Essay on Man's Capacity for Knowledge - Philosophy Essay

Essay on Humans' Capacity for Knowledge

            The question about man’s capacity for knowledge was once the central issue in the history of philosophy.  Prominent philosophers gave different opinions on this question.  Plato never questioned whether man has capacity for knowledge.  He however distinguished between two sources of knowledge: reason and experience.  He thought that reason played an important role in understanding the world and obtaining knowledge.  According to him, it is knowledge that is obtained with the use of reason that is more reliable and trustworthy while knowledge obtained through the use of senses that is doubtful and uncertain.  Aristotle, on the other hand, thought that Plato was confused.  He argued in favor of the primacy of sense-experience.  He thought that the knowledge obtained with the use of the senses come first.  Like Plato, however, he never doubted the capacity of man to attain knowledge.

            One group of philosophers however, doubted the existence of all knowledge.  They were the Sophists.  The Sophists were skeptics who believed that there is no truth or knowledge or if ever there is, man is incapable of attaining them.   The Sophists came at this conclusion because of their travels from different city-states.  After observing the different laws being enforced by different city-states, they noticed that there are some actions which are legal in one state while there are some acts which are made illegal in other city-states.  They thus came to the conclusion that truth or knowledge is relative.  What is true for one person need not necessarily be true for another.  This led to their skeptical attitude about the nature of man’s knowledge. 

            It is my opinion that man has capacity for attaining knowledge.  If it is true that biases and prejudices cloud a person’s mind and affect his opinions and perceptions about the world, then efforts must be made to clear a person’s mind of all these biases and prejudices.  I can begin my search for knowledge by clearing my mind of all the rubbish knowledge which I had accepted since birth without scrutiny.  I can begin to doubt the presence of everything, including the table in front of me, my friends, the physical objects and even my physical body.  I can entertain the thoughts that I am at present hallucinating about my physical existence and the existence of the natural universe.  It can also be true that I have merely been dreaming all my life.  I can doubt everything that I see so as to attain complete objectivity about everything. 

It is possible that instead of being awake, in reality I could merely be dreaming.  It is possible that my whole life could be a dream.  I can also question the truths of logic and reason since it is possible that I could only have been deceived by a demon which has the power to make things appear to be logical.    

            Despite entertaining all these doubts, there is however one basic fact that I can be certain of.  It is something that I know I have attained knowledge and of which I will not be deceived.  I am certain that I am in doubt.  The fact that I am entertaining these doubts about my existence means that I am in doubt.  Doubting could only mean that I am thinking.  Also, because I am thinking, it follows that I am a thinking being. 

            In this regard, I fully agree with Rene Descartes.  “Cogito Ergo Sum.” “I think therefore I am.” (Douglas Burnham 5)   I believe that in reality it is not possible for us to doubt everything.  It is possible to arrive at true knowledge of certain things.  Because I think, I can be certain that I have a mind that exists.  That is one thing that I can be certain of - that I exist.   

This is a sample essay from smartessaywriters.com – the leading provider of reliable and affordable essay writing services and research paper writing services in the United States and the United Kingdom.

BUY ESSAY ON MAN'S CAPACITY FOR KNOWLEDGE NOW!

Essay on Plato's Symposium - Philosophy Essay

Essay on Plato's Symposium

            Two of the characters in Plato’s Symposium are Diotema and Phaedrus.  Each of these two characters gave their own opinion about the concept of Love.  Phaedrus, as discussed in the dialogue, is a handsome young man who is also an admirer of Socrates while Diotema is described as a woman from Mantinea whom according to Socrates, also another character in this dialogue, he once met and who taught him what he knows about love. 

            Phaedrus begins his explanation about love by referring to Eros, the God of Love.  He argued that by virtue of prominence of birth alone Love is already supreme.  Eros, according to him is considered as the eldest among the gods.  He proceeds to explain that there is no account in history of Eros’ parents.  He offers as a proof that Eros is the eldest among gods the statement of Hesiod, to wit: “First Chaos came, and then broad-bosomed Earth, The everlasting seat of all that is, And Love.” (Symposium)    For Phaedrus therefore, it is only Chaos who comes before Eros in maturity. 

