The extreme nature of Lao-tzu and Machiavelli's philosophies

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) was a nobleman with an unstable fortune that ultimately learnt to support himself through his writing career. His most acclaimed work, "The Prince", is a basic dissertation on the qualities a prince or a leader must have in order to retain his power and authority. Similarly, the "Tao-te Ching" is a philosophical document that is known to be written by Lao-tzu. The document provides a foundation for the religion of Taoism and speaks about good leadership and moral behavior. While Machiavelli believes in practical, dominant and severe methods, Lao-tzu approaches the theme of leadership with detachment, patience and equanimity. Therefore, as both Lao-tzu and Machiavelli seem to have two extremely contrasting philosophies on good leadership, extracting and applying specific qualities, simultaneously, from each could result in forming a comparatively better new-age leader for the state.

Machiavelli's guidelines to maintain a leader's power lean more towards harsh, strict, cruel and deceitful methods. He believes that "it is much safer to be feared than to be loved" (44) as men, in general, are unappreciative, fearful, cheats, volatile and greedy. It is better for a leader to be feared than loved because the fear of punishment and one's wrath would push discipline onto the people as well as the fairness of the consequences given would build respect towards the leader regardless of the harsh/painful outcome. On the other hand, Lao-tzu states, "there is no greater illusion than fear"(26; Section 46), which means that fear in itself is a false idea or belief that only exists in one's mind. According to Lao-tzu, fear is the most prominent falsity amongst people. His philosophy is that once one overcomes the whole element of "fear", he/she will forever be safe from it. Evidently, both the writers' views oppose each other. While Machiavelli states that being feared is more effective, Lao-tzu claims that the concept of fear in itself doesn't exist, thus rendering Machiavelli's advice to be counter-productive. Realistically, encouraging the masses to completely overcome fear would be an impractical task. However, by aiming to gain the peoples' respect, with the use of executing justice fairly and based on necessity, instead of instilling fear in them, the leader could achieve stability and balance in his/her rule.

Machiavelli's promotion of violence and destruction further reveals his barbaric opinions on man. He emphasizes on the quality of a prince knowing how to switch back and forth from actually being good and pretending to be good, as he believes that deceiving the majorities would result in future positive outcomes. This is further supported by his claim that "a man who wishes to make a vocation of being good at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good" (40). The quote implies that in spite of the pureness of one's intentions, the majorities surrounding him/her will inevitably contaminate the goodness of one's aspirations. Ironically, Lao-tzu believes, "when there is no desire, all things are at peace"(25; Section 37), which implies that any and every intention that one has disables him/her from achieving ultimate satisfaction or happiness. On one hand, following Machiavelli's advice could result in the widespread of corruption due to the constantly increasing negative influences in one's environment, whereas following Lao-tzu's passive statement could lead to utter failure, as having entirely no desires or curiosity goes against basic human nature, as well as the history and future of life. However, a constructive characteristic can be developed by making oneself aware and prepared for the possibility of negative influences and obligations; and perhaps substituting the idea of "desires" with "expectations", as one would be unable to be disappointed if he/she was oblivious to what the outcome would be.

Another significant quality that is discussed by both writers' is to do with a leader's position on generosity and miserliness. Machiavelli declares that, "above all other things a prince must guard himself against being despised and hated; and generosity leads you to both one and the other"(43), which means that a leader must not be bothered with worrying about being overly generous, as it would result in oppression and misuse. Instead, he suggests that a leader must strive to be parsimonious, as it could result in future stability of the state. However, Lao-tzu advises that, "for governing a country well there is nothing better than moderation"(28; Section 59), which means that in order to smoothly lead a country one must completely avoid reacting in extremes and establish specific limits to all decisions and actions. While Machiavelli's advice seems slightly excessive and unpredictable, Lao-tzu's literal words prove to be logical and reasonable. However, his intended interpretation of "moderation" is "freedom from [one's]own ideas"(28; Section 59), which implies that in order for one to lead well, he/she must free themselves from ambitions and desires so that a fair and moderate decision/action is taken. Therefore, by applying Lao-tzu's literal words to Machiavelli's advice on generosity, one could attain the ability to achieve proper balance between being generous and a miser.

Machiavelli's political philosophy maximizes the power of the state, whereas Lao-tzu's philosophy contains an anti-materialistic view and minimizes the state's power to persecute the people. In the opinion of Machiavelli, "a prince must not worry about the reproach of cruelty when it is a matter of keeping his subjects united and loyal"(43), which means that a leader should disregard the consequences for being cruel and firm in order to be able to provide efficiently and sufficiently for his state. In comparison, Lao-tzu states that, "governing a large country is like frying a small fish. You spoil it with too much poking"(28; Section 60), which implies that leaders that resort to unnecessary cruelty and continuous provocations are bound to fail. Nonetheless, by giving absolute freedom, as Lao-tzu suggests, a leader would be exposing the people to immense vulnerabilities as well as the risk of failure and chaos. Hence, following Machiavelli's advice during specific consequential situations, where the leader should disregard his/her worries on cruelty, and following Lao-tzu's advice during other times, could prove to create fair and decent results. This is because the execution of legitimate consequences would always be dependent on the severity of the situation, where only the most important issues would be considered. Furthermore, the controlled increase of freedom could prevent dissatisfaction amongst the people and help gain their respect and loyalty.

Today, the extreme nature of Lao-tzu and Machiavelli's philosophies would prove to be an unfavorable guide on leadership. Lao-tzu's advice focuses on freedom and enlightenment, whereas Machiavelli's advice revolves around domination, power and authority. Giving a country complete freedom to govern itself or cruelly intimidating it to follow all of one's commands would be immensely impractical in today's society. The people have overthrown dictatorships throughout history due to rebellions, and the concept of democracy has prevailed. Moreover, Machiavellian leaders would find it exceedingly difficult to successfully participate in elections and campaigns, as their demanding, violent and forceful leadership style could have the possibility to violate varying fundamental human/civil rights. Similarly, Lao-tzu's leaders would have a contradictive situation because their philosophy emphasizes the act of doing nothing and detachment from materialistic possessions.

In order to be a good leader in the times of today, one would have to extract particular qualities from each of the two philosophies' and merge them together to create a precise balance in one's leadership abilities. By choosing individual qualities from both philosophies and applying them to oneself accordingly, one is opening oneself to varying perspectives, creating room for communication, equality, justice, and earning natural respect from one's people, without the use of force and brutality. machiavelli lao leadership philosophy

Both, Lao-tzu and Machiavelli have excessively opposing philosophies on leadership. Machiavelli's approach towards good leadership is more practical and economical, when compared to Lao-Tzu's detached and inactive philosophy. His manner of persuasion hardly allows his readers to find a logical opposition as he uses rhetoric devices, such as comparing and contrasting, as well as providing other point of views and examples. In contrast, Lao-tzu takes a soft and wise tone by structuring the writing in poem form and providing aphorisms to state his point, causing the reader to feel calm. Therefore, being aware of and developing the diverse, positive and important qualities, where the specific characteristics differ from one individual to another, suggested by Niccolo Machiavelli and Lao-tzu, could contribute to the birth of a better new-age leader.

Размещено на Allbest.ru