Confucius Vs Machiavelli Comparison example essay topic

Confucius vs. Machiavelli The worlds that Machiavelli and Confucius wrote out their archetypal ideas of society in the contemporary times of which they both existed were extremely different. Machiavelli wrote his piece called The Prince as a how to rule for dummies type of book meant for the upper class as a means of becoming more educated about the world during the period of humanism in the early 14th century. His works were published an admired for his writing style and flawless reprimanding of leaders during that time or even before that as, having travelled as a diplomat for the ten of War he visited France, Spain and other countries which allowed him to broaden his view of the world and write with a more jaded depiction. Confucius on the other hand wrote The Analects as a means of life for everyone in ancient china to follow as a type of guide for life women, children and the role of men are all discussed in this book rather than the ruling methods a prince can use. The analects were written as a way of life which was carried for a very long time in china and were used on a daily religious basis in china this shows us that Confucius was not paving the way for new though and ideas the way Machiavelli did this shows us that Confucius wanted no change and a very simplistic world in which everyone has a role and every role has a person to play it. The very core of this is that Machiavelli is progress Confucius is tradition.

It can be discussed that the works of Machiavelli can be defined by modern terms as the Howard stern of the renaissance. His style of writing is mostly that of criticism he preaches that the ends justifies the means in a harsh world of gaining, maintaining, and ruling the populace in general. However he gives us an enlightened view of politics by writing at times, directly to his prince "the country will not be exploited by your officials" (pg. 9) but then goes right back to referring to people in the second person. At certain times he can actually insult the reader " since they are controlled by a higher power, which the human mind cannot comprehend, I shall refrain from discussing them" (pg. 40).

I also find that the shortness of the paragraphs is easier to define each subject topic in length without running over any other topics therefore everything that needs to be said is, such as chapter V "Those who become rulers through wicked means". I also enjoy how he justifies his ideas through the screw ups of others " such invaders are always helped by malcontents within the country, who are moved either by their own overweening ambition or by fear (fear of the ruler), as happened in Greece where the Aeolians were responsible for the invasion by the Romans". (Pg, 10). His criticism is mostly defined in three ways how you should do it, why you should do it, and how people have already screwed up.

How you should accomplish something can be depicted in chapters I, IV, V, VI, V. The first chapter in this discussion is the different types of principalities and how they are acquired therefore the book starts off by defining the dominions about to be discussed throughout the book therefore either a republic or a principality. And then goes into detail about each of the two and their sub divisions of rule; either a principality is new of hereditary. The second and third chapter goes through more detailed accounts of principalities. However the third chapter in its discussion of a mixed principality discusses the strategies used by the Romans and criticises them at the same time.

Machiavelli then goes on to discuss the current politics of the time by starting off with the king of France and his policies regarding the capture of Italy, it is mentioned that he will not discuss Charles V because Louis held Italy for longer, which is a discourteous comment towards the Spanish monarchy. The book also allows people to learn how to hold onto a kingdom and the most straightforward effortless ways to do so such as in chapter V when Machiavelli discusses " How one should govern cities or principalities that, before being conquered, used to live under their own laws" which he explains in three methods"; the first to destroy the political institutions; second, to go live there yourself (and govern); the third, to let them continue to live under their own laws, exacting tribute and setting up an oligarchical government that will keep the state friendly towards you" (pg. 17-18). In his second idea of why you should do it the topic is clearly explained throughout the whole book, the reason for why you should conquer is to gain land, every monarch of the time wanted to expand his territory whether it was Charles, Louis, or the Ottomans in an attempt to recreate the old roman empire, or merely to gain money, power, respect or a workforce / standing army. It clearly defines during the entirety of the book the reasons a prince would want to expand into another country, as quoted by Machiavelli on page 13 " Wanting to annex territory is indeed very natural and normal, and when capable men undertake it, they are always praised or, at least, not criticised". Therefore that leaves us with how Machiavelli would in fact, criticise princes that have undertaken the task of annexing territory, and if they have lost it, will pass judgement on them by picking part their strategy, politics, or ideals of the steps they have taken. Throughout the chapters, as Machiavelli picks apart the strategies he also cites examples of past rulers, such as chapter mixed principalities he talks about the Roman's and the conquering of Greece.

