OPPapers.com

Machiavelli

The different views taken by two major European influences about government ideals. The Prince versus Utopia.
“During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in the conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man,” said, English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes in an unconscious agreement with Machiavellian rule. Contrary to the view portrayed by Hobbes, Emil Cioran, Romanian philosopher, says quite the opposite, “Life without utopia is suffocating, for the multitude at least: threatened otherwise with petrifaction, the world must have a new madness.” Is it madness to be suppressed by a ruler or by the complete uniformity of a community? These are two ideals to consider when comparing The Prince, written by Niccolò Machiavelli and Utopia, written by Sir Thomas More.

When looking for the definition of the word “utopia,” it is possible to stumble upon one of two things: A state of social or political perfection, or an impractically idealistic goal or scheme. The purpose for these contradicting definitions is to demonstrate that there cannot be a perfect word, much less a perfect world. Sir Thomas More's Utopia is an imaginary, socialistic society that is secluded on an island. Its premise consists of a socially connected community and family, a “help yourself” look on education, and a thriving sense of Christianity in all aspects. While More strives for perfection, Machiavelli presents a monarchy flourishing from its absolute realism. The Prince was written in an effort to advise new rulers how to keep power once it's gained and acquire even more. A Machiavellian ruler is one of pride, which is esteemed as well as liked by his people, will risk cruelty to attain authority and does not rely on fortune but takes the opportunities given to him. But when weighed against each other, is either society better?

Although both nation-states are strongly united, how they are united is very different. Under...