            Phaedrus adds that Eros is the source of the greatest benefit to all people without which there will be chaos and confusion.  He elaborates by explaining that Eros is the most powerful force that maintains order in this world.  It is not honor, wealth or any other motive.  He stressed that it is love that inspires people to do good and perform acts that are respectable and noble.  Because of Eros the people desire to live a noble life and perform acts that give the impression of dignity to others. 

            Consider the case of a young lover who is in love with a young woman.  According to Phaedrus, this young lover will do his best just so he could give the impression of being noble and dignified in the eyes of his lover.  For Phaedrus, the young lover would suffer more if he is seen by his lover doing a dishonorable act than if he is seen by his father or by his companions, to wit: “And I say that a lover who is detected in doing any dishonourable act, or submitting through cowardice when any dishonour is done to him by another, will be more pained at being detected by his beloved than at being seen by his father, or by his companions, or by any one else. The beloved too, when he is found in any disgraceful situation, has the same feeling about his lover.” (Symposium)  It is this fear of that a person will suffer humiliation and shame in front of his lover that impels me to do great and noble deeds.

            Phaedrus adds Love teaches one person the value of sacrifice.  He gave as an example that it will be better if the states or armies will be composed of lovers.  This way the state will be assured that everybody will help each other.  Desertion in times of war, surrendering to the enemy and abandonment of posts will be avoided since such would cause humiliation before a person’s lover.  This great love towards another will make a person want to die on the battlefield rather than see his lover suffer in pain or in agony. 

            On the other hand, the teachings of Diotema as recounted by Socrates are that love is a lover of beautiful things.  Because common sense demands that one pursues as a lover something which one does not yet have, it can be inferred that love lacks the qualities of divinity.  It lacks the qualities that a god is believed to possess otherwise it will not be in pursuit of beautiful things.  Love is also not mortal but rather somewhat lies in the intermediate between mortal and divine.  Diotema adds that Eros or Love continuously pursues good things and as such he uses beauty as its object to be able to attain its goal. 

            Diotema also explains the dual nature of love – heavenly love and the earthly love.  The heavenly love is more superior in the sense that it is for an honorable purpose and is devoid of lust and desire while the Earthly love is the love of the physical body which is temporary and short-lived, to wit: 

 “He who from these ascending under the influence of true love, begins to perceive that beauty, is not far from the end.  And the true order of going, or being led by another, to the things of love, is to begin from the beauties of earth and mount upwards for the sake of that other beauty, using these as steps only, and from one going on to two, and from two to all fair forms to fair practices, and from fair practices to fair notions, until from fair notions he arrives at the notion of absolute beauty, and at last knows what the essence of beauty is,” (Symposium).   

Diotema explains that a young boy may at the start be attracted to the physical body.  This is the first level of love.  At the first level, the person identifies with the body and sees a distorted image of beauty as referring to the physical beauty.  The young lover should later on realize that physical beauty is commonly possessed by other individuals and that this is not the person’s higher goal.  He will learn that his higher goal is to fully realize that beauty is not only limited to the physical beauty but also the beauty of the soul. 

Analysis

            A comparison of the opinions and philosophies of Diotema and Phaedrus reveals that their opinions about love are in contrast with each other.  Phaedrus’ concept of love is limited to the physical and erotic love. His concept of love is that of the physical beauty which is felt by a male towards a female person or vice versa. 

            For Diotema, however, love consists of two levels.  There is the physical love which is what most people are familiar with.  This is the kind of love that only attracts the physical senses and satisfies the lust and desire.  This is the materialistic love that is common to people who aspire wealth, fame, power and influence.  Diotema considered this love as a weak love because it is temporary and fades away after the object of love is gone.  The other kind of love is the heavenly love.  It is heavenly love that is more pure and noble.  It is also the kind of love that is lasting and permanent.

