Jesse Jian Adelman

Dr. Sun
Great Minds of China
10/25/16
East vs West: On Pragmatic Thinkers
When the question arises on which hemisphere has the most practical thinkers, there
appears to be a general agreement that it is the Eastern hemisphere. The reasons behind this
belief are contained in the classic texts upon which both general societies base themselves. In the
West, these texts are the Bible and Platos The Republic, while in the East, they are the works of
Lao Tzu and Confucius, among others. Because the latter texts deal only with concepts that
absolutely exist which people in society must deal with and solve, while the Western texts mostly
deals with an idealized reality concept, which may or may not be achievable, that the people
should all aim to achieve regardless, certainly gives a clear answer to which people would end up
more practical based on what text they follow. However, one book, that is smaller than any of the
aforementioned classical texts, born in the 16th century from the ashes of the Great Italian Wars,
like a black horse unexpectedly rivals the East in the practical methods of administering a
government. This tiny book is Machiavellis The Prince. Although this book along with Eastern
classical texts are without a doubt pragmatic in its methods, the methods the writers advocate
could not be more differentiating from one another. One one hand, Machiavelli argues the
importance of appearing moral and virtuous, while not actually being them to be an effective
leader, while on the other hand Confucius argues being the virtuous gentleman is the most
important aspect of being an effective leader in government. Another example is how
Machiavelli advocates the effectiveness of a leader is measured solely by what actions he takes

while in the position of power, Lao Tzu supports the idea of governing without drastic actions,
rather by letting a state run its own course in order to be the most effective. Regardless, every
thinkers methods which they advocate has flaws and benefits, although in my own opinion, I
find that Machiavellis methods have the most practical application compared to either one of the
others because of the examples he provides to prove his points, while the other texts lack any,
along with the effectiveness of his methods compared to the others.
On the matters of governing the state and its people, Machiavelli and Lao Tzu have many
contrasting and similar methods on how to most effectively do so. The main summary of each
respective thinker is that Machiavelli believes direct action by the ruler is the most effective
method, and that Lao Tzu advocates the importance of non-action in administering a state most
efficiently. One event which shows the greatest distinction of effectiveness of either method
occurs in the acquisition of a new principality, whether through conquering, heredity, the
formation of an entirely new state, etc. From Machiavellis view in The Prince, One of the best
and most effective solutions is to go and live there. This makes the possession more secure and
more permanent, emphasizing the importance of direct control and action in governing a state
(Machiavelli 8). His reasoning for this action is so that any arising problems can be detected and
dealt with by the rulers actions before they become grave issues that may end up in the loss of
ruling the state. It is also meant to build up loyalty among the subjects who will feel more as
subjects of a new country instead of subjects of a conquered one. By having more direct access
to the ruler instead of being governed by the rulers officials who answer to the foreign
government where the ruler is located, the subjects are less likely to rebel and other foreign states
are less likely to succeed in trying to conquer the territory since the people will support its direct
ruler. Lao Tzu has a somewhat similar viewpoint; he agrees in the general statement that It is

easy to deal with a situation before symptoms develop, yet has the added flavor in the context of
ruling a nation to not be meddlesome in the affairs of its people (Lao Tzu ch. 64). Therefore, a
ruler following The Way might not go as far as to move capitals to the new territory for direct
rule over the state, and instead leaving the subjects to his/her own affairs without trying to
directly affect their way of life, which is what Machiavelli advocates. Perhaps the best way to
decide whose method is the more effective in practice is to give a historical example of such a
scenario.