Preview

Compare And Contrast Lao Tzu And Machiavelli

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1162 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Compare And Contrast Lao Tzu And Machiavelli
Cathey 1
Cody Cathey
English Comp 2
Gena Messersmith
February 9, 2015
Compare and Contrast Lao Tzu and Machiavelli Most people have differences on multiple things. Preferences change depending on who you are and what your views on life are. This was the case between Lao Tzu and Machiavelli. Most differences start on the subject of war. In Machiavelli 's story "The Qualities of a Prince", he talks about always being on your toes as a leader. You have to be ready to go to war at all times, no matter what the situation is. He claims that to be a good leader, you have to know the land that you might have to battle on in the future, whether that 's your land or the land of your enemies. Machiavelli says to never let your guard down and train
…show more content…
You must rule with an iron fist and take action even when action isn 't needed. He believes that a ruler is determined by their climb or their downfall. It is better to be a hard nose leader than to be generous. He believes that if you are generously giving things away, their will be nothing more to give away at some point. Machiavelli says that it is better to be feared by your people than to be loved. More people will listen to what you have to say if they are scared that something could happen to them if they don 't listen at all. The only two traits that a leader should never have is hatred or despise from his people. Keep from taking the land and women away from your suspects and you will keep from being hated and keep from seeming changeable or feminine to stay away from being despised. These two men have a general idea of what a leader should be like. Machiavelli has a more ideal approach to leadership in today 's world. You have to take action in order to be taken serious by your people and the enemies around you. A ruler must have the respect of the people around him/her in order to be successful. That statement goes back to the idea of it being better to be hated than to be loved, most people take advantage of or don 't respect the idea of love, so it doesn 't do any justice to be loved by everyone as a …show more content…
He says that studying the land that you could potentially have a battle on, whether it was your own land or the land of your enemies, you would have a better chance of winning battles and keeping a strong military around your government. These magnificent thinkers contradict the saying that all great minds think alike. Of course they had some similarities in their beliefs, but not many. Their ideas on taxes were the same, but their ideas on the citizens being involved in governement work is where these two differ. Machiavelli believed in the idea of a strong leader. The leader should be feared more than he is loved, if he is even loved at all. A leader shouldn 't be hated, a hated leader will be rebelled and possibly killed, but a leader can not be loved at all. He believes that if a leader is loved, he wouldn 't be feared and no one will listen to him or what he wants to do. Machiavelli believed that war was needed and a nation should keep a strong military at all times. War shouldn 't be high on taxes though, because taxes have a possibility to cause a rebellion. A rebellion is an act of hatred and could possibly lead to death of the

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.…

    • 514 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Lao-Tzu vs. Machiavelli

    • 1382 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Cited: Jacobus, Lee A. "LAO-TZU Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin 's, 2006. 21-31. Print.…

    • 1382 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Lao-Tzu vs Machiavelli

    • 1508 Words
    • 7 Pages

    When utilizing the rhetorical strategy of comparing and contrasting in relationship to literature, a number of pieces of can qualify. In particular, the idea of leadership is arguably one of the most written about topics with regard to comparing and contrasting. Throughout history, it can be argued that the majority of successful societies have been based upon effective divisions of leadership. Accordingly, in their pieces of literature, The Tao-te Ching and The Qualities of the Prince, Lao-tzu and Machiavelli have sought to convey a more complete and concrete understanding of their respective definitions and duties of a ruler (leadership). The theme of political leaders and their intricate relationship with society indeed validate itself within both texts. However, both Lao-tzu and Machiavelli approach this issue from almost entirely opposite positions, though sharing minute similarities. Lao-tzu appears to focus the majority of his attention on letting problems or situations take their course, and consequently good would prevail. On the contrary, Machiavelli advocates the necessity for a successful leader, or prince, to take control of his deeds, and the skills or qualities necessary to maintain power. Since both writers propose a question as to what is in essence the same dilemma, effective leadership, it becomes almost natural literary etiquette to contrast the two in an effort to better understand what qualities a prosperous leader must possess. Despite each author’s contrasting approaches to rhetoric, they agree that a ruler should avoid being hated and despised, but disagree in areas such as government involvement in citizens’ everyday lives.…

    • 1508 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu have very different aspects about how a prince should govern his people. Machiavelli dwells over the fact, whether it is better to be loved or feared. He believes that the…

    • 839 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Contrary to popular belief, Machiavelli is not a diabolic political figure in search of power. He is instead an astute politician who uses his extensive knowledge of politics to analyze various princes and principalities in order to educate future…

    • 931 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Machiavelli was a Florentine man of many skills. He was a renowned politician, author, and philosopher during the Renaissance, whose views and opinions affect the way people still think today. The Prince is his most famous work and in it he essentially states that humans are “ungrateful, fickle, deceptive and deceiving”. For that reason, a leader should rule through fear rather than love. However, what Europeans needed during the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries were compassionate rulers. They were already frightened and disunited during the middle ages, thus adding a fearful leader to the mix would not help citizens feel safer.…