            The opinions of Diotema about love are actually very similar to Plato’s Theory of Forms.  It reflects the views of Plato about the dualistic nature of reality.  According to Plato, reality is divided into two: the World of Forms and the materials World. Everything that is found in the physical life is part of the materials world which he characterized as temporary, debase, short-lived and mutable.  On the other hand, everything that can be found in the World of Forms is described to have the capacity of permanence and immutability.  To explain further, Forms are actually the abstractions and generalizations of particulars things.  For example, the Form ‘Humanity’ is just a generalization of particular humans such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.  “Good” is just a generalization of particular acts of goodness such as returning a lost wallet or respect for the elders.  Plato continued by saying that all these Forms reside in a world different from our world.  He called this world the World of Forms.           The concept of the Material World and the World of Forms is significant considering that Diotema distinguished between two kinds of love – the Common Love and the Heavenly Love.  

This is a sample essay from smartessaywriters.com – the leading provider of reliable and affordable essay writing services and research paper writing services in the United States and the United Kingdom.

BUY PHILOSOPHY ESSAY ON PLATO'S SYMPOSIUM NOW!

Critique of Descartes' Proof of God's Existence

Does God exist? This is a question that has been asked more than a million times. However, will we ever know the answer? There are many philosophers who tried to answer this question. Descartes is a philosopher who believes that he has proven the existence of God. First, we will review how Descartes proved the existence of God. Second, we will see if there are some problems presented in the proof.

This proof occurs in the Third Meditation. Descartes builds his whole argument upon the fact that in order for him to think therefore he must exist. His existence is an idea that is clear as well as distinct in his mind. He then deduces a rule. All the things that he sees as very distinct and very clear are all true. After which he decides to break down “thought” into several categories such as ideas, emotions, volitions and judgments. He also concludes that there is no error in an idea. The only time that an error could occur is when there is already judgment. In short, having an idea and believing in that idea are two separate things. Volitions and desires do not lead to errors. There are ideas that are innate, there are ideas that are formed outside of us and there are ideas that are made in our own mind. An example of which is a dead relative you have never met. You have not seen him in person but you have an idea of what he or she looks like. Descartes then concluded that ideas cannot be create without a cause. 

The Reliable and Affordable Essay Writing Services

He also distinguishes two kinds of reality namely: formal and objective. Formal is the characteristics of things. Objective is the representation of things. In addition, the more perfect ideas originate from the less perfect ones. This is known as the “Causal Principle.” Then, he states he knows he is imperfect because of the existence of doubts in his mind. Knowing a thing is more perfect than doubting it. He then realized he is capable of producing an idea of a perfect being.  (Hatfield and Descartes) Descartes then concludes that an idea like that must have a cause. However, this cause cannot be a less perfect being. This perfect being is God. According t Descartes, God’s attributes are supremely powerful, infinite, and independent and that which created everything else in the world.  (Descartes pp. 131-135) On the other hand, Descartes is a “finite” idea. This means he is limited in space and time. The perfect idea of infiniteness cannot come from the idea of finiteness and could not have come from only Descartes. As such, God necessarily exists.

There seems to be something wrong with the proof. Quality is very important since this is the basis that all clear and distinct ideas are true. In a sense, all ideas that are vague are untrue. In addition to that, the existence of God depends on how clear and distinct is our idea of God. This seems to be a circular proof. Moreover, it is not logical to use one’s imperfect judgments in order to choose which characteristics are perfect or not. How would a less perfect being know the real characteristic of a more perfect being? Another point was the use of the two kinds of realities. One can think of God as well as an imperfect being. If existence is perfection then how can the idea of an imperfect being exist? We now must have a formal reality however it is not possible. In essence, one can say that his proof was indeed something to read but he fails to clearly prove the existence of God.

