Comparing Machiavelli And Wollstonecraft
Machiavelli says that men possess virtu that is challenged by fortuna. On the other hand, Wollstonecraft argues that there is no such thing as ‘sexual virtues’. I agree with Wollstonecraft in that there are no ‘sexual virtues’, because in my experience men and women are equal.
In the excerpts of The Prince, Machiavelli outlines the ways a prince should conduct himself in order to rule successfully and maintain power over a state. He first discusses what brings about praise over blame. Specifically, Machiavelli writes that if a man wishes to live according to his claims of virtue he will likely be destroyed. He advises that it is best to appear virtuous in order to receive praise, but sometimes it is necessary to know how to do wrong and chose …show more content…
whether or not to take advantage of the outcomes. In a sense, the prince should endeavor to display qualities that are considered good and should also be careful with his vices.
Especially since, the ‘human condition’ limits the number of qualities that can be observed in -or possessed by- an individual (p.44). In essence, Machiavelli maintains that virtuous qualities may not provide the same security and success as ‘vicious’ qualities would (p.44). Machiavelli goes on to discuss the way princes should lie. He notes that princes, who have no problem lying, outdo those you choose to remain faithful because their honesty could be used against them (p.45). However, Machiavelli also notes that princes who do not worry about lying should make an effort to disguise this trait, as it will not incite praise. In order to overcome this issue, Machiavelli insists that a prince should know how to fight using law and force. A fight by using the law relies on truth, while a fight using force relies on behaving as a beast would (p.45). To illustrate his point, Machiavelli refers to the Centaur Chiron, a half-man and half-beast who would be incomplete without both his natures. Moreover, Machiavelli divides the method of the beast further, when he discusses the fox and the lion. In addition, he explains that a prince should be clever like a fox and brute like a lion. Ideally, the prince should be both in …show more content…
order to detect traps and fight off opponents.
However, Machiavelli reveals that if anything, the prince should be like the fox. This ties into Machiavelli’s general point, as it is not necessary to have good qualities, but it necessary to make it seem as though they are possessed. In any case, Machiavelli writes that it helps to appear to possess certain qualities as opposed to actually having them, since they could prove to be weaknesses. This is validated when he writes “… to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious… but with a mind so framed that if required, you may be able to change to the opposite” (p.46). Therefore, a prince should act as is necessary in order to maintain power, however if he can avoid doing bad he should. Machiavelli pays a lot of attention to appearances because he believes that ‘men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand’ (p.46), this explains why the prince should maintain appearances because nobody knows what he is really capable of. The next thing Machiavelli discusses is the influence that fortune has on man’s life. Machiavelli believes that fortune has an important rule over man’s fate, however he also mentions that man possesses free will over his own actions. Machiavelli attributes
that fortuna is a leading force of success and disaster, one that virtu cannot control. He illustrates this point by comparing fortuna to a raging river that cannot be contained (p.47). Moreover, Machiavelli writes that fortuna is changeable and brings success to those that change. Therefore, he believes that man should be adventurous and adjustable in order to attract fortuna because he understands that as a woman, fortuna is drawn to adventurous and bold men (p.49). Furthermore, he explains that man must rely on virtu and wisdom as well as, be forceful in order to overcome her. In his discourses, Machiavelli reevaluates his opinion when he writes that fortuna cannot be controlled, in fact she selects a man with virtu and he cannot go against her plans (p.53). Essentially, Machiavelli reveals that the prince has no choice but to subject himself to fortuna, however he must also adjust himself with the time and always maintain appearances if he wishes to maintain control over the state.
