Hi, I have a compare and contrast research paper due soon and I need to use two philosophers. I want to use Machiavelli as one because I find his material to be pretty straight forward. However, I still need to find someone who I would be a good opponent as far a philosophical thinking. Some of the figures that were suggested to us, but not required, included; Marx, A. Smith, T. Paine, Lenin, Friedman, Adorno, Burke, and Locke. Any suggestions and recommendations you can give me would be greatly appreciated.
While help with homework assignments is normally frowned upon on ILP, I don’t think that suggesting some philosophers would be problematic since you’d still have to do your own research.
I think an interesting compare/contrast with Machiavelli would be either Mo Zi (Mo Tzu) or Han Fei Zi (Han Fei Tzu). Burton Watson has an acceptable translation of both that should be available at your university library. Both are statists and have a great deal in common with Machiavelli but some stark differences as well (especially Mo Zi – Han Fei Zi is partically a Chinese Machiavelli, a good deal more sociopathic though).
Some benefits of this approach is that it is highly unlikely that anyone else will have chosen (or even be familiar with) these philosophers, including the professor. That makes for a much more interesting read, meaning that they are more likely to grade favourably. Additionally, if you miss some of the more nuanced points of their political theory, you are unlikely to get caught, as opposed to philosophers that everybody knows forwards and backwards like Marx.
I read an article that Orwell wrote on Ghandi once. Do you have to compare books? Or can they be just articles? I’d compare the prince to Orwell’s “On Ghandi”. I think that’s the name of it. Google that shit yo!
So, would that be Orwell vs. Machi, or Ghandi vs. Machi. Or Orwell’s version of Ghandi vs. Machi?
Sounds interesting, regardless.
Personally, I think it’d be interesting to compare/contrast Machiavelli with Jesus Christ.
Do ghandi vs. mach, but pretend like the orwellian spin of the paper is your own.
I see that ethics wasn’t heavily emphasized in your philosophy degree . . .
I don’t find anything interesting about Machiavelli, and while it might seem easy to compare him against other philosophers because his ideas are “straight forward”, I think as you enter into the project you will find that such a survey is abusive presicely because he is so straightforward. There is nothing beneath his politics, there is no underlying philosophy, there is the historically contingent observations of a harsh political climate. While the Locke’s and Lenin’s developed and adopted philosophies, expounding them in a coherent way, each influenced by assumptions and ontology/epistemology, Machiavelli did not. Hence any survey of Machiavelli v. Philosopher, is going to be abusive to the surveyor because even a very deep survey of Machiavelli can only be matched with a very superficial survey of Philosopher.
Do Lenin V. Locke, it would be easy because Lenin uses Locke, but it is also clear where he diverges.
Xun, I work for the “Center for Ethics and Values in the Sciences”. Ethics is my job! I read something once about the autonomy of ethics, I’m not sure what it all meant really, but I took from it an understanding that doind what’s effective can be justified independent of morality. I could be totally wrong though!
Hey guys, thanks for the help. I think that I am going to use Mo Zi (Mo Tzu) because I have been reading some of his work and I see potential. His work seems like it would make for a good compare and contrast essay with Machiavelli.
Sweet . . .