This is a free essay on Critique of Descartes' Proof of God's Existence. We are the leading provider of affordable essay writing services in the United States and the United Kingdom.  If you need help we will write well written essays on Critique of Descartes' Proof of God's Existence at very affordable costs starting at $7.50/page.

BUY PHILOSOPHY ESSAY ON DESCARTES PROOF OF GOD'S EXISTENCE NOW! 

Did you find our blog post informative? You do not have to do research on your topic again!
If you are interested to subscribe to our email club fill out our form by clicking on the the link below
https://madmimi.com/signups/join/45368
to receive the most current and up to date information about your topic!

Essay on Comparative Philosophy of Plato, Descartes and Carl Jung

There are movies and TV series that have dealt with the dichotomy between reality and imagination.  Among these movies and TV series are The Thirteenth Floor, Harsh Realm, Vanilla Sky, Total Recall, the Truman Show, and Strange Days.  Yet none of these movies and TV series has generated so much interest and appeal than “The Matrix.” 

It is about the story of Thomas Anderson who lived what appeared to him a normal life.  He worked as a program writer for a software company and at the same time worked as a hacker under the alias Neo.  One day he receives a cryptic message on his computer monitor.  His search for the origin of the message led him to Morpheus the leader of the secret resistance group. His normal life was suddenly rocked by Morpheus who revealed to him that reality is actually different from what he perceived it to be.  Morpheus explained that human existence is nothing but a fake and a computer-generated dream world.  Humans have long been captured by supercomputers which detained them inside pods and fed their brains with sensory stimuli.  Neo and the other humans think these stimuli as a reality.  The movie revolved around this story line. 

The idea upon which the movie was based is actually not new.  There have been other philosophers who questioned the nature reality.  Among these philosophers were Plato, Carl Jung, Rene Descartes and Gardner.  Yet, the philosophical foundations of The Matrix is so much nearer to the philosophy of Rene Descartes who argued in favor of the dual nature of reality and the superiority of res cogitans over the res extensa. (Erik Davis 1)  This comparative argumentation essay seeks to prove that Descartes’ Philosophy is much closer to the philosophical foundations of the Matrix compared to the other philosophers such as Plato and Carl Jung.

Morpheus explained to Neo that the human race is inside the world of the Matrix, to wit:

            It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes, to blind you from the truth ... that you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind.

Implicit in Morpheus explanation to Neo about the nature of reality is the concept of the belief in the transcendent things.  The transcendent thing is the thing in itself.  It is that which exists independently of a person’s perception of the thing.  It is that which has objective existence apart from our own subjective interpretations of the thing. The transcendent thing is the humanity’s life outside the Matrix which is considered superior as it is the real reality.  On the other hand, what the rest of humanity perceives and which appears to them as the reality is nothing but the creation of supercomputers 

Descartes philosophy is closer to the Matrix because a similar concept of the nature of reality can be found in Rene Descartes’ philosophy of dualism.  He thought that the human world is sharply divided between the reality of thought, otherwise known as res cogitans, and extended reality, otherwise known as res extensa.  (Gilbert Garza 436) The res cogitans is superior compared to the res extensa because the former is the only thing we can have certainty.  

The Reliable and Affordable Essay Writing Services

Secondly, Descartes himself belied that the physical reality cannot be trusted.  In arriving at this conclusion, Rene Descartes argued that we should doubt everything.  While he agreed with the idea that it would not be possible to doubt everything, he declared that in principle it is possible to doubt everything.  Doubting everything is only means by which we can reach certainty about the nature of life. (Gerald J. Erion & Barry Smith 17)  Similar to solving a mathematical problem, Descartes broke down a complex problem into smaller parts.  Consequently, he doubted not only what he perceives with his senses but even his existence.  He thought that it is possible that he could only be dreaming as there is a thin line that separates the state of dreaming from the state of being awake.  He however could only be sure about one thing – the fact that he doubts could only make sense if he thinks.  He is therefore a thinking being.  He concluded that aside from the principles of mathematics which are absolutely indubitable, the fact of that he is a thinking being is also beyond doubt.  Since he knows with certainty with the use of intuition that he exists, this could only mean that the thinking being that he is was more real than the external material world which he can only perceive with the use of his senses.  Thus, he reached the conclusion that the reality of thought has superior existence than the extended reality.