Or In chapter IV discusses at length "why the kingdom of Darius, conquered by Alexander, did not rebel against his successors after Alexander's death" and Machiavelli uses contemporary examples of this by citing the contemporary politics of France and Spain. Another reasons to use the critiquing of practice is for a prince to learn from another ruler's mistakes if he reads the book, such as chapter XIV "How a ruler should act concerning military matters, here again he cites examples of great military leaders and the examples they set for others "as it is said that Alexander the great imitated Achilles, Caesar imitated Alexander, and Scipio imitated Cyrus". (Pg. 53). To begin on Confucius is harder to begin on Machiavelli he had a very simplistic goal, and got those ides out on paper.

Confucius however wrote about everything all at once, whether its how the teacher acts with the student or how not to think evil or "swerving not from the right path" (pg. 63) or religion " to offer sacrifice to the spirit of an ancestor not one's own is obsequious 'Faced with what is right, to leave it undone shows a lack of courage'". (Pg. 66) or even the example from the rubbings on the Wu family shrine on how to act every day. Confucius was a way of life for people for a very long time in china. One of the main things that is different about Confucius and Machiavelli is Confucius doesn't talk about the past, or the present, he's very vague on details when he writes and analects and only writes what's needed to be said.

As I said early Confucius preaches a traditional way of life when he wrote his books to promote the Chinese version of the American Dream so to speak. In his writings Confucius spoke as if he were a god to point he lived his life to these principals and everyone loved him for it, he travelled all over the country acted like royalty, and spoke as if everyone should act like the saint that he is like when he wrote " to serve high officials when abroad, and my elders when at home, in arranging funerals not to dare to spare myself, and to be able to hold my drink- these are trifles that give me no trouble" (pg. 98) which basically said that, he won't laugh at a funeral, and he won't get drunk and make a fool of himself, how could he possibly have any problems in his life if he does that? Or when he wrote", Make it your guiding principle to do best for others and to be trustworthy in what you say. Do not accept a friend as anyone who is not as good as you. When you make a mistake do not be afraid of mending your way" (pg. 99) parts of this also appear in book one analects number eight. Which is basically saying that you should establish yourself on loyalty and trust, only ally yourself with equals, but most importantly if you make a mistake own up to it.

This is something that would not be covered in the prince however political alliances with other countries or feuding divisions of conquered people within the ruling class. People are addressed in the Prince whereas people in the analects aren't even mentioned there is just the master being Confucius and what the master said, of course there is the peanut gallery and assortment of Confucius' followers and they add a little bit here or there like " Tseng Tzu said, 'a gentleman makes friends through being cultivated, but looks to friends for support in benevolence'". (Pg. 117) In comparison with Machiavelli Confucius doesn't have more of an opinion but doesn't voice it in the same way. When Machiavelli speaks about annexing land, keeping followers loyal, principalities, Generosity, and meanness. And Confucius writes in amore broader sense which allows him to voice more of an opinion but doesn't, of course he is still stating that this is how something should be done, viewed, or carried out by but still doesn't give the reader a sense of whether or not this is what he had intended therefore its just viewed as his word is law. However there are a few minor similarities if any at all when Confucius speaks about how a man should act and carry himself to better himself in the world is a base for the analects and the same principal applies to part of Machiavelli's teachings on how a prince should act or carry himself if he is to be a successful ruler or a good political strategist.

Of course the writing styles are completely different Machiavelli discusses what he thinks is a good strategy for conquering a country, the steps you will need to undergo to conquer this country, such as hire mercenaries, build up and army, make alliances, then how to either keep the country or try again and gives examples of either a success or a screw up so you " ll know what not to do. Confucius on the other hand would walk by a lake say something and one of his followers would jot it down like on page 98 "while standing by a river the master said, 'what passes away is, perhaps like this. Day and night never lets up'". Therefore the meaning of what Confucius wrote and what Machiavelli published are very cotemporary works of their time as well as introspective and reflective of their own views.

But with Machiavelli it allows other people to have this same vision or idea without having to compromise many of their original beliefs the thought of the end justifies the means which ahs already been a thought around since Confucius but hasn't necessarily been put into as many words. Confucius However is the exact opposite by stating that his way of life is the way of life and people believed and followed that. In conclusion it is much easier to say now as well as rationalize that Confucius is illustrating tradition, when Machiavelli outlines the road to progress.

Bibliography

D.C. Lau, Confucius. The Analects. London: Penguin Books, 1979 Skinner, Quentin, Russell Price.
Machiavelli: the Prince. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.