A Comparison of the Prince and the Analects Essays

A Comparison of the Prince and the Analects Essays A Comparison of the Prince and the Analects Essay A Comparison of the Prince and the Analects Essay Essay Topic: The Prince The Prince or The Analects By Rory Steuart Comparing the The Analects (confucious) with the Prince (Machiavelli) is something like comparing George bush and Elizabeth May of the green party. Basically the wrtitings of The Analects totally disagrees with the writings of The Prince. Confucius believes people are easily improved and taught through self promotion and development, Machaveli however sees humanity in a much different light. Machiavelli was an innovator of realism politics and believed that people of power should conduct themselves as tyrants. Machiavelli and Confucius are from totally different time periods and different places in the world. Which could possibly be the reason The Analects and The Prince are so very different(yet both lived in times of war). Machiavelli’s short Bio Niccolo Machiavelli was an Italian state politician and well-known person of the Renaissance. Machiavelli was born on May 3rd, 1469. His father was Bernardo di Niccoli who came from an impoverished part of Florentine, there is little recorded about Machiavelli’s father. Machiavelli lived in Florence at a time of constant war and endangerment of other forces such as France, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire all of which had an interest in Italy (quite possibly the main reason for Machiavelli’s philosophy). Machivelli was a major player in military dealings he had many diplomatic assignments. He met with the likes of Ferdinand II of Aragon, in Spain and to the Papacy in Rome, in the Italian states. Machiavelli examined Duke Cesare Borgia(son of the pope Alexander VI) who was a very important figure in the The Prince. From 1503 to 1509 Machiavelli controlled the militia of Florentine and was responsible for the cities defense. By 1512 the medici had regained control of Florence and decided to expel Machiavelli from office. In 1513, Machavelli was accused of conspiracy, while being contained Machiavelli was tortured but still had nothing to say. Machiavelli was released and retired back to Florence where he then wrote the Prince. Confucius shot Bio Confucius was given the name Kung Fu-tzu which means Great Master Kung. Confucius is believed to have been born either in 551 BC or 552 BC. Confucius father died when he was only three years old so his mother raised him. After the death of his father Confucius and his mother were forced to live in poverty. Confucius was a police chief in the city of Lu where he made many diplomatic arrangements. Confucius dedicated most of the rest of his life towards teaching and he died in Lu in 479 BC. The most thorough usual account of Confuciuss life is contained in the Records of the Historian by Ssu-ma Chien, many people believe this is fake nonetheless it is the closest to a biography of Confucius as you can get. Family Machiavelli does not discuss the thoroughly the importance of family very much in the Prince. However in the very first chapter Machiavelli proclaims that it is much easier to control a hereditary princedom than one that is created or passed over. Confucius was man who believed that a strong family was the key having a strong society. Confucius sees the family as the beginning and the place where great men are brought up in families with good relationships. Confucius also believed that the best teacher is usually a parent. Confucius believed that even if a person was not born smart they could still be taught the more important virtues of respect, loyalty, obedience, humility, trustworthiness and you guessed it love of ones parents. A great deal of importance was concentrated on loving and learning from your parents. War and aggression Since Machiavelli ponders so much on the importance of a strong army and strong defense I will focus much of Machiavelli’s portion of the essay on war and aggression. In the Prince Machiavelli has a win at all costs notion on war, being wicked and immoral are strategies. Machiavelli believed that a Prince should concentrate on being feared before being loved. A prince has land that is always in danger of invasion from others, for this reason Machiavelli believes that a prince should worry about himself and have very little worry for others. A prince has plenty to worry about during times of war and everyone is out to get you so you must be greedy and heinous in times of war. The prince declares that the nation state comes first before individuals. A strong prince can encounter any enemy in war. The prince proclaims a ruler must not depend on fortifications. A ruler who can’t create a fearsome army and relies only on defense is not a strong ruler. Machiavelli does focus a lot on the importance of having a city that is unable to be taken by siege, but if you must be able to raise your own army to go on the attack. Therefore a Prince must have a heavily fortified city and be able to deploy an army of his own. Machiavelli believes that the foundation of a strong Nation State is a strong army. According to The prince the most important part of being a leader is studying the art of war. Staying in power is a main point in the prince and to stay in power a Prince must conduct a strong army. The Prince proclaims not only do you need a strong army but also you need to be in total control of that army. â€Å"Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank† (The Prince nline-literature. com/machiavelli/prince/14/ chapter 14). Even in times of peace a prince must be ready for enemy attacks and more importantly to continually consider the possibility of war. It is obvious that the Prince concentrates a large portion of the book war and author Machiavelli thinks it is the main point of being a political leader. The Prince conveys an almost evil war-mongering ideal to the reader of what a ruler should be. The Analects actually disagrees with The Prince almost totally, the Analects