Thirdly, truth can only be attained by overcoming our tendency to pass off what we perceive as reality.  Despite the superiority of the intellect, some still prefer to live a life distorted by sense perception.  Our senses are like the supercomputers in “The Matrix” which can give us a distorted view of the reality.  Those who prefer to trust their senses are trapped in their own distorted world.  Just like Neo before he found out the truth, those who continue to believe in what their senses tell will continue to live a lie.  Truth can only be attained by following Descartes’ method and by overcoming tendency of the senses to deceive us.  This is what Neo did as he tried to overcome his physical limitations and became what Morpheus called “The One.” 

On the other hand, it can also be said that The Matrix shares similarity with Plato’s Allegory of the Cave in his work The Republic. (Colin Colvert 1) The Allegory of the Cave speaks of the story of cave dwellers who live inside a cave.  Their neck, hands and feet are tied such that they could not turn their heads or even decide to leave the cave.  Behind them is a burning fire which is their only source of light.  Further behind is the mouth of the cave.  These cave dwellers have been living thinking that the only world is the world of the shadows.  They are not familiar with the reality outside of the cave, the real world.  Plato theorized that these cave dwellers think that the only reality is the shadows that they see inside the wall of the cave.  They therefore have an imperfect idea of reality as what they see are mere images of the reality.  The situation of Neo is similar with the cave dwellers who had an imperfect vision of reality until he managed to escape from the cave.

The difference however is that these two worlds, the real world and the world of the shadows, are continuous.  Even if the world of the shadows is inferior to the real world, the former is still a reflection and derives its existence from the real world.  On the other hand, the world of make-believe by the Matrix is not a reflection of the real world but is a simulation.  Moreover, Plato’s Allegory of the Cave does not purport to discuss something about the nature of reality but rather it is a myth used by Plato to talk about how his teacher Socrates was killed by the people whom he tried to help.

The same is true with Carl Jung who was one of the pioneers of the field called analytical psychology.  Analytical psychology focuses on humanity's unconsciousness and its motivations and forces behind individual thinking.  Carl Jung thought that the unconscious mind holds the answer to man’s problems and the cure for man’s sickness.  While it is true that the supercomputers were able to subdue man by feeding man with subjective impulses making it appear that man is still living a normal and real life in his sleep, the storyline of the Matrix does not center on man’s dreams but rather on the dual nature of reality.  It centers on the reasons 

Conclusion

How does a person know what is real? How can a person tell which is real and which is not? Though these are indeed simple and basic these are the ones who are very difficult to answer.  This can perhaps be attributed to the fact that we have been very accustomed to our everyday existence that we have neglected to question these ideas.  While I would not go as far as Descartes in doubting everything, I commend him for going further than the earlier Skeptic philosophers who refused to take a stand on the nature of reality.  If I were to answer the question, my simple answer would be, I know that something is real because I have faith.  My faith tells me that there is a God who exists and that he is Omnipresent, Omnipotent and Omniscient.  These characteristics entail that He will not delude me into thinking that something is real when it is really not. 

This is a free essay on comparative philosophy of Plato, Descartes and Carl Jung. We are the leading provider of affordable essay writing services in the United States and the United Kingdom.  If you need help we will write well written essay on comparative philosophy of Plato, Descartes and Carl Jung at very affordable costs starting at $7.50/page.

BUY ESSAY ON COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY OF PLATO, DESCARTES AND CARL JUNG NOW!

Did you find our blog post informative? You do not have to do research on your topic again!
If you are interested to subscribe to our email club fill out our form by clicking on the the link below
https://madmimi.com/signups/join/45368
to receive the most current and up to date information about your topic!

