Renaissance and Reformation Lecture Notes

Renaissance and Reformation Topic 3: Machiavelli’s The Prince Answer each of the following questions with answers of 200-300 words each. Use the textbook, class materials, and lecture notes to prepare your responses and include APA style citations. Include an APA style reference page at the end of the worksheet. 1. How does Machiavelli view human nature? Machiavelli views human nature as being nothing more than self-preservation. When the Prince comes to power, he is placed in power either through hereditary means or by attaining it through force. It is Machiavelli observation, that people will support the Prince in power because, their own fortune, power, end authority our reliant on the Prince in power (Salem Press, 2017). It is by living under the shadow of those in power, that are loyalties are decided. He further explains that these actions or seeing purely as being logical. But the leaderships goal is to oppress while those underneath this leadership are trying not to be oppressed. That in order to accomplish this goal on either part one cannot do so through fair dealings. Because of this lack of faith in people, one should always remain guarded, even with those whom you think you trust. Machiavelli sees this as a requirement because he feels people will do anything to serve their own interests and selfpreservation. That a Prince who cares for those whom he has become responsible for, that they are less likely to turn on the Prince, but this always must remain a possibility and to safe guarded from. This combination of traits seem animalistic. Where in nature, the only goal of an animal is to survive. 2. Compare and contrast the different ways in which a Prince can rise to power? Machiavelli asserts that in order for anyone to claim power at any level it must be taken by force, you can earn your way into a position of power, or you can do something of great repute and be offered the position to rule. Very little consideration is given to the idea that power can be maintain through the process of hereditary holdings. That for a man to make his position must come through some course of action on his part. Machiavelli discusses early on in the Prince the problems and troubles connected with governing as a monarch who attains position through hereditary lineage (Salem Press, 2017). While there is a great deal to be said about how power is attained, his greatest focus it's on the variety of ways in which a ruler can continue to maintain power once in position of leadership. This is where the greatest contrast comes into play answer the various factors such as culture, shared language, customs, and laws are all major factors not just in the acquisition of power but in the process of maintaining it. Other examples of different styles of leadership promoted by Machiavelli include the creation of colonies (Salem Press, 2017). Such an establishment is deemed inexpensive and easy to maintain because of the descending leadership to land owners. 3. Do you think Machiavelli’s ‘realistic’ advice to aspiring leaders is helpful? What particular advice do you find good or bad? Why?? I find the realistic advice of Machiavelli to be to be helpful to aspiring leaders. the level of logic tide with human nature provides any student of these lessons in almost guaranteed predictable pattern on how people will react to any given situation and interaction. Machiavelli provides details in great length when discussing the nature of man and his desire for selfpreservation. Loyalty It's not freely given, but rather it is purchased by those in power. He makes known that because of the nature of those seeking their own fortune, they are most likely tied not to the leader, but rather to the leaders fortune (Machiavelli, p.59). This level of ambition should be noted by all in power since they are seeking it themselves, they have most likely built their own ranks with likeminded people with similar ambition. At which point, one has to beg the question what level of comfort does a leader have to provide to subside personal desires and in doing so, making their own agenda, the agenda of those whom they rule over. The overall feeling of how leadership is maintained, seems to me to be nothing more than a vail that keeps everyone oblivious of the full truth. Similar to our own modern-day politics. Even in a democracy where we elect our leaders, their own ambitions can still cloud judgment and as long as it does not violate the law, they can remain there for any amount of time. 4. In Chapter 18 Machiavelli discusses the need for a prince to have two natures: a fox and a lion. Why does he say a prince needs both? The attraction of power can begot any man. Machiavelli understood the nature of man and his possible change in perspective when it comes to one’s own position in life. For that reason, he provided a warning to those in power to always be prepared for such possibilities. The analogy of the fox and lion was to show that even from a position of strength, the lion cannot always defend itself from all possible threats, but if he were to apply the cunning of a fox to maintain his position, he is also at both an advantage and disadvantage similarly by not being able to always ward off the wolves. It is a combination of these two ideas that a leader can adopt and implement a plan or decision making by attacking the issue with multiple perspectives and with a varied mindset. To adopt only one could possibly result in falling prey from an unknown threat. His analogy proves best when he explains, “be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves.” (Machiavelli, p.91). This analogy can be adopted in many forms, depending on the application. However, no matter the two used, the key concept is that no issue or problem is presented with only one possible solution or outcome. It must be engaged from multiple sources. This is true of the people whom serve you and to whom you serve. 5. Machiavelli argues that a leader should be both loved and feared, but that if you have to pick one, pick fear. Explain what your position is on this. Have you ever had any personal experience with these two positions? Being an in-school suspension instructor, I am faced with this very issue daily. The goal/vision for my classroom is to modify behavior and encourage students to adopt a mindset of accountability. In doing so, it allows the student to rejoin their regular educational environment ready to engage, interact and learn with their teacher and peers. Modifying behavior can be tricky as your goals on how to do that can vary. To understand why the student is misbehaving can lead to a possible solution. One initially wants to attack the issue from a position of power and create fear because there is a desired sense of justice wanted in order to feel that a consequence has been dealt to the student. However, the other side of the coin is that compassion might better build a relation and convince the student to change their behavior. I initially thought that it was possible to adopt both, but time is a factor in this and because of it a compromise had to be made. That compromise was to create an environment that students do not want to be in to serve a possible deterrent. However, should they make it to me the strategy then becomes one of learning that fosters a relationship. It is easier to relax restrictions, rules and guidelines when people perform to the given expectations. It is harder to take them away if you give it all up front. Much like the fox and lion, there is a duality to everything in this world and it must be approached as such.