Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes Influenced

¶ … Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes influenced the entire direction of political thought within their respective generations. Their influence resulted from political documents that changed the way we view the nature of humanity and political science. They brought a scientific understanding to the perception of politics, rather than a humanistic and rhetorical understanding. The profound difference in the ways in which they approached politics as a science rather than a philosophy challenged traditional thinking and transformed our understanding of politics forever.

Machiavelli's "The Prince" was a revolutionary political document that influenced how we perceived European politics. This document, which was originally written as a political codex for the Medici family of Italy, turned European thinking inside out by explicitly stating rules for pragmatic governance. Many critics argue that Machiavelli's legacy in the long-term is to explain political phenomena in scientific terms. He resided in an era of flourishing scientific thought and an evolving definitional system. Ethics, science, mathematics, and many other fields were no longer thought of as conceptual frameworks, but executable concepts. For Machiavelli, politics was not an arena of rhetoric or ethical understanding, but rather a process that can be documented and understood by governing principles and rules much like any other scientific process. Therefore, his book revolutionarily reduced political governance to its core components.

Prior to the Prince, politics was caste within the light of conceptual rhetoric. The likes of Plato, Aristotle and Roman philosophers approached politics as an understanding of how idealized government and governors operate. Machiavelli's approach however, was to look at governance in a pragmatic setting. He attempts to understand how an individual can govern effectively given the political circumstances of the status quo. This is a unique approach because it focuses on execution rather than conceptualization. As a codex for government, his ideas were not unique nor were he the first one to advocate them, but he is the first to publicly state them in an open and challenging light. Machiavelli's main contribution and his revolution of political science are to understand it as a reality, with governance as a template for how individuals must govern, rather than should govern. Although many critics throughout history have argued the immorality of the rules advocated by the Prince, Machiavelli argues that all moral principles must yield to every circumstance. The essential revolution within Machiavelli's political rhetoric is that he does not believe that there is a tangible connection between ethics and politics, which has been implicitly assumed by all previous philosophers. Machiavelli departs from classical conceptions of virtue, unlike Plato and Aristotle who assert that virtue is the principle quality of all great managers. His politics focuses on real and tangible guidance for leadership; Machiavelli's chief contribution is that he no longer makes politics synonymous with justice.

Specifically, Machiavelli's founding principle is the focus on achieving pragmatic ends of governance and stability. When viewed from an ends perspective, the majority of his rhetoric coincides with other philosophers. For instance, he argues that a Prince must not be hated by his principality. That, "a wise prince should establish himself on that which s his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavor to avoid hatred, as is noted." Hatred engenders a people to unite together despite any obstacles to rise up against their prince, and no matter the military might of the prince, he will be overthrown. This tenant is central to Machiavelli's philosophy because he believes the primary end of any prince is to maintain stability within his kingdom and ensure that his power is permanent. Therefore, when a prince does not engender hatred, then the populace will never have any cause, reason, or even better, any means to rise up against their prince. Not being hated however does not preclude fear. Upon reading the above rule, one might be tempted to think that Machiavelli's intend is pure, however he goes on to say that "it is best to be both feared and loved, however if one cannot be both it is better to be feared than loved." The purpose of this statement is to show that Machiavelli is only concerned with the ends, but he believes that oftentimes immoral and vicious means must be pursued to achieve them. Furthermore, that the intent of all princes should be to use all means necessary to maintain their powerbase.

The works of Thomas Hobbes were revolutionary during his time period. He used his understanding of human nature and extrapolated the need for absolutism within government. The Leviathan was revolutionary in that it expounded Hobbesian concept of a material universe. His essential premise is that everything in the universe consists only of matter in motion. Hobbes believes that all things have a material existence even God, and this allows him to derive a natural philosophy that fits within a framework for modern political thought. Hobbes main contribution is that he postulates a framework for human understanding, that we are in effect beasts in nature, until we have a framework of government. This understanding differs substantially from early philosophers who had a generally positive light of inherent human nature. Hobbes instead, believes that individuals are always self-motivated and myopic which would imply the need for a strong centralize government to ensure our security and general well-being.

The premise of his political conclusions is derived from his understanding of human nature. Hobbes invites us to consider a "state of nature," where a condition without government exists. In this state of nature, there is no perfect private judgment where no agency with recognized authority will arbitrate on disputes nor have the effective power to enforce decisions. Hobbes argues that within this state, "dissolute conditions of masterless men, without subjection to laws, and a coercive Power to tie their hands from rapine, and revenge" would ultimately make impossible all basic securities. Therefore without government, a society will lack all of the comforts, rules and civilization that makes today's life bearable. Within a context of no government, all individuals would act for their own self-interest and this interest would ultimately drive them to a state of war as all individuals fight for their own good. In such a condition there would be "no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no knowledge of the face of the Earth; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Hobbes asserts that a state of nature is the foundation upon all civilization is built and government was enacted to protect men from such a state.