The Enlightenment author Mary Wollstonecraft argues that men and women are fundamentally equal in terms of virtue and morality. She establishes three entities, to outline her argument: reason, virtue, and experience (p.63). Firstly, she challenges men’s prejudices by criticizing the fact that they are based on tradition and not reason. In addition, she writes that any profession stemming from a hierarchal system injures morality. To illustrate her point, Wollstonecraft makes a reference to the prejudices of noble men and explains that simple people imitate their vices not realizing the danger (p.64). As a result, Wollstonecraft urges society to be cautious with the way it approaches certain professions. She goes on to oppose the perception of how both sexes acquire virtue. In particular, Wollstonecraft writes that women are not given enough ‘strength of mind’ to truly have virtue (p.65). Moreover, she emphasizes that they are kept in ignorance to the extent that they are captives of prejudice. This is explained by women’s education of the time, which she ultimately denounces. To expand on education, Wollstonecraft shares what she considers to be the ‘perfect education’. According to her, a perfect education uses understanding to essentially enable independence. This is supported in her statement; “… it is a farce to call any being virtuous whose virtues do not result from the exercise of its own reason” (p.66). However, by turning away from education women remain ‘slaves of opinion’ as they degrade themselves to get ‘respect’. Therefore, Wollstonecraft urges that society return to ‘nature and equality’ (p.66). She continues by drawing similarities between soldiers and women. According to her, women and soldiers live in similar circumstances because they both experience the world before developing reason. As a result, Wollstonecraft writes that they acquire superficial knowledge. Essentially, the only difference between the two groups is liberty, which enables soldiers to see more of life (p.67). She goes on to discuss the ‘great misfortune of women’, that obtain manners and superficial knowledge before morals and reflection. As a result, Wollstonecraft explains that women rely on their beauty. Consequently, she announces that it is time for a ‘revolution in female manners’ in order to oppose traditional prejudices and remove the chains of gender limitation (p.71). In sum, Wollstonecraft argues that women need to exercise understanding in order to get the respect that they deserve, men and women share the same truth, and there is no such thing as ‘sexual virtues’. Most importantly, she asserts that Reason is the only answerable authority.
The excerpts from Machiavelli and Wollstonecraft are rather comparable. Firstly, Machiavelli and Wollstonecraft are similar in that they both mention gender. In fact gender can be found in The Prince when Machiavelli mentions fortuna and virtu. Although these are meant to be metaphorical, these two concepts play an important role in Machiavelli’s argument. On the other hand, Wollstonecraft approaches gender in a more straightforward way. This is seen throughout the excerpts as she directly writes about women’s rights and struggles. They essentially talk about gender on different levels. A difference within this resemblance is the way they talk about women. For example, Machiavelli writes; “fortune is a woman, and if you wish to overcome her it is necessary to use force against her” (p.49). This sentence most likely reflects not only Machiavelli’s view of women but also the common perception of the time. In contrast, Wollstonecraft writes that women should be seen as moral beings (p.68). This demonstrates her commitment to improving the perception of women three centuries after Machiavelli. A further similarity lies in Machiavelli and Wollstonecraft’s view of the simple people. They both imply that the simple folk are easily fooled by vices disguised as virtues. For example, Machiavelli writes “… the simple are always taken by what a thing seems to be and by what comes of it”(p.46). An important difference to note between these two individuals is what they believe is authority. On the one hand, Wollstonecraft maintains that reason is the only authority whereas, Machiavelli believes that authority is earned through fear and virtuous appearance. However, the most significant difference by far, lies in who Machiavelli and Wollstonecraft believe has virtue. According to Machiavelli, man possesses virtu – a manly excellence- whereas the female fortuna is the external factor, or fate, which obstructs virtu. His use of gendered language seems to depict male and female relationships at that time. However it is made rather clear that Machiavelli pays no mind to the idea that women have virtue. Contrary to this, Wollstonecraft argues that there is no such thing as female or male virtues; rather there are only human virtues (p.66). Moreover, she proposes that women and men should be educated together in order to foster equality between both genders. In particular she argues that an education will promote a deeper knowledge and encourage thoughts based on reason instead of tradition and casual world experience.
I believe that Wollstonecraft is right in the sense that virtue knows no gender. In my experience, men and women are the same where it counts and there is no such thing as a male or female virtue. Especially seeing as gender has an entirely new meaning in the 21st century. I do not understand how a single different chromosome can have such a massive impact on society. Although it is clear that certain differences are inevitable due to biology. I think that the right way of living is the same for both men and women; afterall Maslow’s hierarchy applies to all. The only difference I can identify is the subjective way a man or woman chose to live their lives. For example, if a man enjoys getting a manicure or if a woman enjoys fishing her own fish, I do not see why it is necessary to question their lifestyle. I must confess that at this point gender has become far too complex and confusing, to the extent that I can see the appeal of just sticking to traditional gender. As far as I am aware, my vision of life has only been influenced by traditional ideas of gender. Although I am conscious and informed of various other genders, I have been influenced and raised according to a traditional female gender with a couple male influences as well. Therefore, when Machiavelli and Wollstonecraft mention gender in their texts I have an easier time identifying with Wollstonecraft because beauty and innocence are qualities I had to become familiar with.
