Essay example --

Aristotle and Niccol Machiavelli were two great minds from completely different times, both having quite a different views on the world, that touched on many similar points throughout their respective works Politics and Machiavellis various writings. This occurred because Machiavelli was illustrating his positions directly against Aristotles theories, which allows for an interesting comparison mingled with the twos popular opinions on a variety of issues. While Politics is more of a reciprocation for the inhabited and The Prince was specifically made as a sort of guidebook for the approaching ruling class, they can still be compared based upon their similar go acrossics of discussion regarding political goals and the opposing points that need to be avoided. This combined with The Discourses, which was an analysis of the roman republic and why it was so successful, provide a rather blanket(prenominal) view of Machiavellis core beliefs. The concept of differing worldviews is key to understanding the similarities and differences between the two as they come from very different basic places of opinion when regarding the overall goal of politics. Aristotle came from a position of lofty, boarding on impractical, goals with the drive of creating the concept of the good life for its citizens, in which they could expand and flourish. Machiavelli on the different hand worked on a much more practical get over of thought, focusing on concepts of gaining power, and control, while maintaining stability as the main goals of participate in politics. Both however stated a vast aline of necessary requirements for achieving the best political scenario along with opposing points to avoid, and in unfreeze theories on how to distinguish between the two. In this paper, these two great poli... ...nd goals a prevailing body can hope to achieve, asking the mortal to perplexity how they are being governed and how the system around them can be improved. They in any ca se however provide guidelines for how to govern angiotensin converting enzymes self, and legitimate goals that an individual should strive to achieve, not just goals for the governing body over top of them. From these two theories, an individual should be able to learn how to better govern their soul and identify how best to serve themselves throughout life. No one theorist is ultimately better then the other therefore because of this, as they both gain significant merit in the debate that they expand up to their audiences. Their timeless core theories will remain with society forevermore as there will always be some rebound of governance, and their theories can fit so many scenarios throughout life.Sources