Rousseau as Machiavelli does warn regarding certain religions. Rousseau speaks against
Christianity. Rousseau believes Christians live in their own planet and he explains that their world is not here on earth, “But this religion, since it has no particular relation to the body politic, leaves the laws with only the force the derive from themselves without adding any force to them, and, due to this, one of the great bonds of any particular society remains ineffectual”
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 268).
Rousseau goes more in detail in his argument against Christianity and believes
Christianity alone can lead to vice and destruction in any regime, “What is more, far from attaching the citizens’ hearts to the state, it detaches them from it as it does from all earthy things. I know …show more content…
Machiavelli and Rousseau both speak of Moses but where they differ is in the accomplishments and roles of Moses. Moses was a leader, but regarding Machiavelli he distinguishes Moses from all other rulers. He states since Moses had divine intervention and guidance he gives most credit to God, since God was the one who chose him to begin with and gave him specific instructions before, during and after he became a leader.
If God would have not chosen him, he would have never become a leader or accomplished the things he did. “Let us look at those who through their own skill, and not merely through chance, have become rulers. In my view, the greatest have been Moses, Cyrus,
Romulus, Theseus, and other like them. Obviously, we should not discuss Moses’ skill, for he was a mere agent, following the instructions given by God. So he should be admired, not for his own skill, but for that grace that made him worthy to talk with God” (Machiavelli, Niccolò, 18-
19).
Machiavelli is more definite referring to Moses and has more facts regarding his life.
Machiavelli sees God as a great factor in human life, also fate and fortune;
Christianity. Rousseau believes Christians live in their own planet and he explains that their world is not here on earth, “But this religion, since it has no particular relation to the body politic, leaves the laws with only the force the derive from themselves without adding any force to them, and, due to this, one of the great bonds of any particular society remains ineffectual”
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 268).
Rousseau goes more in detail in his argument against Christianity and believes
Christianity alone can lead to vice and destruction in any regime, “What is more, far from attaching the citizens’ hearts to the state, it detaches them from it as it does from all earthy things. I know …show more content…
Machiavelli and Rousseau both speak of Moses but where they differ is in the accomplishments and roles of Moses. Moses was a leader, but regarding Machiavelli he distinguishes Moses from all other rulers. He states since Moses had divine intervention and guidance he gives most credit to God, since God was the one who chose him to begin with and gave him specific instructions before, during and after he became a leader.
If God would have not chosen him, he would have never become a leader or accomplished the things he did. “Let us look at those who through their own skill, and not merely through chance, have become rulers. In my view, the greatest have been Moses, Cyrus,
Romulus, Theseus, and other like them. Obviously, we should not discuss Moses’ skill, for he was a mere agent, following the instructions given by God. So he should be admired, not for his own skill, but for that grace that made him worthy to talk with God” (Machiavelli, Niccolò, 18-
19).
Machiavelli is more definite referring to Moses and has more facts regarding his life.
Machiavelli sees God as a great factor in human life, also fate and fortune;