compare and contrast kant and machiavelli?
90332
Hmm, does someone have a politcal theory midterm coming up?\n\nKant was largely a predecessor to Marx/Engels and was critisizing the same social structures they work and their inevitable ends of ruin. \n\nMachiavelli on the other hand was an advocate of the totalitarian ideal. Force makes right, but the quite "The ends justifies the means.", in itself is not correct. Even Niccolo would not entirely agree with that. \n\nTheir deep philophies are much to deep to get into because they were largely addressing different periods in political history.  Machiavelli was witnessing Roman decline and revolution, while Kant was witnessing the rise of the industrial revolution and its impacts upon the masses. \n\nIs there a specific topic you were intrested in like free will? social revolution or something?
1024490
hey..try project guttenberg , lots of online book there! good luck. Bdway, The Prince by Machiavelli is an interesting read and its THIN :) \n\nhttp://www.gutenberg.org/\n\nHave fun!
264665
Here's some interesting reading that I've found while looking for an answer to your question. I hope this helps. I'm not a philosophy major, but I do find it very interesting.\n\n"Interpreting Hobbes as the father of classical liberalism, Manent identifies Thomas Hobbes as the champion of absolute political authority-as the founding and paradigmatic liberal."\nhttp://www.dailyrepublican.com/liberalhistory.html\n\n"Why is a modern state disposed to destroy the corporate liberty of independent social authorities and concentrate power to the centre? And why is this destruction perceived as morally legitimate? The answer was given in 1651 by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan, which frames the first and most profound theory of the modern state. Hobbes pictures mankind as an aggregate of egoists in a state of nature without government, each pursuing his own power and glory without restraint. Since this is a self-defeating condition of constant conflict, rational egoists compact with one another to form a government for the sake of peace and stability. The sole end of the Hobbesian state is to maximize the individual's autonomy."\nhttp://www.southernevents.org/tyranny_of_liberalism_and_its_ev.htm\n\n"Among the constitutional provisions of the new United States of America one of the most important in limiting the power of government was held to be the device of the separation of powers. This represented a challenge not only to absolutism, but also to the theory of sovereignty, which had been used to give intellectual support to absolutism and to the more general principle of the supremacy of the state. Hobbes had argued that the only adequate bulwark against division, civil conflict and chaos within a society was the establishment of a single and indivisible ultimate authority—a sovereign."\nhttp://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/arblaster.htm\n\nhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hobmoral.htm
1138128
"Vanity and pride are different things, though the words are often used synonymously. A person may be proud without being vain. Pride relates more to our opinion of ourselves, vanity to what we would have others think of us."   Jane Austen~PRIDE AND Prejudice
282846
Following are a few comparisons:\n\nIn common. . . . . . \n\nBoth were to honor those who gave their lives in the cause. With Pericles saying, “But I should have preferred that, when men's deeds have been brave, they should be honored in deed only, and with such an honor as this public funeral, which you are now witnessing.” And Lincoln saying, “But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow, this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have hallowed it, far above our poor power to add or detract.\n\nBoth spoke to those who came before with Pericles saying, “I will speak first of our ancestors, for it is right and seemly that now, when we are lamenting the dead, a tribute should be paid to their memory. There has never been a time when they did not inhabit this land, which by their valor they will have handed down from generation to generation, and we have received from them a free state. But if they were worthy of praise, still more were our fathers, who added to their inheritance, and after many a struggle transmitted to us their sons this great empire. “ And then Lincoln saying, “Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.“\n\nBoth spoke to carry on with Pericles saying, “To you who are the sons and brothers of the departed, I see that the struggle to emulate them will be an arduous one. For all men praise the dead, and, however preeminent your virtue may be, I do not say even to approach them, and avoid living their rivals and detractors, but when a man is out of the way, the honor and goodwill which he receives is unalloyed.”  Lincoln saying, “It is rather for us the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."\n\n\nIn terms of differences. . . . . \n\nLincoln’s speech was a one time thing and the Pericles’ speech was part of a custom of Athenians to hold an elaborate funeral for those killed in War. \n\nLincoln’s speech was only 235 words and Pericles’ speech was 2,811 words...
185015
Compare them to Shakespeare's life and times, or perhaps find modern parallels.
1150523
Individuality versus state control I think. I read it a long time a ago.
586400
Machiavelli supported tyranny because he thought that emperors and kings had the divine right to rule, and then therefore had the best ideas overall. He also thought that if a strong leader kept people in line, even with semi-harsh rules, that it was what was best for the people.
388981
if you are talking about the Italian Renaissance, then it was because of the humanist ideas, which differed greatly from those of the middle ages (or dark ages because of little cultural progress).  the humanists had new ways of thought, such reformation included new behaviorial guidelines, such as the Prince by Machiavelli.
67301
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)\n\nJohn Locke (1632-1704)\n\nVoltaire (1694-1778) given name Francois Marie Arouet\n\nMarquis de Condorcet ( 1743-1794)
574596
It's been a while, but Demosthenes and Locke where the names used by the two to write papers.  They were a bit young, so if they wrote under their real names, most likely they wouldn't be taken seriously.  Also, the two of them tried to write opposing views most of the time so that it would be difficult to pinpoint that it was essentially the same people writing both points of view.\n\nOften, they would use these contrasting points of view to strengthen their arguments that they were trying to get across.
467817
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
298116
it depends what you are compareing it to. Do you need 2 readings to compare of do you alreasy have a reading or event to compare one to. do you need a book or any literature? what subject or specific topic?\n\ni've read a lot of good books, poems, and essays+, but can't really recomend anything unless i have more. feel free to contact me if you can provide more info.
369258
You can do Nietzsche and Søren Kierkegaard.  Big difference.
323065
There are way too many comparisons to even get started.  The economic circumstances as they relate to foreign trade and relations are nearly identical.  The "military advantage" over the conquered is identical.  The transformation of republic into totalitarian rule is identical.  To think that just because we repeat history but we throw more money and we have more technology so the outcome will be different is just ignorance and arrogance mixed...which the Romans had in spades just like us.
926684
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13677a.htm\nhttp://www.jbuff.com/c062801.htm\nhttp://dmoz.org/Society/Philosophy/Philosophers/N/Nietzsche,_Friedrich/
638057
Machiavelli, author of The Prince, was a philosopher. He believed that giving all the power to a single person would have beneficial outcomes on the society the person controlled. Hope I helped.