Introduction
Regardless of the type of state one speaks of, the concept of human nature is a prerequisite for state formation. There lacks a consensual definition for the state, but it is agreed that “states vary based on who holds power, who elects the empowered, and how authority is managed” (Boundless). Following the previous agreement, one may question: whom is power wield over? In political terms, power often denotes domination over, or management of another- the general population. Then, what decides the method of power usage over citizens? Why might people even need to be managed by such power? To answer these questions, it is vital to understand that human nature is conceptualized by one’s observation of human conduct performed independently …show more content…
This argument is not untrue; one can not simply read The Prince and expect to understand Machiavelli’s view on human nature. Readers should recognize that Machiavelli “was an instinctive dramatist, and one of the dramatic effects he most enjoyed producing was shock and outrage” (Machiavelli, Prince, pg. xvi). Furthermore, the fact that The Prince was destined for Principes- state formers- thus explains Machiavelli’s hesitance to share an account of human nature. So, are Machiavelli’s instructions to state founders formed without a concept of human nature? Well, no. Machiavelli merely does not explicitly engage with his views on human nature within The Prince, however, he presupposes “that all men are bad and that they will use their malignity of mind every time they have the opportunity to” (Machiavelli, Discourses, Book I, ch. 3) in Discourses of Livy. An attentive reader can detect Machiavelli’s “same conviction of deep moral perversion of men” (Machiavelli, Prince, pg 163) by noting his pessimistic tone throughout The Prince as he suggests schemes to the Principes. In short, The Prince lacks a straightforward definition of human nature, but invites readers to be critical of Machiavelli’s lack of faith in humankind as he provides brutal suggestions to manage a …show more content…
And, only through views on human nature, ergo understanding humans, can a state former determine what is required in the state. According to Plato, philosopher kings are the state’s pinnacle creations because they are the most balanced souls that were produced through the state. By virtue of the philosopher kings’ balance, they must awaken their city and its citizens. Whereas, Machiavelli believes that understanding man is the first step to managing a state because state formers have the ideal humanistic views of man. By route of their power, Principes should keep their citizens content. In conclusion, the city develops the people as the people develop the city. Both states require an outlook on human nature for establishment. However, one is not without the other; the development of the state is not without one’s view on human nature. In fact, one’s view on human nature is the framework and foundation that initiates the design of the state. Furthermore, the state is meticulously stipulated in order to breed humans into those specific frameworks. Stipulations of the state such as laws, lifestyles, and person or group in power are generated as the state progresses towards what one could refer to as the final entity; the perfected state and the perfect human. It is finally by means of and with deep respect to both philosophers’
Regardless of the type of state one speaks of, the concept of human nature is a prerequisite for state formation. There lacks a consensual definition for the state, but it is agreed that “states vary based on who holds power, who elects the empowered, and how authority is managed” (Boundless). Following the previous agreement, one may question: whom is power wield over? In political terms, power often denotes domination over, or management of another- the general population. Then, what decides the method of power usage over citizens? Why might people even need to be managed by such power? To answer these questions, it is vital to understand that human nature is conceptualized by one’s observation of human conduct performed independently …show more content…
This argument is not untrue; one can not simply read The Prince and expect to understand Machiavelli’s view on human nature. Readers should recognize that Machiavelli “was an instinctive dramatist, and one of the dramatic effects he most enjoyed producing was shock and outrage” (Machiavelli, Prince, pg. xvi). Furthermore, the fact that The Prince was destined for Principes- state formers- thus explains Machiavelli’s hesitance to share an account of human nature. So, are Machiavelli’s instructions to state founders formed without a concept of human nature? Well, no. Machiavelli merely does not explicitly engage with his views on human nature within The Prince, however, he presupposes “that all men are bad and that they will use their malignity of mind every time they have the opportunity to” (Machiavelli, Discourses, Book I, ch. 3) in Discourses of Livy. An attentive reader can detect Machiavelli’s “same conviction of deep moral perversion of men” (Machiavelli, Prince, pg 163) by noting his pessimistic tone throughout The Prince as he suggests schemes to the Principes. In short, The Prince lacks a straightforward definition of human nature, but invites readers to be critical of Machiavelli’s lack of faith in humankind as he provides brutal suggestions to manage a …show more content…
And, only through views on human nature, ergo understanding humans, can a state former determine what is required in the state. According to Plato, philosopher kings are the state’s pinnacle creations because they are the most balanced souls that were produced through the state. By virtue of the philosopher kings’ balance, they must awaken their city and its citizens. Whereas, Machiavelli believes that understanding man is the first step to managing a state because state formers have the ideal humanistic views of man. By route of their power, Principes should keep their citizens content. In conclusion, the city develops the people as the people develop the city. Both states require an outlook on human nature for establishment. However, one is not without the other; the development of the state is not without one’s view on human nature. In fact, one’s view on human nature is the framework and foundation that initiates the design of the state. Furthermore, the state is meticulously stipulated in order to breed humans into those specific frameworks. Stipulations of the state such as laws, lifestyles, and person or group in power are generated as the state progresses towards what one could refer to as the final entity; the perfected state and the perfect human. It is finally by means of and with deep respect to both philosophers’