Machiavelli and Rousseau's Views on Human Nature and Government

In the meantime while Rousseau was crafting both of his publications, Discourse on the Origin and Foundation of Inequality Among Men & The Social Contract, France was heading into a revolution that no one would have ever expected. Both Rousseau and Emmanuel Sieyes, a political theorist, came up with the general idea that men should be free and that power should be evenly distributed to form a better nation. But whose version on the way that society be governed is correct, Machiavelli or Rousseau? Machiavelli wanted a prince to be head of a power nation while Rousseau argued for a more governed society with equality being the main issue. Machiavelli’s

Rousseau believed that to uplift ourselves out of the state of nature, man must partake in the course of being the sovereign that provided the protection. The contrast between Rousseau’s concepts and those of the liberals of his time, originated with different understandings and interpretations of the state of nature. Classical liberal thinkers like Thomas Hobbes defined the state of nature as an unsafe place, where the threat of harm to one’s property was always an existent. He

While some other great political thinkers sat around and dreamed about their perfect little utopias in the clouds, notably Socrates and Plato, Machiavelli was analyzing the most powerful men of his day. He observed and recorded how men flocked the sheep to exactly where they were wanted by their shepherd. He watched as the wolves preyed on the sheep and noticed that there was no philosopher king around to prevent it. He accepted that we as humans are corrupt and that we can’t all be Marcus Aurelius, king of

Though Locke, Machiavelli, Rousseau and Hobbes all represented varying opinions on human nature and its relationship to government, each of them contributed groundwork for present-day political theories. And while each philosopher shared common concepts in philosophy, the parallels in politics and government were quite

2.) Rousseau saw human nature and society as unnatural and often compared what we are in the present to what we, as a species, used to be beore groups were developed. Rousseau explores the nature of a man and expanded on ideas by other early philosphers, such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes.

The writings of Nicolo Machiavelli are the single most important example of this new humanist thought. Drawing from ancient Roman writers, Machiavelli developed a worldly concept of politics, and was one of the first in the modern period to discuss the virtues of republican government and a system of checks and balances. He is perhaps most famous for his rejection of Christian idealism in politics. Princes and other leaders, he argued, must view human affairs must as they really are, not as we hope ideally they should be. The rules of worldly power (best understood by the

When reading Machiavelli's writing, one must quickly both differentiate and depersonalize the true feelings of Machiavelli, the person, as opposed to Machiavelli writing the book. Machiavelli's work is considered the finest treatise of political science, along with the academic birth of 'realism.' Ends do justify means in Machiavelli's text; however, one must understand that Machiavelli generally only supported violence for a greater purpose, and never more than necessary to retain stability. This was not Machiavelli's opinion alone but was the reality of Italian politics during the period.

Niccolò Machiavelli was an activist of analyzing power. He believed firmly in his theories and he wanted to persuade everyone else of them as well. To comment on the common relationship that was seen between moral goodness and legitimate authority of those who held power, Machiavelli said that authority and power were essentially coequal.9 He believed that whomever had power obtained the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power. This implied that the only genuine apprehension of the administrative power was the attainment and preservation of powers which indirectly guided the maintenance of the state. That, to him, should have been the objective of all leaders. Machiavelli believed that one should do whatever it took, during the given circumstance, to keep his people in favor of him and to maintain the state. Thus, all leaders should have both a sly fox and ravenous wolf inside of him prepared to release when necessary.10

Locke, Marx and Machiavelli describe their views about trusting the human reasoning. John Locke and Karl Marx argues that humans have the capability, to be both reasonable and cognitive and they adapt this nature from their society to be united. However, Niccolo Machiavelli argues that human beings are not being reasonable and are getting disorganized at some point. Marx and Locke believe that people are caring, equal and they have the power to rule themselves. Although Machiavelli describe people as selfish and easily changed. He also wants the people to rule themselves, but he is supporting only upper-class people. Even though all three writers describe different views on human reasoning but they all wanted the government to give freedom of liberty to humans and bring the change around the world.

Machiavelli has a political thinker perspective view. He was a philosopher that behaves badly, being evil to see as well as power it was. “It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.” He believed on these because of the way he saw the world, this quote was developed by his political, military and governance services. He believed that love was stronger than fear. But in the way he structured that quote is that love ends, no matter what it ends, it can be strong but at last you have anything. We can fall easily in love, we can love easily, love comes and goes, you can choose to whom you love, but fear is totally the opposite, fear is much more predictable, is even stronger, you can have eternal fear for someone or something as

Niccolo Machiavelli and John Locke are, in simple terms, two vastly different kinds of people. They were separated by nearly two centuries, and lived in two different countries. Despite their contradictions on sovereignty, both Locke and Machiavelli shared a primary concern- the betterment of society.

After reading about Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau adds a new twist on political philosophy. One common theme in all three philosophies is the idea of a state of nature and coming out of the state of nature into a civilized society. For Hobbes, he sees the state of nature as a state of war and for Locke, he does not see it as barbaric as Hobbes, but one would still have more security with government and it is a fast transition. For Rousseau, on the other hand, he sees individuals coming out of the state of nature as a bad thing, it takes years to actually leave the state of nature and it is unnatural. He sees coming out of the state of nature as a bad thing because he believes it leaves man weak: “The horse, the cat, the bull, and even the ass

But there are several reasons for trying to look deeper, for suspecting that Machiavelli may mean something other than what appears on the surface.[1] First, though he has clearly thought long and deeply about politics, he nowhere tries to give us a systematic account of human nature. His remarks on the subject are remarks – generally in the form of asides intended to reinforce some other point. He is a careful and intelligent observer of the world around him, but there is nothing to suggest that any of his staements on human nature are meant to be self-sufficient and unqualified by what he has to say elsewhere.

say that humans do have personal freedom, but that freedom is hard to keep. He

John Locke and Karl Marx have one thing in common, they both believe in human reasoning. Humans, they suppose, have the ability to be both rational and intellectual beings; they not only learn from those around them but also from their surroundings. Niccolo Machiavelli, however, disagrees with Locke and Marx. He argues that human beings are not reasonable and are chaotic without any such order. Although these three men differ drastically in their views on life and society, as a whole each became radicals that changed the world around them for centuries to come. Locke, Marx, and Machiavelli all based their beliefs on the views of the time period in which they lived and the influences that came with those eras.