Machiavelli's humanist philosophy and lasting influence on leadership

Machiavelli as a Humanist:

Examples and the Lessons He Learns

This report aims to present a clear presentation of Niccolo Machiavelli as a humanist. The underlying objective is to present some specific examples or lessons he may have learned throughout his life experiences which either directly or indirectly helped him become the wise philosopher that is still renowned today. Very few historical works have withstood the tests of time as well as Niccolo Machiavelli's 'The Prince and it is the basis for many assumptions for who he was.

In fact, this work is still considered to be the timeless strategic guide for ultimate personal success. Machiavelli's particular strategic guide is well-known for its appeal to military and political leaders as well as private industry organizers. Thus, the philosophies of Machiavelli may indirectly affect almost every man woman and child in the world today in one way or another in this highly competitive global business and economic spectrum of the twenty-first century. That is because the true leaders of our society today are well versed in his doctrines and can therefore be considered to literally be practitioners of his ideals. Consider the fact that many of the principles that he taught were still applied today during phenomenon such as the Cold War where many suggested assassinations and espionage were approved for spies and soldiers by governmental leaders. and, in the business world, aspects of his works may not be held literally but are still applied in less dramatic fashions. For example, when Machiavelli makes a suggestion to 'eliminate whole opposing families in order to reduce the threat of revenge' in modern business terminology this may be loosely translated into killing a person or an opposing group's careers which today may in a sense be just as effective as any murder.

Humanist

With that being said, who would Machiavelli fair as a humanist? Obviously it would be best to clearly define a humanist and then see if those terms and definitions apply. The problem is that the term Humanism actually has many meanings. For example, in literature, humanism entails that a person is devoted to the humanities or specifically to the literary culture. In a religious sense, Christian Humanism means to be a more human-oriented Christian as opposed to the more modernly common spiritually driven pious person. In other words, one's faith would hold the expectation that man's philosophic self- fulfillment is an excepted aspect of the Christian principles.

All being equal, Humanism is founded on man's input. "...Humans are responsible for the state of the world; we created the beauty and the ugliness of the human condition. We can take credit for the things that go right and we must take responsibility for the things that go wrong." (the Essence of Humanism)

And, because Machiavelli clearly drove the stake between politics and religion during times of religious fervor, I believe that he would have been a true Religious Humanist. Clearly, if we are attempting to define Humanism then, we would need to focus on specific terminologies such as Religious Humanism.

Literary Humanism

Renaissance Humanism

Cultural Humanism

Philosophical Humanism

Christian Humanism

Modern Humanism

Secular Humanism

Religious Humanism

Machiavelli as a Humanist

Humanism's origin has been traced back to the Renaissance and has actually been credited with being an aspect or ingredient of the Renaissance. Religious Humanism grew out of a combination of Ethical Culture, Unitarianism as well as Universalism. To bring the historical ties into the twenty-first century, many modern Unitarian and Universalist congregations and every Ethical Cultural society does still consider itself to be religious humanists and they see religion as an entity that serves specific personal and social needs for any group that shares a philosophical view.

In other words, Humanism is considered to be a naturalistic view that would reject the supernatural or ideas that cannot be proven by reason and/or science. Machiavelli in this sense would have been ideal. He certainly did not follow the accepted ideals of his time that a Prince or other royal members were chosen by God to lead the masses. In fact, he suggested in other writings that this notion was a very successful ploy by those in charge to control those who followed. The separation of church and political state is a very religious humanist position.

Machiavelli would certainly concur with the notion that religion creates distortions and ironies. But Humanists as a group also have underlying problems within their own ranks because they do not agree on certain facts. For example, Modern Humanism splits into two sub-categories, secular and religious. The dispute is between these factions. Ironically, Secular and Religious Humanists seem to share similar worldviews and therefore follow similar principles which was confirmed when each factions created and signed the Humanist Manifesto I in 1933 and the revision in 1973.

Religious Humanists who are secular have an understanding that human beings do have personal and social needs. These needs can only be met through various religions, although these religions would not necessarily entail the modern Christina beliefs involving God. "Religion is rooted in authoritarianism. All religions accept the concept of an infallible God, the word of God as the final authority, the ultimate truth. Anything attributed to God is absolute truth: the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud." (the Essence of Humanism) Machiavelli would agree with this notion whole heartedly based on the assumptions that can be made from his view within the Prince.

The question would be which faction would Machiavelli fit into better? This is because Machiavelli would agree that the concept of a God usually forces a congregation from making decisions between meeting God's needs and meeting man's needs. Machiavelli as a Humanist would also suggests that it is immoral for man to not act because he is waiting for a God to act for him. 'The Prince' was very clear about how to share bread kingdoms and how to lead the masses and at no point was there a period for Godly reflection. So, he would have been a good addition to the Secular view.

But Machiavelli would also have agreed with many points made by the philosophies of religious humanism. Mainly, the ideals of modern science and philosophy have allowed the religious humanists to meet the stresses of modern life and they would state that their philosophy is for the here and now. Religious Humanism offers a foundation in philosophy which includes moral values, ideals, coping methods and ways to deal with adversity such as flood, hurricane or famine. How would a person like Machiavelli feel about the modern issues like teenage sex and how would his ideas be compared to the Catholics' view that protected sex and abortion should not be options for those sexually active teens.

I believe that Machiavelli would side with religious humanists and therefore be more adaptive in use of science and principles of human rights. This notion is based on the fact that the Prince is a very philosophical study of political goals, objectives and concepts and it took a very scientific mind to distinguish fact from fiction and ideals from facts. This in turn would make Machiavelli a good candidate for the Humanist side as well. Religious Humanists reject the notions of sin and guilt which give life a more sensible purpose and Machiavelli would certainly agree.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this report aimed to present a clear presentation that Niccolo Machiavelli would have made an ideal humanist and for the purpose of this work, a religious humanist. The underlying objective was to present specific examples he may have learned throughout his life experiences which could have directly or indirectly been applied to the idea that would have shown him in this light. Through his writing, we can see a clear picture of the man he was and the concepts of life in general he may have held. Like Machiavelli who seemed like a man who thought things through, Humanism is a philosophy that promotes self thought and reflection and basically for people to think for themselves. The Prince is an excellent example of how Machiavelli felt that the church was doing far too much thinking for the royal family.