Conclusion
In my introduction I claimed that Machiavelli is one of the most prolific political philosophers ever, and in my conclusion I stand by it. He was one of the first philosophers to mostly separate ethics from government, making politics its own sector of philosophy. His treatment of religion as unnecessary to politics influenced the popularity of secularism during the Enlightenment. His work has been highly debated since it has come out, even if an amount of those debaters are admonishing it. The Prince specifically has had a major impact on business majors (which, if I’m being honest, I’m not sure is a good thing because they tend to misinterpret it). I think Machiavelli already has a place in the philosophical cannon, and he should also have one in our syllabus. I will admit that a majority of the philosophy we look at is metaphysics. For my compare and contrast section, I chose Locke because he was one of the few political philosophers I could find on the syllabus, but even when we read him we only looked at his metaphysical work. I think if we want to include a political philosopher in our cannon, Machiavelli is the best choice. He was a pioneer for political philosophy, his works are more widely known so they might encourage more participation, and because of how highly debated his philosophy has been throughout history we could bring in other philosophers (that we have read) thoughts on it. I would also like to state that Machiavelli has a very plain, direct, and simple writing style. Especially in The Prince; it is a very easy read. So, I think if we wanted to give students a break and have them read something simpler, Machiavelli is a great option. All in all, I think Machiavelli deserves his spot in the philosophical cannon and would be a exceptional addition to ours.