Machiavelli writes from a realistic perspective with no fantasies about men and human nature. While the two share ideas on human nature, the state of nature, and how religion is incorporated into secular rule, their ideas differ when it comes to types of government, self-preservation, and war. Machiavelli greatly influenced Hobbes, especially on the views of the state of nature. Hobbes argues that all men are born equal and even the weak are able to kill the strong in his state of nature.
Specifically, they rejected the Aristotelian belief that everything in nature, including human beings, has a telos or end to which it aspires RB Lecture.
Furthermore, both depart from the classical view that human beings are sociable by nature Ibid.
In this way the works of Hobbes and Machiavelli represented a break with the classical tradition and together helped form the basis of modern political theory. Hobbes and Machiavelli, though similar in their iconoclastic ambitions to unseat and defame the tradition of the medievalists and the ancients, diverged in fundamental ways about both the goal of politics and the way to best achieve that goal.
Both thinkers lived through extreme political turmoil during their lives. Thus, both men saw internal political stability as being a necessary condition for any higher goals Ibid.
However they differed as to how to obtain this lofty goal and what it consisted of. Machiavelli, in The Discourses, comes across to his readers as a staunch defender of republican principles whereas Hobbes, in Leviathan, saw republicanism as a cause of political instability Hobbes, Machiavelli praised, even above political stability, the pursuit of glory, the achievement of which was, for him, the highest human good Rb Lecture.
Hobbes was distrusting of glory-seeking, seeing it as a cause of human misery Ibid. In keeping with his belief in glory-seeking for its own sake, Machiavelli felt that continued expansion, or the pursuit of empire, was not Difference between thomas hobbes and machiavelli a necessary condition for internal political accord but the best way to obtain glory for the ruler, material advantage for the citizenry and to ward off foreign invasion Ibid.
Hobbes was less enamored with expansion for its own sake because such reckless action was contrary to his first law of nature . Hobbes on the end goal of politics For Hobbes the goal of politics is to provide for a way out of the state of nature.
The state of nature was any situation in which there was no effective government to impose order upon people Through the power of their reason, groups of people could come together to work their way out of the state of nature. People in the state of nature would gladly sacrifice their liberty to live securely under the power of an absolute ruler, who could provide for their security and the conditions under which they could become prosperous.
Because the Italian states were relatively small and weak compared with large neighbouring nation-states, like France and Spain, the Italian peninsula, and its states, were often dominated by foreign armies. There was very little security; consequently Italian politics was in a state of near constant upheaval.
Thus for Machiavelli, people organize in cities primarily for protection Machiavelli, The sorry state of Italian politics concerned Machiavelli immensely. Thus it is not surprising that Machiavelli valued glory as the end goal of politics. The leaders of the Roman Republic were driven by glory to pursue near constant territorial expansion.
They earned their freedom through their success in war and conquest. Machiavelli felt that it was misguided to feel that the successes of ancient Rome could not be repeated in contemporary times Machiavelli Therefore, much of the content of The Prince is directed toward educating potential rulers on how to pursue conquest and how to hold onto new territorial acquisitions.
It was bad policy to rely on luck because it is, by nature, fleeting and changeable To prove his point he uses the examples of four ancient founders . These were men, taken by Machiavelli to have been historical persons, whose successes were not attributable to fortuna.
Difference on the usefulness of the ancient texts: He said that such reading, usually done by young and impulsive men, led many to rebellion against their ruling monarchs Ibid. He said that in reality those living under popular governments, in present and past times, would agree that the virtues associated with republics by the ancients, and pursued by hot blooded men in present times, are illusory Ibid.
However, for Machiavelli, uncovering the true reasons for the political and military success of the ancients was a tricky business, one requiring tremendous skill. For Machiavelli, the veracity of the recorded histories of the ancients was clouded by the tendency of the ancient Roman historians, such as Livy, to infuse their histories with their opinions for why Rome was successful.
Machiavelli saw his task, in writing The Discourses, as nothing less than to uncover the true reasons for the success of ancient Rome.Feb 09, · Hobbes believed people are basically evil and a strong government is necessary to protect people from each other.
Machiavelli believed people need to be controlled and government should do that to full extent that is possible. So, it's a similar government for somewhat different reasons.
Machiavelli advocated control and barnweddingvt.com: Resolved.
Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes are both vitally important political philosophers of their eras, the former of s and the latter of s. "Difference Between Thomas Hobbes And Machiavelli" Essays and Research Papers Difference Between Thomas Hobbes And Machiavelli Thomas Hobbes, the son of an English vicar in the late 16th Century, approaches the questions of politics and human nature in a unique way, but there are definite similarities between his work and the work of earlier philosophers.
Machiavelli and Hobbes Political Power 1 Machiavelli and Hobbes share a similar Analysis of Political Power. Discuss Anurag Gangal Professor and Head of Department, Political Science and Director, Gandhian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of .
- Relationship Between the Sovereign and the Subjects in More's Utopia, Machiavelli's The Discourses, and Hobbes' The Leviathan Thomas More, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes offer models for the relationship between the sovereign and the people in their . Another stark difference between Machiavelli and Hobbes is their opinions on the desirability of internal discord.
Machiavelli believed that internal unrest, under certain conditions, can lead to improvements of the institutions that function to check the power of various factions (92).