Though Machiavelli and Thoreau both speak
of the human condition, they both have very different views of human nature. Machiavelli is much more harsh and
Thoreau views humans in a much brighter light.
In Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience, he says
that people should always do what they believe is right and not to “go with the
flow.” If someone believes in something, then they need to do everything in
their power to change it and to make a difference to the best of their
abilities. Machiavelli, on the other hand, in his work, “The Prince,” believed
that a prince had to do whatever it took to stay in power and to remain in
control. Machiavelli’s ideas are
more ruthless in the sense that Machiavelli preached to ignore religion, morals,
and society in order to get what you want. Thoreau’s ideas are more ethical and might be considered
more “wholesome.”
Machiavelli says that men are,
“…ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, fearful, of danger and greedy for
gain.” (Machiavelli, 461) Machiavelli sees the worst in humans and cannot seem
them for their good. His negative
impression of the masses also affects his text as he advises all princes to
invoke fear rather than love over his subjects. Fear is much more powerful than love and all princes should
care about is power and control. Thoreau sees the lighter side of the
human condition and has more faith in humans. Thoreau thinks that the State can only achieve complete and
total power when individuals are considered the epitome of significance. For the majority of history, the
majority has been more valued over the individual, but Thoreau’s idea is quite
revolutionary in saying that the complete opposite is true.
Another major difference between
Machiavelli and Thoreau is that Thoreau is more concerned with the State (the
U.S. government) and the people, whereas Machiavelli cares more about the
Prince and the power he holds. For example, Thoreau was very much
against the war with Mexico. He
believed that its cause was not a just one. However, he is not against fighting and war: he is against
fighting without a cause.
Machiavelli, according to “The Prince,” wouldn’t care whether or not the
war had a cause, but only if it would pay off eventually.
Hey boo, good job! The only things I would suggest would be to introduce the philosophers with their works at the beginning because I was a bit confused when you said "Machiavelli on the other hand, in his work, "The Prince"...". Also try to wrap your ideas up and add a conclusion. Other than that well done!
ReplyDeleteOk Sophia a few things. First although I agree that Machiavelli saw the worst in people, I disagree with your statement that Thoreau didn’t. However, that doesn’t me that he wasn’t more moral than Machiavelli (he definitely was). Machiavelli was willing to all sorts of horrible things to stay in power, whereas Thoreau felt much more inclined to act upon his convictions. Nevertheless, in some ways I believe Machiavelli’s line of thought was more rational than Thoreau’s. For example, while both agreed the ends justify the means, Machiavelli was much more adamant about this principal. In other words, I could easily see Thoreau being one of those guys who would stick by his principles (no matter how trivial) at the expense of getting something great done.
ReplyDeleteOverall I thought this comparison was solid. I like how you summarized whole ideas in modern phrases with quotations. One last thing though, both the US government and the prince are the same thing, they are both considered the “state.” A prince may be an individual whereas the US government a massive bureaucracy however they both still are government.