By definition, a “leviathan” is a kind of massive sea monster, and for this blogpost we are going to literally and figuratively play with that premise by exploring two “monsters” of political rhetoric: the dark-hued theories about power espoused by Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince (1513) and Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (1651). Hobbes generally believed that there were profound misunderstandings in his age about the nature of sovereign power, and he had a cynical view of English politics and rule. Writing a century earlier, and about the complexities of Italian city-states, Machiavelli arguably took an even more cynical view, and his advice has had such a profound effect on subsequent political thought that his very name has come to have sociocultural meaning (with “Machiavellian” a pejorative term that is used to denote an individual who is noted for “cunning, duplicity, or bad faith” – especially a ruler whose behavior is manipulative, deceitful, and/or deceptive.)
In response to the cold-hearted – yet chillingly pragmatic – views of Hobbes and Machiavelli, in this blogpost I want you to do three things:
1) Try and compare/contrast the political thought of Hobbes and Machiavelli. In what way are their approaches, theories, and conclusions similar, but also, in what crucial ways do they seem to diverge?
2) Pick out a provocative quotation from either Leviathan or The Prince and connect it to one of our recent historical examples (perhaps especially Joan of Arc or Elizabeth I). Try to place your chosen comment(s) within the historical context of the day, and explore how it might open up some new perspectives on one of our recent readings.
3) Finally, pick another quotation – likely from the other assigned author – and think about the ways in which this notion logically applies (or not) to our own day and age. You might consider: is this particular suggestion for political behavior a wise one, a good way for a ruler to (justly) navigate the challenging political waters of the twenty-first century? Or would his premise be problematic in some way, shape, or form if taken up by a modern-day politician?
Hobbes and Machiavelli both have very interesting viewpoints on humanity and also power within humanity. They see men as very evil creatures that care only for themselves. Hobbes expresses that it is man against man and that is how the power struggle works. On the other hand, Machiavelli talks about the power struggle in more of a political and leadership way. Even though their viewpoints differ, their message and view on the matter are still the same. Both men think that men are evil in nature and really only care about themselves and their direct loved ones. Hobbes even states that men acknowledge the evil nature of man through their actions. He goes on to give an example that claims, why do men lock their doors and drawers when they are home with their families. He then goes on to explain that it is because humans are evil and cruel in nature and if a man sees something that will benefit him he will go to war for it.
While reading the excerpt from Hobbes one of the lines that jumped out at me stated, “This is the generation of that great Leviathan, or rather, to speak more reverently, of that mortal God to which we owe, under the immortal god, our peace and defense.” This quote immediately reminded me of Joan of Arc because this embodies everything that she fought for. She stated that she fought for the true king because it was God’s will. This quote goes hand in hand because it is saying that your ruler or king should be a man chosen by the people to carry out God’s work. This shows that during this time God was looked at as the true leader and all good comes from God.
Machiavelli stated many things that would be very problematic in today’s world but also some things that go with today’s world. One of the quotes that I found embodies both, it states, “Therefore, he who considers it necessary to secure himself in his new principality, to win friends, to overthrow either by force or fraud, to make himself be loved and feared by the people, to be followed and revered by the soldiers, to examine those who have power or reason to hurt him, to change the old order of things for new, to be severe and gracious…” Even though this quote has many things wrong with it, it also has some good. One of the things that I liked about the quote is how it states, “to be feared and loved”, this section is a great example of how a person of power should rule. One of the sections of the quote that would be problematic states, “to overthrow either by force or fraud.” This would not go over well today because it would most likely end up in a world war as we saw from WWI and WWII. With this evidence it is apparent that both authors see men as an evil creature who only looks out for themselves and their own benefit.
1.) In Machiavelli’s “Prince” and Hobbes’ “Leviathan”, both explain how an autocratic state should be ruled, and how all men are ruthless and without a true power, men are drawn into war. However, Hobbes believes that power must be fought and found through war, while Machiavelli believes power is found through politics and strength through arms and alliances. One subject that both authors agree on is that the state or person in charge must always believe in God, otherwise their power will fail.
