Machiavelli and Rousseau lived in two different ways, but they didn’t have the same opinion as each other, although they did have similar features in the minds of others. Machiavelli’s and Rousseau’s confrontation theory both have to distinct point of views. Rousseau believes that despite the democratic order, many people sublime through the necessity of unification of general intentions and support to make it absolute. Rousseau’s general theory of ontological superiority is incompatible with the political advantage of Machiavelli’s confrontation diversity.
Machiavelli’s humanity and the accuracy of the social worldwideview have room for discussion. Machiavelli political philosophy revolved around action, this was very important for him. In “The Prince” that was written by himself he goes on and explains how the result of action is important. In this writing writes about some of the characteristics a prince should acquire in arrangement to be able ot control such as being stable between both fear and love, accepting that the prince has gained power to control the public. Machiavelli said, “The prince must nonetheless make himself feared in such a way that, if he is not loved, at least he escaped being hated.” By this he meant that the prince should avoid hatred by killing people, under the “proper justification and manifest reason for it,”. In Machiavelli’s perspective, he believed that protecting the country requires such action as it is necessary for the country to secure people’s security, peace, and order. He sets the needs of the people for the prince’s mission and order. Aside that, Machiavelli also believes that if they were to advance with the goal of the Prince’s power and power: murder, fight among citizens, buy temporary loyalty and treachery would be most likely recommended. In his writing he states, “I know everyone will agree that it would be most lauble if a prince possessed all the qualities deemed to be good among those I have enumerated.” I definitely did not agree with this statement at all. I didn’t not agree with any of Machiavelli’s political philosophy, all he wanted was straight war and violence.
Rousseau’s political philosophies were that he believed that people have autonomy and can claim freedom. He wrote Emil, and explained that our goal should be to encourage the natural abilities of each child, not to make them all the same, which would be individualism. His most important work is “The Social Contact,” which outlines the basis for establishing legal and political order within the framework of classical and republicanism. According to Rousseau, civil cosset is bound by social contract and abandonment of natural rights, individuals can protect themselves and maintain freedom. Unlike Machiavelli, Rousseau does not agree that the leader should consider was as his “sole occupation” (Rousseau 39). He also argues that war is not justice. Especially when “tyrant” is not actually promising to provide “inner man” to his subject, but is trying to satisfy his “unrequited desire and unreasonable demands of the minister.” Peace.” (63) as an alternative, Rousseau believed that rulers should not work hard to make decision to make profits to the people of the community, with the common intention of his people as a top priority. Rousseau’s ambition on this point extends to Machiavelli. Machiavelli objected to christianity and the society, despite duplicating many christian criticism of secular matters. As Rousseau did later, Machiavelli used Christianity as his enemy for hostility against humanity despite using this power to shape his world and change its shape. Machiavelli tried to teach men and women how to save them without waiting for god. The spiritual demands of christianity and the obvious political demands of the Church brought up the most clearly the ransom problem for Machiavelli.
127 our experts are availableright now
After reading about both of these writers I agreed with Rousseau’s political philosophy. Rousseau believed in direct democracy, meaning everyone has the freedom to contribute and let their voices be heard. But using Rousseau and its analogy, he had a strongly convincing argument about Machiavelli’s assumptions about ordinary people who had nothing to say about the rulers’ action. Rousseau said at the beginning that “life is free” . This raises the persuasive power of the argument and later suggest that “he will be his own as long as he reaches a reasonable age.” (60) Rousseau believed that everyone should enjoy equal and independent conditions.. Therefore, he concluded that people of society should have the same right to choose whether to integrate themselves with the government or to start over.
Ultimately it comes down to who is more civilized and which political philosophy would actually work. There is ways for people to argue that Machiavelli’s way can also work, because it can cause fear to people and make them actually be civil but then again why would you want to cause fear to the public that you are taking over. Machiavelli strongly believed that the prince must be frightened and influenced. On the contrary, Rousseau was generally positive, but there was a great deal of contempt for the modern society. People were lonely and taught to be political learners. The nature of humanity is considered to be unchangeable and changeable.