    • 101 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Even though Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli were both advisors there was still many differences of the two’s views on how a government should be. A leader is a person who leads or commands a group, organization, or a country. It does not matter what state, country, or city someone lives in they are guaranteed to have a leader. Leaders have been around in every era. If considered to be a leader, people wanted to be great and admired for what they had done or were going to do. Both Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli lived in different times and completely different geographical areas, but they lived as advisors. Everybody is their own person and of course they had different views on how a country should be run. Although they had different views, their ultimate goal was to be better leaders. Three main differences between the two’s government views included war, money, and government involvement in the everyday lives of citizens.…

    • 604 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    He argued that man was born naturally stable and desired good and needed to watch the government around them to guarantee that the government does not fail to protect those basic rights. He also argues that there shouldn’t be laws that affect only some people, like the rich versus the poor, but rather affect everyone.…

    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Machiavelli's philosophy was that "The end justifies the means." This meant that the end result is the most important, and how you got there was of no importance. The Prince was a book of advice to rules on how to found a state and how to stay in power. Machiavelli explained in his book the many different ways to gain power. One way was to acquire land. The four methods that he discusses to acquire more land is: Your own arms and virtue, fortune, others' arms, and inequity. To Machiavelli, the word virtue meant manliness and strength. Machiavelli also advocates the use of evil to achieve any goals. He gives an example of Agathocles of Syracuse as a proof that this works and will enable the prince to rule the land peacefully through fear. "Born of a potter, this one always had an iniquitous life throughout his years: nonetheless, he accomplished his iniquities with such virtue of spirit and of body that, having joined the militia, he rose through its ranks to become praetor of Syracuse. Being established in rank, and having decided to become prince and to keep with violence and without obligation to others what had been conceded him by agreement... ...one morning he convened the people and the senate of Syracuse, as if he had had to deliberate things pertinent to the republic; and at a preordained nod…

    • 1540 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Lao-Tzu was an ancient Chinese philosopher during the 6th century. Conversely, Machiavelli was an Italian historian, author, diplomat, philosopher, and politician that lived almost two thousand years later during the Renaissance. Although both are from completely different times and cultures; neither would disagree that leadership is essential in the success or failure of society. After all, at its simplistic core government is just a hierarchy of leadership that exist to serve its fellow citizens. When utilized correctly, government and effective leadership can be the difference between societal paradise and peril. The question then in lies what is the correct way. This is the question in which these authors diverging opinions and philosophies are strongly rooted. Additionally this is the question that is independent and based on one factor, each author’s view of human nature.…

    • 281 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    To give his advice structure, Machiavelli used an abundance of historical references. One leader he refers to is Francesco Sforza, Duke of Milan. Sforza fought and won power as a Duke, he passed that power on to his sons. His sons avoided war and lost power. This a great story to persuade the reader to think that the advice Machiavelli is giving should be taken. His message is that if a prince is not willing to fight, as Sforza's sons were not, they too may lose power. Machiavelli stresses the point that it is better to be feared than loved. A perfect comparison of the two sides is Hannibal and Scipio. Machiavelli…

    • 632 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Machiavelli Lao-Tzu

    • 755 Words
    • 4 Pages

    author of Prince. They are both philosophers but have totally different perspective on how to be a good leader. While both philosopher's writing is instructive. Lao-tzu's advice issues from detached view of a universal ruler; Machiavelli's advice is very personal perhaps demanding. Both philosophers' idea will not work for today's world, because that modern world is not as perfect as Lao-tzu described in Tao-te Ching, and not as chaotic as Machiavelli illustrated in Prince.…

    • 755 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    He believes that everyone should be ready for any attack or for him or her to be able to defend his country. Machiavelli says “… in peacetime he must train himself more than in time of war” (3). What he is saying that the peacetime that is given, they are to be training the most. He believes that a leader should have his soldiers ready for action. He would train with them daily. He set up multiple training stations to know their way in and how to escape difficult traps. Machiavelli as a leader would have them well trained because he knows at any moment any one would attack him. He rather is feared than loved, so that would only make many people hate him. He would act like he showed interest in his people but only did that so people would be on his side during times of…

    • 933 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Machiavelli’s The Prince is teaching the politically ambitious rulers how to use violence in order to secure the power as a personal end. Machiavelli advises a ruler to use violence as part of politics in order to maintain the rule but most importantly he should use violence to aim at political stability and the overall benefit of the community. In this regard, Machiavelli opposes the illicit use of political violence because he believes that ultimately that will be destructive to the user. Machiavelli’s view on political violence does seem to be strict however it distinguishes the practical and moral use of violence. The two historical figure whom Machiavelli uses models in order to explain his theories are Cesare Borgia and Agathocles. These…

    • 1117 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Philosophy is referred to as a set of beliefs, concepts and attitudes held by an individual or a group of people. It is the study of problems in general and the prescription of solutions to problems based on critical and systemic analyses and the employment of rational argument. Philosophy through the lens of Political Science does so as mentioned above in terms of the state, the governance of the state the ethics of an individual in possession of political power. Political philosophers focus on the issues relating to the state, such as political action that need or need not be taken and the general behavior of a given individual involved in politics. With the focus set on just the state, political action and violence, two philosophers have critically analyzed politics through the three concepts listed above: Niccolo Machiavelli and Max Weber. They each have their own views, opinions and suggestions that both have similarities and differences considering the cultural and temporal inconsistency between the both of them. The fact that some of their ideas intersect is fascinating.…

    • 1933 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays