Comparison of the importance of order according to machiavelli and thoreau

In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau evaluates the federal government critically, contending that it is an artificial institution created by the powerful while acknowledging that it is believed to serve a purpose and is likely to remain a feature of American life. One of the factors that influenced Thoreau to consider civil disobedience as a method of resistance was the poor treatment of Mexico by the United States. In fact, the practice of slavery in the United States is the single most hypocritical aspect of the government as far as Thoreau is concerned.

Comparison of the importance of order according to machiavelli and thoreau

Life and Writings

James Madison College Michigan State University Whoever in his Empire is tyed to no other Rules than those of his own Will and Lust, must either be a Saint or else a very Devil incarnate; or if he be neither of these, both his Life and his Reign are like to be very short; for whosoever takes upon him so execrable an Employment as to rule Men against the Laws of Nature and of Reason, must turn all topsie turvy, and never stick at any thing, for if once he halt he will fall and never rise again Whether Machiavelli were justly accused or no, it would be of immense aid in appraising the moral tendency and intellectual significance of his teaching to ponder why such charges accompanied the teaching and why a fore-runner of liberal democracy Neville thought it imperative to take up the defense.

Whatever Machiavelli wrote about truth and politics carries the burden of having suggested to certain orthodox minds at least an appearance of heterodoxy. But to weigh likewise what is probable de facto to fall out in this corrupt Age of the World Neville, in short, plainly indicates that this unsigned writing ought to be read by the thoughtful rather as illustrative of an appropriate defense for Machiavelli than as a literal defense.

The man who is isolated—who is unable to share in the benefits of political association, or has no need to share because he is already self-sufficient—is no part of the polis, and must therefore be either a beast or a god.

Man, when perfected, is the best of animals; but if he be isolated from law and justice he is the worst of all. That is why, if he be without virtue, he is a most unholy and savage being, and worse than all others in the indulgence of lust and gluttony.

Justice [which is his salvation] belongs to the polis. The brothers had argued that, alone in this manner could Socrates refute the accusation of Thrasymachus that justice was for the simple-minded who did not know their own interest.

Does the revelation of Christ in fact result in leaving man here below wholly in the grip of the devils, the Thrasymachuses, on earth? The apology for Machiavelli collapses the three charges against him into this one, namely that he finds no space for virtue or justice among men, save as tools to be used in pursuit of the ends of power.

That is, politics by definition lowers men. The analysis of the charge against Machiavelli is complicated by the fact that Machiavelli, and not Neville, must in the end speak for Machiavelli. Machiavelli himself, however, in a letter which he did indeed write, suggests how difficult it may be to discern what is his own proper defense: We may let Machiavelli speak for himself, but how shall we understand what he says?

Correlatively, is liberal democracy founded in indifference to justice i. For example, if every possible regime must make light of moral virtue, by what standard would a choice of regime be made?

Finally, how can we separate the real Machiavelli from his image. As did Neville and so many other commentators, Vissing placed the Prince at the center of his analysis.

Nevertheless, Vissing attempted to arrive at a coherent view of Machiavelli based on his entire career of political-administrative service, his private correspondence, and his corpus of works.

That is precisely what Vissing set out to accomplish. It must first be acknowledged, however, that he had a high hurdle to scale in the form of the claim to Guiccardini that Machiavelli never said what he thought nor thought what he said.

We may parse that claim in a manner to further this enterprise, namely, in terms of the possible addressees of speech delivered in that mode.Thoreau Pieper and Plato on What Philosophy Is br essays and term papers available at vetconnexx.com, the largest free essay community.

Machiavelli stresses the importance of maintaining order while Thoreau suggests reform. Although their views are different both men approach their positions in an aggressive manner. Machiavelli's approach for his audience would be through fear and power while Thoreau's approach for his audience would be through nonviolent acts, such as being a /5(2).

Comparison of Lao Tzu and Machiavelli. Comparison of Lao Tzu and Machiavelli It is obvious to most people the differences between black and white, According to Machiavelli, Machiavelli stresses the importance of maintaining order while Thoreau suggests reform.

Comparison of the importance of order according to machiavelli and thoreau

Although their. The Great Philosophers: Henry David Thoreau. Facebook Twitter Email.

Comparison of the importance of order according to machiavelli and thoreau

Henry David Thoreau (originally David Thoreau, ) reminds us about the importance of simplicity, authenticity, and downright disobedience. and other people’s views in order to live according to our inner nature.

Niccolò Machiavelli

Machiavelli stresses the importance of maintaining order while Thoreau suggests reform. Although their views are different both men approach their positions in an aggressive manner. Machiavelli's approach for his audience would be through fear and power while Thoreau's approach for his audience would be through nonviolent acts, such as being a /5(2).

Machiavelli stresses the importance of maintaining order while Thoreau suggests reform. Although their views are different both men approach their positions in an aggressive manner. Machiavelli’s approach for his audience would be through fear and power while Thoreau’s approach for his audience would be through nonviolent acts, such as.

Henry David Thoreau (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)