2.) In Hobbes’ “Leviathan”, the author writes how, “The only way to erect a Common Power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of [foreigners] and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort, as that by their own industry, and by the fruits of the Earth, they may nourish themselves and live contentedly is, to confer all their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their Wills, by plurality of voices, unto one Will and therein to submit their Wills, every one to his Will, and their
judgments, to his judgment,”. This statement applies to Elizabeth I when she went through a power struggle within her family after the death of King Henry VIII, when his successor was being decided. Though her half-sister Mary Tudor became Queen, many people in England wanted Elizabeth I to be Queen, as the statement suggests.
3.) In Machiavelli’s “Prince”, he writes, “Therefore, if he is wise he ought not to fear the reputation of being mean, for in time he will come to be more considered than if liberal, seeing that with his economy his revenues are enough, that he can defend himself from all attacks, that he exercises liberality towards all from whom he does not take, who are numberless, and meanness towards those whom he does not give, who are few,”. I believe that this quote applies to our day and age because most people care about how their leaders are handling their economy and country, and if they’re not doing a good job, then the leader’s enemies will be many, but if they’re doing a good job, then they have nothing to fear, and can be mean to his or her enemies. Fear can be a very powerful enemy.
1.) In “Leviathan” by Thomas Hobbes and “The Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli, the subject of how a state should be ran and general human nature is discussed. They both believe that using fear is a valid way to instill power and keep loyalty among the people. However, Hobbes focused more on the direct relationship between the people and the rulers. Machiavelli focused more on what attributes a ruler should have in order to rule. Hobbes, who lived during the English civil war, had a view that favored a strong government more than the people. Since he lived during that time, it would make sense that he thinks every man is at war with one another and a strong government is the only way to prevent that. While Machiavelli doesn’t exactly agree with that, he does believe that a prince is better to be feared than loved because the “dread of punishment” is much more effective.
2) In an excerpt from “leviathan”, Hobbe’s states, “If there be no Power erected, or not great enough for our security, every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art, for caution against all other men”. While Elizabeth the 1st was a monarch, she did not erect enough power for her subjects to fear her. Instead, Elizabeth’s reign led England into an era of peace and prosperity.
3) In “The Prince”, Machiavelli states, “A prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other ways of protecting himself, will be ruined. Friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon… but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.” The Idea that fear should be used as a political bargaining tool may have worked in the context of the world Machievlli lived in, but it would not work today. Problems arise from the idea because if you are feared, then there is a good chance that you are also hated. A ruler who is hated by the people is vulnerable to being overthrown. A modern day politician would never try to gain the support of the people by instilling fear.
1)Hobbes believes that when people are given free will, they are drawn to war but that that is the easiest way to do it. Machiavelli thinks it has to do more with politics and how to form alliances through other people. They both agree that men are evil in their own way and they were born to be competitive because it’s human nature.
2)”And whereas some men have pretended for their disobedience to their Sovereign, a new Covenant, made, not with men, but with God, this also is unjust.”
This excerpt relates back to Joan of Arc and how strong her faith was in God. Throughout all her personal trial and trauma she endured, she never lost her faith to the point where it would be seen as turning her back on God. It is not considered turning your back on the leader if you decide otherwise, it’s disobeying and going against God and what he felt was intended.
3) “Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being fear whilst he is not hatred.” I think this is a bad way to approach society and to attempt to rule. I feel that at times, fear and hate go hand in hand, considering they’re easy to mix up because they are so negative. When you fear something, you result in hatred because it is not under your control. If people started hating the rulers, it would make no sense or help the ruler lead because no one would have faith in him. If your people do not have faith in you or trust you then, you lose them. For example, with Trump, people are scared of him in the sense of what he is doing to our country, but they also hate him because it affects them personally.
1) Both The Prince and Leviathan cover how Machiavelli and Hobbes believe a state should be ruled, and how power should be exercised. Both authors agree that all men are evil and they act for selfish intent rather than the good. Their ideas about power however differ. Hobbes believes that power is achieved through war and that a strong state or government was more important than the people, as the people are selfish. Machiavelli believes that power comes through politics and the strength of a leader. However they both agree that instilling fear is a strong method of maintaining power, as it motivated loyalty out of fear of punishment.
2) “… it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with.” This quote is used by Machiavelli to express and further explore the importance of being feared rather than loved, however he also states that one must avoid being hated as well. This is quite the opposite from how Queen Elizabeth I ruled, she did not use fear tactics to instill loyalty from her people. She was adored as a ruler and led a peaceful era for England, she even restored Protestant faith in England but did not punish the opposing Catholics and with all of this, her rule was successful unlike her predecessors.