preach that there is no need for war and that peace is the answer. An oppressive government is fiercer and more feared than a tiger† (The Analects). The Analects preach to do what is right and not what gives you an advantage (total opposite of the Prince). Oddly enough like Machiavelli, Confucius was also lived in a time of constant war yet he decided to look at this violence from a different approach. Money and Private Property The prince declares that more importantly than money and other luxuries is political knowledge. Since the prince approaches this all topics as a leader the Prince is concerned mainly with principalities and luxuries. The prince inquires that Property and possessions are necessary for the structure of a successful society. Machiavelli believed property of land makes sure the land will be productive and all people are using land efficiently. The prince states there are only principalities and republics. As a principality the ruler usually gains leadership through hereditary selection. In these cases a Prince should be getting the most productivity from the land. The prince supports tyranny with this comes certain amount greed. The prince states that a ruler must be greedy because if a ruler is too generous with his wealth then his subjects will intend to take advantage of his generosity. Therefore princes must not be too gluttonous but at the same time not be taken advantage of by their peers. Machiavelli insists, â€Å"except to his cost, if he is wise he ought not to fear the reputation of being mean† (chapter 16 The Prince). What this can be translated to is that you cannot get caught up on being loved for generosity instead you must try to deflect hatred from accounting your money. In times of war it is important to have a surplus of goods and money so you do not have to tax your own people. â€Å"In a country Well governed Poverty is something to be ashamed of, in a poorly governed country wealth is something to be a shamed of( rightwords. eu /quotes/author/Confucius39/poverty- 140). The Analects support this very much so in many instances Confucius points out the obvious reasons for poverty. In the Analects it is depicted that the honorable man will concentrate himself on mortality before thinking about poverty, money or profit. The Analects constantly preaches the importance of Mortality and the art of being a gentleman are much more important than being rich in money and other luxuries. Law Authority and Government Machiavelli was an autocrat ruler or at least he was in his writings citing that republics can be easily broken up. Machiavelli strongly believed in principalities for many reasons although he does allow some exception where they can be problematic. The Prince states those principalities, which are passed down hereditarily, are easily entered into. On the other hand principalities taken by force are subject to fall due to the ways the ruler went about taking control of the principality. Machiavelli states a prince must be seen as gracious, and religious, but he must only seem to have these qualities (chapter 15). Princes must only be perceived to have these qualities for a prince will need to act in the opposite manner of these traits in order to keep his power. â€Å"The answer is that one would like to be both the one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far safer to be feared than loved if you cannot be both†(The Prince Chapter 17). Once again a very important point that leadership inquires you is powerful. Confucius was extremely adamant on teaching â€Å"The Way† and even thought that the Government should follow this philosophy. â€Å"The good ruler is obeyed even though he doesnt give orders, while the bad ruler is not, even though he does. How can we know what to obey, if the good ruler doesnt give orders? But we already know what is good, and if we do that, we are obeying the good ruler. The bad ruler simply wants things for himself. There is no eason why we should do that, if we can help it† ( friesian. com/confuciu. htm). The differences in how The Prince says a ruler should be and the Analects are actually humorous how different these schools of thought really are. Leading by example is a reoccurring ideology in the Analects. A person in power is to govern his or her people by example and not by force. Governing by laws and punishments does not cultivate the virtue of the people. â€Å"Go verning by moral force and ritual and good manners does† ( friesian. om/confuciu. htm). The analects does not much talk about the importance of laws and more on the importance of being a superior man. In being a superior man a person of power must be loved and teach his people instead of keeping them in fear. Conclusion In the introduction it was stated that Machiavelli’s the Prince and Confucius Analects were almost complete opposites. On just about every topic the two schools of thought contradict each other. When it comes to family the Prince basically only mentions family if it concerns politics. For example Machiavelli talks a lot about differences between hereditarily owned principalities and ones taken by force. Confucius on the other hand basically speaks on family and especially parents are the building blocks to a person’s life. As for war these to again have totally different ideologies the Prince says a ruler should always study war. On the other hand The Analects preach that a ruler who has to rule with fear and is impart of a lot of wars they have already failed as a ruler. As for fortune Machiavelli saw this as very important and believed a ruler should be very greedy and save his fortune for times where it is needed. Confucius did not see the importance of money or luxury and believed practicing being a gentleman or wise man was much more important. The Prince believes in a realist government that believes in keeping fear in its people and keeping absolute power. Confucius again is much more concerned with having a government that leads its people by example and attempts to improve life. These two obviously cannot agree on anything