The Prince is debatably the initial composition of contemporary dogmatic philosophy, and unique from its practicality-versus-perfectionism contemplation. It is not meant as a universal moral philosophy for the public, but rather a narrowly directed guide for politicians. However, the government style he creates in Prince contradicts with the republic he creates supports in Discourses. The Renaissance era, acknowledged for its confinement of numerous significant philosophers, such as Machiavelli, who believed to be the father of political science and a political philosopher (Potter, Barzun). Originally, Machiavelli wrote The Prince to aspire of obtaining the approval of the Medici family, and he intentionally constructed its assertions provoking
…show more content…
He uses religion and the burdens of the people to alter the populous ' views on the structure and actions of government in order to gain power again. He does not make clear his true thoughts on the actions a government should take and how much power each section of government gets. Instead, he writes in a sophist style being vague and contradictory to gain the support of various politically powerful individuals, using references from the bible and Aristotle as the major supporting evidence of his thought. In Discourses, (Bk. 1 Ch. II), Machiavelli writes that humans do not require civilization, as opposed to Aristotle’s Politics conception that with no participation in government, humans are simply animals. Yet both politicians discuss the basic principles and Machiavelli 's theory of the cycle of government heavily borrows on Aristotle 's cycle of government. In following Machiavelli 's Discourses chapter two, Machiavelli goes against the Christian teaching of the day that Theocracy is the ideal form of government, by holding that a republic is the ideal, that the centralized ruler 's (the Pope) actions should be monitored by a council of nobility and common folk. Machiavelli essentially secularized the story of Adam and Eve in the garden; he ignores the majority of the story and selectively picks the parts that most support his arguments. He is contradicting the story of Adam and Eve being the first persons by stating that multiple groups of people that come together to form a community ruled by a single chief or king, whereas within the bible Adam and Eve met no one and lived their lives in exile from the safety of the
He uses religion and the burdens of the people to alter the populous ' views on the structure and actions of government in order to gain power again. He does not make clear his true thoughts on the actions a government should take and how much power each section of government gets. Instead, he writes in a sophist style being vague and contradictory to gain the support of various politically powerful individuals, using references from the bible and Aristotle as the major supporting evidence of his thought. In Discourses, (Bk. 1 Ch. II), Machiavelli writes that humans do not require civilization, as opposed to Aristotle’s Politics conception that with no participation in government, humans are simply animals. Yet both politicians discuss the basic principles and Machiavelli 's theory of the cycle of government heavily borrows on Aristotle 's cycle of government. In following Machiavelli 's Discourses chapter two, Machiavelli goes against the Christian teaching of the day that Theocracy is the ideal form of government, by holding that a republic is the ideal, that the centralized ruler 's (the Pope) actions should be monitored by a council of nobility and common folk. Machiavelli essentially secularized the story of Adam and Eve in the garden; he ignores the majority of the story and selectively picks the parts that most support his arguments. He is contradicting the story of Adam and Eve being the first persons by stating that multiple groups of people that come together to form a community ruled by a single chief or king, whereas within the bible Adam and Eve met no one and lived their lives in exile from the safety of the