Machiavelli Machiavelli’s The Prince is a handbook for rulers on how to run a state. Unlike previous works on this topics Machiavelli starts by describing the true nature of man. Previous works were based on an ideal model of citizens, were people are honest, loyal, law abiding, and generous. Machiavelli says that in reality “men are ungrateful, fickle, dissembling, cowardly, and jealous.” Machiavelli argues that princes must use ruling techniques that are effective given mans nature. Likewise, the prince must have qualities that are less than ideal in order to be an excellent ruler.
Hamlet would have been an exceptional king because of his character and his willingness to sacrifice for his country. His actions throughout the book can be described as brash and extreme but his decisions are not uninformed. The challenges he faces are unimaginable and difficult but he perseveres and acts in a way that he believes will serve his country best. These are the actions of a mature and able leader who is fit to run a country. Hamlet is aware of plots against him and he believes this will be bad for Denmark.
One reason is that anytime men are able to take up arms against the local government so that they may improve their lives; they are fooling themselves. A prince will have to do harm those who helped him rise to power because he is forcing them to live with any of the problems he will have taking the principality and holding the acquired territory. Because of these things you are opposed by the people who opposed you from the start and the people who helped you overthrow the territory. It will always be difficult to acquire new territories. New difficulties
The source states that any criticism of Cardigan should be ‘generous and sympathetic’ and gives the impression that he was a courageous officer as the judge stated ‘not one that should seek to cast a stain upon his courage and his personal honour as an officer’. Source 2 about Lord Cardigan’s honour and rank as though that should make him immune to harsh criticism so it challenges Source 1 suggesting that Lord Cardigan was too honourable to receive such harsh criticism. As Source 2 states that Cardigan has ‘courage and personal honour’ this is similar in Source 3 as he describes the Army with a high ‘sense of duty’. Source 3 supports Source 2 as it suggests that the staff were being ‘unfairly criticised’ and that there is ‘no staff officer to whom I would object’. Source 3 challenges Source 1 to a great extent; most of Source 3 contradicts the content in source 1.
In his view, the end to political instability justifies the means no matter how shady they may be. He states, “Many have imagined republics and principalities that have never been seen or known to exist in reality. For there is such a difference between the way men live and the way they ought to live.... because anyone who determines to act in all circumstances the part of a good man must come to ruin among so many who are not good.” (Machiavelli p.186) Many of the virtues advocated for in The Prince are apparent in Claudius’ character from William Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet. Hamlet tells of the various activities that take place during a questionable shift of royal power in Denmark. It is the acquisition and maintenance of this power that shows just how Machiavellian Claudius’ character is in the play.
For Obama to be a Machiavellian prince he does not only need power, but it depends on how it’s used through military matters. It is considerable to consider Obama a prince because he focuses on cutting government spending on the military. Also, he deals with being blamed on how a prince should keep his word. – This last sentence does not blend with the paragraph- The opposition claims that he won the presidency not by good fortune and not through his own truthful words. They say he turned the key to “weak masters” and begged to foreign directors.
4. It tells us that Macbeth has a conscience. He does not want to spoil somebody else’s destiny for his own future. It is important because it emphasises on the conflict he is going to suffer from and that if he murders the king, he would not be happy about it. Scene 4 1.
In Shakespeare’s, ‘Macbeth’, the act of betrayal demonstrates the absolute conflict echoing within our human soul, challenging the strength of their moral values in scenarios that provide the reward of power in commerce of for one’s devotion and honor. Macbeth, was once a warrior of Scotland, the story focuses on a man detached entirely from his loyalty –greedy to gain authority in the hollow shell that used to encompass devotion. Although desiring such an esteemed of power of entitlement, the Thane of Cawdor demanded the loyalty one receives as royalty while severing his allegiance to his ruler in the process; the murder of King Duncan. A king holding such high regards to his soon-to-be murderer, he even introduces Macbeth as the “Worthiest
Macbeth will have to stand up or give up because Duncan is in his way of becoming a king. Macbeth will not let Duncan's actions get in his way of becoming a king but in the end he would have to live with the upcoming consequences. At this point, he is so power hungry that he decides to hire murderers to go kill Banquo and his son Fleance. "Our fears in Banquo Stick deep, and in his royalty of nature Reigns that which would be fear'd" (III. i.
In my personal experience I have found the latter to be true. Life is given value and meaning by one enjoying and accepting it. Someone once said “You should not fear death, but fear the unlived life”. This means that one should not fear the end of a journey, but enjoy the trip. To me this is absolutely true.