In conclusion, Wollstonecraft and Machiavelli used gender to describe virtue. I am inclined to agree with Wollstonecraft in that there are no ‘sexual virtues’, because in my experience men and women are equal.
In the excerpts of The Prince, Machiavelli outlines the ways a prince should conduct himself in order to rule successfully and maintain power over a state. He first discusses what brings about praise over blame. Specifically, Machiavelli writes that if a man wishes to live according to his claims of virtue he will likely be destroyed. He advises that it is best to appear virtuous in order to receive praise, but sometimes it is necessary to know how to do wrong and chose …show more content…
whether or not to take advantage of the outcomes. In a sense, the prince should endeavor to display qualities that are considered good and should also be careful with his vices.
Especially since, the ‘human condition’ limits the number of qualities that can be observed in -or possessed by- an individual (p.44). In essence, Machiavelli maintains that virtuous qualities may not provide the same security and success as ‘vicious’ qualities would (p.44). Machiavelli goes on to discuss the way princes should lie. He notes that princes, who have no problem lying, outdo those you choose to remain faithful because their honesty could be used against them (p.45). However, Machiavelli also notes that princes who do not worry about lying should make an effort to disguise this trait, as it will not incite praise. In order to overcome this issue, Machiavelli insists that a prince should know how to fight using law and force. A fight by using the law relies on truth, while a fight using force relies on behaving as a beast would (p.45). To illustrate his point, Machiavelli refers to the Centaur Chiron, a half-man and half-beast who would be incomplete without both his natures. Moreover, Machiavelli divides the method of the beast further, when he discusses the fox and the lion. In addition, he explains that a prince should be clever like a fox and brute like a lion. Ideally, the prince should be both in …show more content…
order to detect traps and fight off opponents.
However, Machiavelli reveals that if anything, the prince should be like the fox. This ties into Machiavelli’s general point, as it is not necessary to have good qualities, but it necessary to make it seem as though they are possessed. In any case, Machiavelli writes that it helps to appear to possess certain qualities as opposed to actually having them, since they could prove to be weaknesses. This is validated when he writes “… to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious… but with a mind so framed that if required, you may be able to change to the opposite” (p.46). Therefore, a prince should act as is necessary in order to maintain power, however if he can avoid doing bad he should. Machiavelli pays a lot of attention to appearances because he believes that ‘men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand’ (p.46), this explains why the prince should maintain appearances because nobody knows what he is really capable of. The next thing Machiavelli discusses is the influence that fortune has on man’s life. Machiavelli believes that fortune has an important rule over man’s fate, however he also mentions that man possesses free will over his own actions. Machiavelli attributes
that fortuna is a leading force of success and disaster, one that virtu cannot control. He illustrates this point by comparing fortuna to a raging river that cannot be contained (p.47). Moreover, Machiavelli writes that fortuna is changeable and brings success to those that change. Therefore, he believes that man should be adventurous and adjustable in order to attract fortuna because he understands that as a woman, fortuna is drawn to adventurous and bold men (p.49). Furthermore, he explains that man must rely on virtu and wisdom as well as, be forceful in order to overcome her. In his discourses, Machiavelli reevaluates his opinion when he writes that fortuna cannot be controlled, in fact she selects a man with virtu and he cannot go against her plans (p.53). Essentially, Machiavelli reveals that the prince has no choice but to subject himself to fortuna, however he must also adjust himself with the time and always maintain appearances if he wishes to maintain control over the state.
