I imagine Thoreau and Machiavelli sitting down for a cup of tea together as an utter disaster. Machiavelli would attempt to lay down his power by striking fear into Thoreau, maybe by offering him sugar for his tea and then dumping the whole thing into his cup. Thoreau then pushing his chair further away from the table in order to literally distance him self from the power and of course refusing to pay the bill at the end of this gathering. These two philosophers may not get along if they happened to know each other, but would their philosophies do the same? The similarities between Thoreau and Machiavelli's philosophies are purely structural--focusing on the relationship between the people and their leader; however their arguments are entirely opposite--how to govern your people correctly versus a how to guide on standing up against your government.
A government would not exist without it's people, so controlling the people with out upsetting them is a challenging task. This must be why these two philosophers chose to write on this subject. Thoreau wrote a guide for the people under the control of the government. His belief is that the people should control the government; it is a disgrace to him witnessing citizens experiencing a problem with their government, but merely putting up with it and moving on. He touches on his goal to change this in Civil Disobedience, specifically the end of the quote. "Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtable its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform."In Thoreau's philosophy he focuses of the everyday citizens end of the relationship with government argument. Contrary to Thoreau is Machiavelli who's main focus is on the governing power. He teaches us how to properly govern your people. Though Machiavelli is a little more dark in his approach, he has many steps in his process to make sure your people listen. He talks about this relationship with the people while beginning to explain the use of cruelty to govern in The Prince. "Therefore a Prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty..." This small excerpt is a demonstration of his philosophy based on the government end of the relationship argument. This is how Machiavelli and Thoreau are alike: they both focus on the relationship between the people and their leader/government.
As you can pick up from my similarities argument turning from similar into not so similar, Machiavelli and Thoreau and very different in their philosophies. If I were to go on about all of the differences between the two this blog post would turn into a novel; so I will only touch on a few. Starting with Thoreau, who has a guide on being the people of the government and not letting them get away with injustice. To break it down he endorses reform, in his words he wants you to "Let your life to be a counter-friction to stop the machine." If you see a problem with our government or our world, he wants you to stand up for it and not be afraid to do everything in your non-violent power to end it. Even using himself as an example of being a nuisance to the government by not paying his taxes and being sent to prison for it. With Machiavelli, he has a guide as well, but instead to the governing of these people. He want's to maintain order in the nation. He feels that the best way to attain your power is by using fear and cruelty, but not so much that you are hated. Here he talks about how a good leader has to be deceiving. "Therefore it is necessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them." Machiavelli seems to throw away his morals when it comes to being a good leader while Thoreau works off of his morals. This is where they are different, in morality, which end of the government is more important, and rebellion versus maintaining order.
No comments:
Post a Comment