Essay on Free Will

The article on Free Will boldly makes comparisons about man and computers. First, the article acknowledged that human beings are immensely complex creatures, and that the human brain contains many millions of different nerve cells.  It then makes a bold assumption that the difference between men and computers are only a matter of degree.  It then proceeds to conclude and predict that time may come where we may be able to build a computer just as complicated and just as difficult to predict as the human mind.  It adds that computer programs may be created to give computers the ability to become unpredictable in their actions.  The article also says that it is possible that computers may be created that are capable of performing the functions of the human mind. 

I disagree.  Though I somehow dream that a time may come when computers may be able to make decisions on their own or to show emotions or to perform tasks which only human beings may accomplish, I also believe that no creation may be better than its creator.  It is also no possible for an object of creation to be equal in terms of intelligence, skills and abilities than its creator. 

It is a fact of life that when a painter paints a beautiful painting on a canvass, or when a writer writes an almost flawless piece of essay or when a child becomes a good citizen of our country, what is being praised is not the painting, or the essay or the child.  We praise the painter.  We applaud at the writer.  We admire the parents.  An object of creation can never be better or at least equal its creator. 

The Reliable and Affordable Essay Writing Services

Secondly, man’s existence and exercise of free will is much more than the result of the processes that happen in his brain or his emotions.  It is the result of millions of years of evolution.  Mother Nature is somehow responsible for this evolution.  Nature has built man to be what it is today.  Through constant adaptation with man’s natural environment, man has evolved into something that is completely different compared to what he used to be.  Because of natural selection man learned to adapt to his environment to survive. 

To say therefore that a computer can be created that can replicate the process f the human brain is like saying that the millions of years of evolution plays an insignificant role in our development.  The human brain has survived the toughest of challenges nature has thrown at it.  The computers on the other hand, cannot survive without its operating system.  The human brain is capable of adapting even to the harshest of conditions.  Computers cannot even adapt to its external environment. 

Conclusion

Free will is much more than having the capability to make use of reason.  It is much more than the ability to make decisions and to make choices.   Free will also involves the ability to think about our decisions and our choices.  Free will gives us the ability to reflect our own actions and evaluate them.  Though sometimes man may act irrationally, it is undeniable that man has the capacity to think about the potential repercussions of his action and to question his own actions.  What makes man unique is his ability to communicate with himself.  Computers until now are incapable of doing this.  Computers are not capable of communicating with themselves and questioning their own motives and reasons for their own actions.  

This is a free Essay on Free Will. We are the leading provider of affordable essay writing services in the United States and the United Kingdom. If you need help we will prepare a well-written Essay on Free Will at very affordable costs starting at $7.50/page.

BUY ESSAY ON FREE WILL NOW!

Compare and Contrast Essay on Gandhi and Machiavelli - Leadership Styles of Gandhi

This essay seeks to compare and contrast the ideas of two great philosophers and thinkers of their generation – Mohandas Gandhi and Niccolo Machiavelli.  Mohandas Gandhi, the leader of the Indian nationalist movement which fought for India’s liberation against British rule, was known more for his charisma and compassion.  Niccolo Machiavelli was a famous philosopher who authored “The Prince” an instruction book and guide for rulers and who was famous for his ruthlessness and cunningness. 

On Leadership

In the discussion about leadership, the first thing that comes to mind is the leaders.  The leaders are the people who hold power and lead the people.  They are the presidents or the prime ministers or the military generals.  One of the most recognized leaders in world history is Mohandas Gandhi.  What makes him great is that he did not consider himself as a leader.  The views he espoused about leadership are also unlike the leaders of today.  He was a different leader because he had no political title nor was he elected by the people.  He also did not command a legion of army and soldiers nor did he have wealth.  Yet he was one of the greatest and most influential figures in history.  He argued that leaders have no business enslaving and oppressing the people.  He likewise opposed use of hatred and violence by the leaders against the people.  For Gandhi, the best leader is someone who avoids all hatred, violence and oppression.  (Eric Weiner 2)  Moreover, Gandhi was an effective leader because he used his charisma and charm in leading the people.  He used his gift of tongue and articulateness to convince the Indian society to unite and seek independence.  Further, unlike the other leaders, Gandhi did not act and behave as leader but as a follower who made a lot of sacrifices for the people. 