3) “So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.” Hobbes uses this to explore the various selfish and evil acts man can exercise in their pursuit of power. This can be applied nearly everywhere in life, both in modern and past societies. It is the reason for war, whether nations are fighting over territory, resources, or ideas. It also applies to how certain political candidates may act in the pursuit of dominating their opponent, which has become a serious issue in today’s world. Both presidential candidates have acted very childish or immature in an attempt to get ahead of the other.
1. The political views of both authors differ in the way of approach, specifically concerning rule and restraint. Hobbes was completely submerged in his idea of men at war, and men always needing reassurance of their power over another. He compared men to bees, stating men are worse than these creatures. For men are corrupted by war, envy and hatred; when bees are not. However Machiavelli spoke of rule and restraint as an obligation and mentioned ways to control such power. Machiavelli believed princes should be feared over loved. He wrote of this as a choice for a prince, not by a means with no end as Hobbes with the men at incessant war.
2. “Thirdly, because the major part hath by consenting voices declared a sovereign, he that dissented must now consent with the rest; that is, be contented to avow all the actions he shall do, or else justly be destroyed by the rest. . . .” This quote written by Hobbes, reminded me of the way Joan was just a mere pheasant girl. She rose above the common standards and faced her rulers, regardless of the consequences. This commonwealth that Hobbes speaks of, is related to a hierarchy in which the subjects have a say in their ‘government’ and way of living.
3. For this last quote I would like to focus on Machiavelli. “Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince, as wise prince should establish himself on that which is his own control and not in that of others, he must endeavor only to avoid hatred, as is noted.” This topic of fear and love in a leadership role immediately had me thinking of the twenty-first century government. This idea of being feared over loved, since fear will be guaranteed results, would not work today. I believe that if the people felt fear in a candidate, they would steer clear of his success. A modern day politician must display signs of understanding, and enact more freedoms and show feelings towards topics, passion for occurring events etc. Fear would enact hate and anger towards any type of leader in todays world.
Hobbes and Machiavelli share contrasting opinions when it comes to politics and the will of people. Both see everyone as an enemy to everyone else and that all humans turn on each other and both agree in the power of believing in god to achieve what they desire. In “Leviathan”, Hobbes believes men are inherently evil and will do what they must in order to get what they need and want no matter the method. He asks why the typical man locks their doors at night if they don’t fear what’s on the outside or why they lock their draws if they trust the people on the inside.Hobbes believes in using a military style by fighting in a war to claim power. In “The Prince”, Machiavelli takes more of a political standpoint and views human evilness as a power struggle and the means to rise to the top. He believes people will do what they must to have whatever power they can have to be at a top their position in life and to be above others. Machiavelli believes in the power of allies and strategizing in order to gain the power they truly want.
“Never attempt to win by force what can be won by deception.”
I chose this quote from “The Prince” because I happened to relate this quote to another saying which is “work smarter not harder”. In this sense, I thought of Queen Elizabeth the First and her time in ruling. Elizabeth could’ve had a tough ruling considering she was living in a mans world and where females had no place really in society especially not in such an important position. Elizabeth took her throne with grace, whit, and female charm- using all she could to her advantage while keeping a head on her shoulders. She did everything she could to please everyone while maintaining peace but did it in a way where she was able to do so with grace all while avoiding any potential backlash. Queen Elizabeth the First used her abilities to make her job easier to get done despite all the obsticales that might’ve prevented her from success.
“He that is to govern a whole nation, must read in himself, not this, or that particular man; but man-kind.”
This is the way in which rulers should act upon governing their nations. A ruler or powerful political figure should not be deceived or distracted by those who are trying to gain for themselves. What these powerful figures should be interested upon is the overall wellbeing of those they govern. Today, this is uncommon of leaders as they get distracted by favors and opinions of their own and their acquaintances. This political suggestion is wise in a time where it is an uncommon strategy to have. If the theory of all humans being inherently evil is true, this ruler can’t 100% rely on those around them to make decisions based upon the wellness of the country and not the wellness of themselves and their colleagues.
