellis defensive ideas to contendds home military defense are far from the same. Humility means trusting the Tao, / thus never needing to be defensive (Section 61). Tzus ideas are simple, he doesnt believe in violence. The prince should never need to be in a defensive location and that he should avoid violence at all times. According to Lao-Tzu, pause is the highest value and should always be the alternative instead of war.Tzu doesnt believe in harm to other men, he goes into battle with great sympathy. Lao-Tzu believes that on that point is no victory in war and two-eyed violet is the highest virtue. Tzus article of belief is as long as all follow the Tao war is never necessary. Machiavellis attitude towards war and military defense is much nonprogressive than Lao-Tzus. He believes that a princes profession must be to sleep together the art of war. According to Machiavelli a prince must, therefore, never raise his thought from this put to work of war, and in peace time must train himself more than in time of war. (38) Machiavelli believes that a prince must learn about his country in order to better defend it. Once a prince has study the geography of his own land he can now explore or learn over foreign land. And according to Machiavelli a prince who lacks this ability lacks the most historic quality in a leader. A prince must never be at rest and always be ready for any skulk or battle ready to take place. Machiavellis approach is less poetic and more realistic than Lao-Tzus. Both have the ultimate goal of making better leaders.Lao- Tzu is all about following the Tao to achieve peace in the world. As long as one follows the Tao everything will beam into place. Machiavellis more controversial approach of the art of war is more of a believable concept than Lao Tzus ideas. Machiavellis do what ever it takes philosophy to become a successful prince is one of his main focal points in running a smooth government. In finish Machiavelli and Lao -Tzus ideas are very different but are both useful guidelines to create a successful prince.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.