The Enlightenment author Mary Wollstonecraft argues that men and women are fundamentally equal in terms of virtue and morality. She establishes three entities, to outline her argument: reason, virtue, and experience (p.63). Firstly, she challenges men’s prejudices by criticizing the fact that they are based on tradition and not reason. In addition, she writes that any profession stemming from a hierarchal system injures morality. To illustrate her point, Wollstonecraft makes a reference to the prejudices of noble men and explains that simple people imitate their vices not realizing the danger (p.64). As a result, Wollstonecraft urges society to be cautious with the way it approaches certain professions. She goes on to oppose the perception of how both sexes acquire virtue. In particular, Wollstonecraft writes that women are not given enough ‘strength of mind’ to truly have virtue (p.65). Moreover, she emphasizes that they are kept in ignorance to the extent that they are captives of prejudice. This is explained by women’s education of the time, which she ultimately denounces. To expand on education, Wollstonecraft shares what she considers to be the ‘perfect education’. According to her, a perfect education uses understanding to essentially enable independence. This is supported in her statement; “… it is a farce to call any being virtuous whose virtues do not result from the exercise of its own reason” (p.66). However, by turning away from education women remain ‘slaves of opinion’ as they degrade themselves to get ‘respect’. Therefore, Wollstonecraft urges that society return to ‘nature and equality’ (p.66). She continues by drawing similarities between soldiers and women. According to her, women and soldiers live in similar circumstances because they both experience the world before developing reason. As a result, Wollstonecraft writes that they acquire superficial knowledge. Essentially, the only difference between the two groups is liberty, which enables soldiers to see more of life (p.67). She goes on to discuss the ‘great misfortune of women’, that obtain manners and superficial knowledge before morals and reflection. As a result, Wollstonecraft explains that women rely on their beauty. Consequently, she announces that it is time for a ‘revolution in female manners’ in order to oppose traditional prejudices and remove the chains of gender limitation (p.71). In sum, Wollstonecraft argues that women need to exercise understanding in order to get the respect that they deserve, men and women share the same truth, and there is no such thing as ‘sexual virtues’. Most importantly, she asserts that Reason is the only answerable authority.
The excerpts from Machiavelli and Wollstonecraft are rather comparable. Firstly, Machiavelli and Wollstonecraft are similar in that they both mention gender. In fact gender can be found in The Prince when Machiavelli mentions fortuna and virtu. Although these are meant to be metaphorical, these two concepts play an important role in Machiavelli’s argument. On the other hand, Wollstonecraft approaches gender in a more straightforward way. This is seen throughout the excerpts as she directly writes about women’s rights and struggles. They essentially talk about gender on different levels. A difference within this resemblance is the way they talk about women. For example, Machiavelli writes; “fortune is a woman, and if you wish to overcome her it is necessary to use force against her” (p.49). This sentence most likely reflects not only Machiavelli’s view of women but also the common perception of the time. In contrast, Wollstonecraft writes that women should be seen as moral beings (p.68). This demonstrates her commitment to improving the perception of women three centuries after Machiavelli. A further similarity lies in Machiavelli and Wollstonecraft’s view of the simple people. They both imply that the simple folk are easily fooled by vices disguised as virtues. For example, Machiavelli writes “… the simple are always taken by what a thing seems to be and by what comes of it”(p.46). An important difference to note between these two individuals is what they believe is authority. On the one hand, Wollstonecraft maintains that reason is the only authority whereas, Machiavelli believes that authority is earned through fear and virtuous appearance. However, the most significant difference by far, lies in who Machiavelli and Wollstonecraft believe has virtue. According to Machiavelli, man possesses virtu – a manly excellence- whereas the female fortuna is the external factor, or fate, which obstructs virtu. His use of gendered language seems to depict male and female relationships at that time. However it is made rather clear that Machiavelli pays no mind to the idea that women have virtue. Contrary to this, Wollstonecraft argues that there is no such thing as female or male virtues; rather there are only human virtues (p.66). Moreover, she proposes that women and men should be educated together in order to foster equality between both genders. In particular she argues that an education will promote a deeper knowledge and encourage thoughts based on reason instead of tradition and casual world experience.
I believe that Wollstonecraft is right in the sense that virtue knows no gender. In my experience, men and women are the same where it counts and there is no such thing as a male or female virtue. Especially seeing as gender has an entirely new meaning in the 21st century. I do not understand how a single different chromosome can have such a massive impact on society. Although it is clear that certain differences are inevitable due to biology. I think that the right way of living is the same for both men and women; afterall Maslow’s hierarchy applies to all. The only difference I can identify is the subjective way a man or woman chose to live their lives. For example, if a man enjoys getting a manicure or if a woman enjoys fishing her own fish, I do not see why it is necessary to question their lifestyle. I must confess that at this point gender has become far too complex and confusing, to the extent that I can see the appeal of just sticking to traditional gender. As far as I am aware, my vision of life has only been influenced by traditional ideas of gender. Although I am conscious and informed of various other genders, I have been influenced and raised according to a traditional female gender with a couple male influences as well. Therefore, when Machiavelli and Wollstonecraft mention gender in their texts I have an easier time identifying with Wollstonecraft because beauty and innocence are qualities I had to become familiar with.
In conclusion, Wollstonecraft and Machiavelli used gender to describe virtue. I am inclined to agree with Wollstonecraft in that there are no ‘sexual virtues’, because in my experience men and women are equal.