Both Hobbes and Machiavelli shared their political beliefs and what power meant for them in their prospective time periods. Machiavelli believes in violence and basically whatever happens happens and does not think about consequences and acts fast with few planning. Whereas Hobbes does not automatically turn to violence but rather one can get to their destination how they please and however it worked out, it worked out. On top of that, he relies on planning and orienting before going ahead on action. The 2 were more different than not, but despite going about their power differently, both could be described as wrong. Although they both see men as who they are and accept them for flaws and and do not wish them to be something they are not, more so
One quotation from the Leviathan by Hobbes explains that there is no clear difference between man and man, and a man can claim himself to whatever benefit. In the text it states, “…the difference between man and man is not so considerable, as that one man man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit…” This can go along with the idea from Joan Of Arc that she rose to the ranks from a peasant. She did not portray herself as any less than anybody else out there, and therefore she rose up and claimed herself to the “benefit” in which she succeeded.
Hobbes talks about the request for power in mankind during his time, and that it can be relentless just to find pleasure in life and that one cannot be content for basically “settling for less.” In chapter 11 it states, “And from hence it is that kings, whose power is greatest, turn their endeavours to the assuring it at home by laws, or abroad by wars: and when that is done, there suceedth a new desire; in some, of fame from new conquest…” one example of how it can apply to today’s world is sports greatest athletes. A “king” could be similar to Tom Brady or Lebron James who have had many successes on all their competitors, but yet they come back each year on a new conquest because they are not pleased with just 1, 2, or 3 successes. These athletes have lots of power, being star players and having huge platforms, and assure their powers by playing in playoff series for their next success considered “abroad by wars.” When they’ve succeeded, they get a new desire which is to get another championship because they are no longer pleased with their last one.
Both Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan and Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince illustrate a particularly cynical perspective on power within men and politics. Hobbes focuses on the interpersonal relationships between men and government, focusing on the idea that by nature, men will be at constant war with one another, and the solution to escaping this state is through strong government. He explains that a strong government is necessary to maintain efficiency and innovation, where otherwise, the selfish and war-oriented nature of man will destroy a state. Rather than condemning war in a state, though, Machiavelli believed in exploring the political influences of a ruler. He encourages a sort of tyrannical rule where a strong military maintains soundness in a state and an ideal leader is one that is feared. Both Hobbes and Machiavelli make their lack of faith in humanity clear and support a narrative of inherent evilness in society. The difference, though, lies within their solutions; Hobbes seeks to eliminate the “state of nature” of man through a strong government, while Machiavelli seeks solution in strong leadership.
In Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, he writes, “Justice and injustice are none of the faculties neither of the body, nor mind. If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his senses, and passions. They are qualities that relate to men in society, not solitude”, alluding to the idea that justice only holds true form in society. Joan of Arc is a notorious historical figure who in her time, was failed by the concept of justice. Her life ended prematurely and unjustly– perhaps in the context of Hobbes’ Leviathan, the injustice she faced was a sign of a failing society, consumed with war and religion. Hobbes suggested man’s natural inclination towards warfare was a stain on society and the solution was strong government. Joan of Arc’s story may be a fine example of his theory considering the hyper-religious governments and ongoing military conflicts neither strengthened the existing government, nor encouraged justice among a state.
Machiavelli notes in The Prince that, “liberality exercised in a way that does not bring you the reputation for it, injures you”. In its historical context, “liberality” can be replaced with generosity, inferring that by being a generous leader without recognition, one is at a disadvantage. When taking this advice in the modern political age, we can obviously see this philosophy as problematic, yet it still holds true for many politicians today. A significant part of a political campaign is focused on said politician’s generosity; people want lower taxes, greater access to healthcare, certain personal freedoms, etc. Basically, nobody wants a greedy government. With generosity, though, comes personal and fiscal disadvantages. Ultimately today, politics unfortunately remains a game of money and when your money dictates power, you probably want to hold on to it. As previously stated, people want a generous leader, so even a facade of generosity is beneficial from a campaign point-of-view.
According to Hobbes, all men have a natural proclivity to compete amongst one another to get what they want in life, which he would state as; gain, safety, and reputation. These aspects of life that men covet will make men enemies of one another, since some men cannot gain what they desire they will attack others to steal what they want. This state is what he would call war, and in constant war, there is chaos, which can be cured through a strong central government that can guide men to work together for the future of their singular state. Machiavelli believed that it was much more important for a leader to be feared than to be loved. His justification for such a belief is that the natural state of man is to be; ungrateful, disloyal, insincere, deceitful, timid of danger, and avid of profit. This would make a leader that is to be loved to be seen by the people to be obliged of their loyalty, but the people would break such trust whenever it suited them so, but the fear of punishment can never be broken. Both philosophers believed in the idea that absolute control is the only answer to the chaotic nature of man. But they differed by the nature of which the absolute power should be, for Machiavelli one man that drives terror through man and for Hobbes a common goal of which all men will participate to give one to him.
