Political Science

Politics plays a significant role in our lives, more so as it is politics. Political thought, particularly that of gratification toward political realism which was accomplished at the beginning of the modern era and is associated with the name Machiavelli, is constantly arrested by that passage the prince which Machiavelli himself speaks out, the guiding principles underlying the whole of his observations. It is from such observation that such celebrated personalities as Machiavelli, who is commonly revered to due to his political epic as the prince and Aquinas, who in practice was more of a theologian than a philosopher, express their ideas in the captivating political piece On law morality and politics.

Exploring their position on both politics and religion, it is instrumental to assert that both men had unique observation of the core dispositions of politics as well as religion. It is on such analysis that ethical considerations are viewed on the context of reasons and principles that men find tolerable. It is prudent to state that Machiavelli in his capacity as a political writer rejected some of the common virtues linked to both man and God, hence, he cajoled that what men strive to get in religion is practically impossible. His conviction rested on the presumption that politics, not religion had the capacity to provide the much needed breakthrough. Thus, unlike Aquinas who dwelt more on principles of religion, and more so viewed virtue as one of the principal pillars of human dignity. While holding that, political philosophy is, in one reverence, simply that fraction or expansion of moral philosophy which reflects on the kinds of preferences that should be made by each and every one who share the accountability and ability of choosing for a society.

As a political theorist, Machiavelli noted Principalities are either hereditary, in which the family has been long established or they are new. Therefore, even matters pertaining to religion or virtue are imbedded in an individual from his roots. Thus, what the men of valor desire to achieve in the society, or the society they desire to build becomes impossible due to the vetted interests which can be as a result of these principalities or family ties which might be against.

To my knowledge, Machiavelli reflected on the dual concepts of religion and politics, his argument illuminated the subtle genesis of Christian virtues which are strongly imprinted in our social lives but makes it hard for a man to achieve his desires without the engagement of political authority in one way or the other. For instance, exploring the dissemination of the thoughts Aquinas had, it is variably established that he looked back, examined numeral social basics and more so raised some of the rudiment questions regarding humanity, including such issues as human nature, ethics and equally the precepts of law and politics.

 By exploring them through the scope of Christian faith in tandem with ancient philosophy, he attempted to restore the sovereignty of nature and reason, in total harmony with Christian faith. But unlike Aquinas who foresaw the dignity of Christian virtues as the greatest possibilities of building great societies, Machiavelli in his own right as a political theorist argued that

I answer that the principalities of which one has record are found to be administrated in two different ways either by a prince, with a body of servants, who assist him to rule the kingdom as ministers by his favour and permission or by a prince and barons, who hold that decorum by antiquity of blood and not by the elegance of the prince. Such barons have states and their own subjects, who distinguish them as lords and hold them in natural affection. (Machiavelli 1965)

Thus, he observed that political possibilities, not Christian virtues helped men to realize their dreams of a society. It is instrumental to argue that Machiavellis political theory represents a concerted effort to exclude issues of authority and legitimacy from consideration in the dialogue of political decision-making and political judgment.

This comes out very clearly in his treatment of the relationship between law and force. He acknowledges that good laws and arms constitute the dual foundations of a well ordered political system. However he also asserts that since coercion creates legality, he will concentrate his attention on force. He says that, Since there cannot be good laws without good arms, I will not consider laws but speak of arms (Machiavelli 1965, 47). This implies that the legitimacy of law rests on the threat of the coercive force and for him authority is impossible.

He asserts that it is always preferable to affection in subjects, just as violence is, and deception is superior to legality in effectively controlling them. He also observes that, 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 (Machiavelli 1965, 62).

 Machiavelli is not a friend to any religion and he particularly hated Christianity to the apex. His writings connote that conventional Christianity saps from human beings the vigor required for an active and civil life.

The Prince denotes with equal parts disdain and admiration about the condition of the church and its pope. (Machiavelli 1965, 44). Scholarly work has indicated that Machiavelli was profoundly antichristian, and favored the pagan civil religions of ancient societies such as Rome which, he said, fitted these societies and what they practiced in terms of culture.  Parel (1992) proposed that Machiavellis cosmos takes a pagan view towards life and is essentially against any form of Christianity.
However Sebastian (1989) has tried to help Machiavelli out of the criticism that he is against Christianity by writing that most of the writings of Machiavelli take a biblical teaching because he uses the lexical items the heavens and fortune which shows that he understands something to do with Christianity. Cary Nederman (1999) develops and adds weight to the assertions of Grazia by connoting how such central Christian theological doctrines as grace and free will be part of crucial elements of Machiavellis conceptual structure.

The philosophy of Aquinas displays several interesting issues when he is trying to illustrate the extent to which philosophy is a dialogue with thinkers from the past and in this way it is situated within a tradition. He has synthesized the Aristotelian philosophy towards Augustine. The Aquinas theory presents with doctrines that are to be adhered to and clearly to serve as guidelines to the Roman Catholic Church and those proclaiming for theology. Aquinas epitomizes the character of medieval thought and in doing so, exhibits the way thought reflects the socio-historic context of its generation. In the medieval period when Aquinas was writing this work, politics was dominated by the relationship of the church and the state.

All authority to govern any state was embedded in what the state thought of as good to the society and the church. The church therefore had a prime role in formulating rules and regulations that prevail in society. The highest good for Aristotle is found in the contemplation of truth and he believed this was the highest part of peoples because of humans dependence basically on intellect.

Aquinas took the contemplation of truth a notch higher by postulating that man, through seeking his end, participates in the very nature of God. This participation for Aquinas is the one connoting Grace and a person in the state of Grace posses certain powers which are referred by other people as virtues. Moreover, if they are infused virtues then they can be grouped into two i.e. theological values and cardinal virtues.

University was a school where citizens learnt displines like law, medicine and arts. The monks also learnt here and those who wanted to practice priesthood. All the students who were learning in universities were supposed to have some courses in religion because it was the way of life. Aquinas was brought up in times when the church had a lot of power in the society and later on, his writing were used to draw the university curriculum. Aquinas attached no importance to politics and believed that if people were to be guided by the biblical teachings then there was to be no need of any governing authority. And even if any existed then it would not be having any functions, as every citizen would be law abiding.

He highly criticizes the secular way of living and advocates that those who trudge in the road towards the same are not likely to proclaim the heavenly kingdom, therefore the works of Aquinas are more of theology and less of philosophy. Machiavelli is convinced that what are commonly thought of as the central Christian virtues, whatever their intrinsic value is, are insuperable obstacles to the building of the kind of society that he wishes to see a society which, he assumes, is natural for all normal men to wantthe kind of community that, in his view, satisfies mens permanent desires and interests.

Machiavelli also believes that it is not simply a question of the un-attainability of an ideal because of human imperfection, original sin, bad luck, ignorance, or insufficiency of material means. It is not, in other words, the inability in practice on the part of ordinary human beings to rise to a sufficiently high level of Christian virtue that makes it for them impracticable to establish and even to seek after the good Christian State.