As the saying goes, there's no honey without bees. The highlighted passage is often misquoted or paraphrased out of context, as in Arthur Koestler's Darkness At Noon 1941 : Occasionally words must serve to veil the facts. He is not an aspiring but foolish mortal, as Shakespeare would have us believe. Machiavelli had an exceptionally cynical view on the inherent nature of humans. Subject's love of their prince can change and cause problems, whereas fear will not. Among them he saw Plato, Aristotle, Seneca, Plutarch, Tacitus, and others of similar character; but he was told at the same time that those venerable personages, notwithstanding their appearance, were the damned, and the souls rejected by heaven, for Sapientia huius saeculi, inimica est Dei. Machiavelli did not try unlike Kant and other moralists to define a political ideal, but workable, suitable for men as they are, rather than we wish they are.
In actuality, Machiavelli was on the defensive as was also his country, Italy, which in the sixteenth century had been invaded by Germans, Frenchmen, Spaniards, and Turks. He was pessimistic about human nature, referring to people as greedy, selfish beings who seize any opportunity afforded them, and he also believed that a strong ruling body was necessary to maintain social order. And to the new prince he offered not only his book, but also, what would make up for the inevitable deficiencies of his book - himself: he never lost the sense that politics, after all, are diplomacy, not the application of a technique. . Original French: On arrive à ce detestable poinct d'honneur, où arriva Machiauel sur la fin de sa vie: car il eut cette illusion peu deuant que rendre son esprit.
He who puts up with them gains the benefits, but also the trouble. Men who are fearful of punishment will be apt to obey commands without hesitation. Mencius and Han Feizi, two Chinese philosophers whose lives were separated by only nine years, ostensibly seem to take completely contradictory stances on human nature. Now, albeit unscrupulous, a realpolitik régime is the best, Machiavelli tells us. Good order and discipline in an army are more to be depended upon than ferocity. To force him to act against his own judgment is like forcing him to act against his own sight.
Machiavelli presents a rather extreme notion of the Prince disregarding individual rights for the benefit of the principality. Many philosophers ranging from Socrates to Buddha has questioned the nature of human life and of our existence. And men have less scruple in offending one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared; for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails. Ethics are mere provisional tools in a constantly changing world. It is no ones first intention to be evil or to hurt another human. Machiavelli uses human nature to validate the advice he gives to a prince; however, statements about it may be based more on assumptions than actual observations.
It is of course ridiculous, especially his is a guide for the exercise of power based on pragmatism. As with the basic philosophies of Person-Centered, I too have a positive view of human mature. While pretending to give lessons to kings, he gave great ones to peoples. There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others. He seems hideous, and so he is, in the presence of the moral idea of the nineteenth. A prince being thus obliged to know well how to act as a beast must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from snares, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves.
Machiavelli, however, had a negative view on human nature…. For them, the act which makes the State strong is invested with a moral character by the fact that it does so, and this whatever the act may be. Machiavelli presents these traits, as well as many others, as evidence to support his own skeptical view of the nature of humans. If he did have some good purpose in mind, as one should believe of so wise a man, it must have been to show how foolish are the attempts so often made to get rid of a tyrant while yet the causes that have made the prince a tyrant cannot be removed; on the contrary, they become more firmly established as the prince is given more grounds for fear. What are his essential attributes? Machiavelli's work remains influential well after his time. A prince must realize that he has two options: benevolence and destruction. From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved more than feared, or feared more than loved.
He simply leaves you to choose — he knows which he himself prefers. Niccolo Machiavelli was a political philosopher from Florence Italy. He has made his choice. Exiling from the human race the hero, the thinker, the producer, the inventor, he renders man into prey—the fool, the weakling, the coward. God and nature have thrown all human fortunes into the midst of mankind; and they are thus attainable rather by rapine than by industry, by wicked actions rather than by good.
A prince must ensure his power by not being hated by his people. But I do feel this: that it is better to be rash than timid, for Fortune is a woman, and the man who wants to hold her down must beat and bully her. There is an obligation that people feel to repay a person when they are done a favor. Rather, man is a contractual creature, who adjusts as circumstances warrant. Ambition is another part of human nature.