“From this equality of ability, ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our Ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies, and in the way to their End, . . .
endeavor to destroy, or subdue one another”. Queen Elizabeth could attest to this quote from the Leviathan due to the fact that she was also a very strong ruler that forced men to do what she pleased through absolute power. If she was not able to take the throne and fix the country by demanding the people to stop the chaos, men would have destroyed one another and all hell would have broken loose. This quote can show us the true nature of man, such as the Peloponnesian wars, that they were driven to destroying one another due to the fact that they were separate states desiring a common goal.
“One can say this in general of men: they are ungrateful, disloyal, insincere and deceitful, timid of danger and avid of profit…. Love is a bond of obligation which these miserable creatures break whenever it suits them to do so, but fear holds them fast by a dread of punishment that never passes.” For a modern politician, he does not have enough power to be able to control the country with absolute fear, so I believe that it would be almost impossible for our modern politicians to do so. Also, our second amendment rights can stop a tyrannical leader from rising due to the number of firearms that are available to the common man, which would be a threat to a despot. So no, I do not believe that this form of governing would be a wise one and it would be problematic because it would go against the constitution.
It is obvious right off the bat that both authors have harsh philosophical perspectives on how a nation should and should not be governed. Both believe that it is crucial for a ruler to strive for peace and to make just decisions on what is crucial for their people. They each display a harsh perspective on what the life of a citizen should look like and how the government plays a role based off of such stipulations. For example, Hobbes talks about as humans we have a perpetual desire for more power and that desire only ceases in death. Machiavelli believes in the acquisition and maintenance of power by any means. Both authors accentuate the importance of maintaining the faith of the people, so as to avoid hatred and I believe that they would agree on Hobbes observation, that when two people want the same thing, they will acquire it by means of secrecy. They would agree the government is less susceptible to revolution if public opinion is high. Though at the same time, Hobbes has a harsh but humanistic approach to this. He believes in privacy and being truthful to citizens, that the but also accentuates the importance of conformity for a continually positive public opinion. While Machiavelli mentions nothing of privacy, he does believe in some freedoms granted to citizens so that the ruler also has a positive public opinion. Though ultimately, he would disagree with Hobbes on his view of being truthful towards citizens. To him it is okay to manipulate the truth and withhold information.
Joan of Ark would have abhorred these two authors for their cynical view on what life is. From Hobbes perspective, he says we are merely “engines that move themselves by springs.” He claims that he heart is just a spring. For Joan, the heart would mean so much more than just a spring that keeps the body functioning. To her, the heart is everything, it is the driving organ for all that she achieved over such a short period of time. She was fully invested into her mission and without such a strong heart, she would not have been able to stand up to so much adversity.
One quote that really stuck with me was Hobbes observations on the acquisition of power. He claims: “he cannot assure the power and means to live will, which he hath present, without the acquisition of more.” This was most definitely true for their time period, but I would be interested to see Hobbes reaction to power constructs in 2020. There are a lot more factors now that affect the global tides of power and although it would be a lot for someone from the modern era to see what life is like today, though I think upon arrival he would see how his observations of power are still applicable since the time he wrote “Leviathan.”
1. Hobbes and Machiavelli agree and disagree in a couple things in their political thoughts. Hobbes strongly believes that a strong government is essential to controlling men. Hobbes believes this because he states that all men are evil because they are all selfish and in a constant need for power, so the government must be more important than the people. He also states that in order for this power to be achieved, it must be acclaimed through war. Machiavelli on the other hand is more focused on the ideals and influences of a ruler. He also believes that power is achieved through alliances and the power of a ruler. They both agree that it is essential for power to be maintained.
2. In “Leviathan” by Hobbes he states, “By liberty is understood, according to the proper signification of the word, the absence of external impediments; which impediments may oft take away part of a man’s power to do what he could, but cannot hinder him from using the power left him according as his judgement and reason shall dictate to him.” This statement relates to Queen Elizabeth and how she used her power to lead England into a time of peace. Even though she was faced with many problems left from her sister Mary, she was able to overcome these issues and be a strong and influential leader for her country.
