1.How does Machiavelli view human nature?
Machiavelli differs from the many political theorists who offer conceptions of a "natural
state," a presocial condition arising solely from human instinct and character. But while
Machiavelli never puts forth a vision of what society would be like without civil
government, he nonetheless presents a coherent, although not particularly comprehensive,
vision of human nature. Machiavelli mentions explicitly a number of traits innate among
humans. People are generally self-interested, although their affections for others can be
won and lost. They remain content and happy so long they avoid affliction or oppression.
They might be trustworthy in prosperous times, but they can turn selfish, deceitful, and
profit-driven in adverse times. They admire honor, generosity, courage, and piety in
others, but most do not harbor these virtues. Ambition lies among those who have
achieved some power, but most common people are satisfied with the way things are and
therefore do not yearn to improve on the status quo. People will naturally feel obligated
after receiving a favor or service, and this bond is usually not broken capriciously.
Nevertheless, loyalties are won and lost, and goodwill is never absolute. These statements
about human nature often serve as justification for much of Machiavelli's advice to
princes. For example, a prince should never trust mercenary leaders because they, like
most leaders, are overly ambitious. At the same time, while many of Machiavelli's
remarks on the subject seem reasonable, most are assumptions not grounded in evidence
or popular notions and can easily be criticized. For example, a Hobbesian might argue
that Machiavelli puts too much faith in people's ability to remain content in the absence
of government force. A related issue to explore, then, might be the extent to which
Machiavelli's political theory relies too heavily on any single, possibly fallacious
depiction of human nature
Machiavelli believed that human nature is inherently selfish and prone to deceit, and that people are primarily motivated by self-interest and ambition. He argued that rulers should be willing to use any means necessary, including deception and brutality, in order to maintain power and control.
Machiavelli lived in the 14 and 1500s and as a philosopher he advised rulers in his book The Prince(1532) that they were more effective leaders if they ruled their people by fear. "It is better to rule by fear than by love." Although it seems cruel, which was what he was suggesting, many rulers followed his advise.
He thought about doing your mom was the greatest he could do.
self centered
human nature was self-centered
Petrarch and Machiavelli were both Italian Renaissance writers who deeply influenced literature and political thought. Despite their different areas of focus (Petrarch on poetry and humanism, Machiavelli on political philosophy), they both grappled with the complexities of human nature and ethics in their works.
Machiavelli's ideal for human behavior in "The Prince" emphasizes power, ruthlessness, and deceit for political success, while Erasmus advocates for virtues like kindness and honesty in "The Praise of Folly." Machiavelli believes that leaders should prioritize effectiveness over morality, whereas Erasmus promotes a more ethical and humanistic approach to governance. This fundamental difference in their philosophies reflects contrasting views on leadership and human nature.
i think that we were not at all any monkeys so animals can not change there nature to human nature
it should be based on an understanding of human nature, which he believed was basically self-centered
Machiavelli is often seen as not embodying the characteristics of a Machiavellian figure because his work "The Prince" was mainly a commentary on political strategy and government rather than a guide for deceit and manipulation. Additionally, Machiavelli's other works, such as his historical writings, show a more nuanced and complex understanding of human nature and ethics.
The Blind Side of Human Nature.
I think it's human nature to be fascinated by them.
Hobbes believed that humans are inherently self-interested and driven by a desire for power and survival. He thought humans were naturally in a state of conflict and chaos, leading to the need for a strong central authority to maintain order. Locke, on the other hand, believed that humans are born as blank slates, with the potential for reason and cooperation, and that they have natural rights to life, liberty, and property.
It's just human nature and the way we think.
He wrote about human nature and he was one of the first people in literature that wrote in the vernacular or the everyday language. Which came before Latin. I'm in seventh grade l0l
Human Nature - Human Nature album - was created on 2000-12-01.