In stark contrast to Mohandas Gandhi is Niccolo Machiavelli.  He argued that leaders should govern by force.  He thought the essence of a great leader is strength and cunningness.  A great leader must possess the strength of a lion and the cunning of a fox.  Unlike Gandhi who talked about compassion, Machiavelli, In “The Prince”, talked about ruthlessness and its necessity to dispose of the leader’s enemy, to maintain power and to rule effectively. 

On Morality

Gandhi was a famous moralist who advocated compassion, chastity, temperance, restraint and modesty.  He thought that leaders should always be guided by morality in their actions and political decision.  The end goal should not be used to justify the means in reaching the end.  Thus, for him use of violence is not justifiable under any circumstances. 

On the other hand, Machiavelli can be considered an immoral leader.  He declared that leaders should set aside morality in making political decisions and should concentrate only in ensuring that they retain their power over the people and their enemies.  According to Machiavelli, political leaders should not have second thoughts especially when there is a need to employ violence and cruelty.   It must however be stressed that Niccolo Machiavelli was not a sadist leader who wanted to employ violence for its own sake.  In ‘The Prince’, Machiavelli explained that: “Well used are those cruelties...that are carried out in a single stroke, done out of necessity to protect oneself, and are not continued but are instead converted into the greatest possible benefits for the subjects. Badly used are those cruelties which, although being few at the outset, grow with the passing time instead of disappearing.  Those who follow the first method can remedy their condition with God and with men...the others cannot possibly survive.”  This means that use of violence is allowed provided it will redound to the benefit of the greater number of people. 

On Violence

For Gandhi, the imposition of violence and passage of unjust laws are not acceptable.  If leaders commit violence against the people or pass unjust laws, it becomes the duty and moral obligation of every citizen not to support the ruler and to disobey the unjust law.  For Gandhi, it will be the height of injustice for a person to continuously obey an unjust law or to continuously pay his taxes with full knowledge that the same will be used to implement the unjust law.  He did not however support any act of violence or revolution to resist the unjust law.  He advocated that people should engage in civil disobedience and refuse to comply with unjust laws.  He also did not support resort to violence by the Indians in their fight for freedom.  Moreover, Gandhi thought that unjust laws are not always necessary and the society may continue to exist even without laws. 

On the other hand, Machiavelli thought that violence and unjust laws are necessary evil in order for a leader to become effective in governing the people and in fighting the enemy.  Violence is part and parcel of governance which must be imposed in view of its necessity to maintain order within the society.      

Conclusion

Based on the comparison between Gandhi and Machiavelli on the issue of leadership, morality and violence, it can be said that the two great thinkers have substantial differences in their philosophies.  Their views are in stark contrast with each other.  Gandhi was calmer, just, benevolent, kind, compassionate leader.  He taught that the main task of a leader is to lead by example.  He was also against any form of violence and treachery.  He thought that goals and objectives no matter how noble do not justify the use of violent means to achieve it.  On the other hand, Machiavelli is stricter, tyrannical, despotic, and violent leader who was ruthless in his approach to leadership.  He stressed the importance of use of violence to maintain control over the people and to destroy the enemy.  While he thought that violence was part and parcel of great leadership, he however was not in favor of arbitrariness in imposing violence.  For him, violence was allowed so long as it is imposed as a means to an end which is the protection of the welfare of the people. 

This is a free Compare and Contrast Essay on Gandhi and Machiavelli.  We are the leading provider of essay writing services in the US and the UK.  If you need help we will prepare a well-written Compare and Contrast Essay on Gandhi and Machiavelli at very affordable rates starting at $7.50/page.

BUY ESSAY ON LEADERSHIP STYLE OF GANDHI AND MACHIAVELLI NOW!