3. Machiavelli states in “The Prince” that “Such dominions thus acquired are either accustomed to live under a prince, or to live in freedom; and are acquired either by the arms of the prince himself, or of others, or else by fortune or by ability.” This statement does apply to our age today, and is a somewhat problematic suggestion. If power is acquired by fortune, as stated, it could be problematic because that means that the leader that acquired power did not get it from the people. Instead, it could possibly mean that power was given to the ruler through corruption.
1. Comparing both reading it is possible to notice that both authors write about an autocratic state and how it should be ruled. Both readings mention how men are drawn into war since they are ruthless and have the necessity of showing their strength. Hobbes, however, believed that power was the result of wars while Machiavelli believed that power was conquered through the politics. Both authors agree that the condition for a state to thrive, the person ruling the state MUST believe in God.
2. Hobbes states in the “Leviathan”: “If there be no Power erected, or not great enough for our security, every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art, for caution against all other men”. Elizabeth was not concerned about being feared, but she led England to a period of prosperity and peace due to her reign.
3. Machiavelli, in “The Prince”, states that “So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.” It is right to say that this quote applies to our age. Leaders (specially governments) have the urge of being at the top and the most feared and the most powerful. It is everything for the glory. We can also apply this quote for ourselves. People are always competing between themselves…we all have this feeling of being at the top, we all want the glory.
Machiavelli and Hobbes both forged methods of political realism. Hobbes tried to analyze politics through a more scientific lens, while Machiavelli looked at politics through action more as a civil servant. Machiavelli believed that people would only do good when it is in self interest. While Hobbes believes that there really are no natural morals and it is based on the will of what the individual wants.
A quote from the Leviathan “And as to the faculties of the mind . . . men are . . . [more] equal than unequal . . .” I feel this relates to talking about both Queen Elizabeth and Joan of Arc because even though they were both at a disadvantage because of their gender, and for Joan, social hierarchy standings. They seemed unequal due to their gender, but in the sense of knowledge and being good leaders they were just as good as men. I find this quote applicable today as well because there are many obstacles in the way of people of color and females, however, it has been proven time and time again that they are just as equal to white men when it comes to thought of the mind.
Machiavelli writes “Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are”. I feel like this relates to much politics in this country. I feel that it is a wise assumption to look at politics in this way because you should never fully trust a leader, you must always question the higher powers. I feel like it wouldn’t be favorable if taken up by a politician today because they want to be fully trusted by the public.
1. Both Hobbes and Machiavelli strongly exhibited their political standpoints as well as their meanings of power. Comparing both of the readings they are similar in the fact that they both state how men are drawn into war. As how men feel the need to show their strength and how ruthless they are. However Hobbes believes that power is executed thorough war, and that men are evil and must do whatever they have to do in order to get to their accomplishments. As Machiavelli belives that power is executed through allies and strategy. He has the more political standpoint as to how power is achieved. Also both of these passages stated that it is important that power is conserved and that the ruler of the state must believe in god.
2. One quote that Hobbes states in “Leviathan” is, “The Passions that incline men to Peace, are Fear of Death, Desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living, and a Hope by their Industry to obtain them. And Reason suggesteth convenient Articles of Peace, upon which men may be drawn to agreement…” I can relate this quote to Joan of Arc and how she was just a pheasant girl. She was basically nothing but she rose up and became more than what she was labeled. She had that passion and the desire to become what she wanted by standing up to her rulers no matter what the outcome would be.
3. “Therefore, if he is wise he ought not to fear the reputation of being mean, for in time he will come to be more considered than if liberal, seeing that with his economy his revenues are enough, that he can defend himself from all attacks, that he exercises liberality towards all from whom he does not take, who are numberless, and meanness towards those whom he does not give, who are few,” Reading this quote I do believe that it is a wise political behavior and that in todays society it would work well. If a president or ruler is doing a good job strenghtining or growing the economey than they will not has as many enemies. With less ermines comes less fear that the president or ruler would have. If they were ruining the economic status of their territory than they would have many enemies, and with enemies comes fear. As a current example Presidant Trump was doing very well with Americas economy prior to the Covid-19 outbreak. After the outbreak happened the economy harshly plumited and Trump being the president had much of the blame come on him. With the blame for an economic crash on him it caused him to look bad and gain many more enemies, creating fear in him.