Machiavelli in Context. His thoughts are even more important today.

The great courses - The Teaching Company ^ | unknown | Professor William R. Cook

[jongaltsr]

They say “Camel is a horse created by a committee”.

My favorite expression.

[tanuki]

Uh, I’m not the one who asked the original question. Just to keep the record straight.:>

[tanuki]

“you did not give me the option to be feared.
but your question was - to be loved or feared
- not hated for feared”

Uh, I didn’t ask the original question. Just to set the record straight. I’m also the genius who managed to reply to himself.

[Sawdring]

I loved the Prince and should read it again.

[jongaltsr]

Uh, I didn’t ask the original question. Just to set the record straight. I’m also the genius who managed to reply to himself.

Of course I never do such foolish things. I also don't talk to myself, talk in in my sleep, bump into objects in the dark or spill ice down my shirt in public, etc.

Of course the (correct) wording of the question is important. I would much rather be feared (respected) than loved. Friends will take advantage of your good nature if you let them. If they (respect) you they are less likely to take advantage. On the other hand, if they absolutely fear you, there is no way in he-(double L) people will even want to try to mess with you. Then again you also have, as a consequence, few friends.

Having a "few" close friends that you can command respect from is well worth the compromise.

[tanuki]

Well put. In this world, respect is harder to achieve than either love or hate or even absolute fear. Only with those from whom you obtain it can you have a relationship on your terms.

[tanuki]

Well put. In this world, respect is harder to achieve than either love or hate or even absolute fear. Only with those from whom you obtain it can you have a relationship on your terms.

[Blind Eye Jones]

Machiavelli's The Prince was the beginnings of modern political thought in as much as it made the distinction between the “ought” and the “is,” though all subsequent philosophy sided with the “ought” over the “is” — only actual princes recognized the “is” and thereby didn’t lose their kingdom by being Christian in any real regards (only phony displays of mercy, charity, etc.). That distinction between the two words allowed modern philosophers to focus on the low but solid foundations of nature which supports all of man’s actions. In other words, man no longer looked to the stars and constellations for guidance but cast his vision down to the base earth... and from there he could build a low but solid foundation. Lock & Hobbes continue in that tradition giving rise to the modern experiment call liberal democracy. Much of this experiment, that Machiavelli in one way or another started, is based on the primacy of reason over faith in some just afterworld. Simply, reason conquers nature and eventually human nature — reason can solve all of man's petty squabbles and concerns. Rational self interest is the solution for natural man entering civil society and the great bourgeois enterprise thinks that reason can eventually do away with the worst ills (death) and ease man’s estate.

[Billthedrill]

Nicely put (as usual) - yes, if I could borrow your formulation the Discourses are his "ought" and The Prince his "is." I have real problems with his idealization of Cesare Borgia in the latter volume, though, not because of his use of that character to ingratiate himself with the Medici, but the fact that Cesare didn't actually do very much beside despoiling the countryside in the futile pursuit of a safe haven for the Borgia. As a model Prince he offered everything...except success.

His sister was pretty cool, though, IMHO - Lucrezia was shopped around as chattel and ended up rising above it all. And she didn't poison anyone. Of all of the Borgia she's the only one I have come to like.

[JasonC]

Except, the man was simply flat evil. Proud of it, actually. Not a model. Proof that smart doesn't equal useful, when the "good" bone is busted.

[JasonC]

Projection, actually. Machiavelli was unabashedly normative. He says what should be done, not just what is done.

And the low bits are not conscipicuously more solid than the high ones. See present world, last century, etc.

[JasonC]

If you want to know the moral truth about Machiavelli, re-read chapter 27 of book I of the Discourses.

Machiavelli is the teacher and intellectual forefather of Stalin and Mao...

[jongaltsr]

Except, the man was simply flat evil. Proud of it, actually. Not a model. Proof that smart doesn't equal useful, when the "good" bone is busted.

That is the common perspective one gets from people who have never studied his works in context with the times and what historians have focused on WITHOUT the benefit of actual studies of his works.

The common misconception is that he was friends with the Medichies. He was and so was anyone who wanted to survive. Machiavelli actually tried to get the Medichies to modify their behavior for the benefit of the Republic. Some did listen and ruled quite well. Others didn't and caused long term and short term problems which could have been prevented if they listened to his advice.

Don't judge people when you don't know their historical context and complete facts. If you listen to academics you will get a biased, incomplete, and unrealistic interpretation of the actual doctrines.

Read, Study, Learn. Don't base you opinion on what others say about his works. If you just read "The Prince" you can easily misinterpret actual living conditions.

Remember this - Perspective, Perspective, Perspective.

[jongaltsr]

Except, the man was simply flat evil. Proud of it, actually. Not a model. Proof that smart doesn't equal useful, when the "good" bone is busted.

That is the common perspective one gets from people who have never studied his works in context with the times and what historians have focused on WITHOUT the benefit of actual studies of his works.

The common misconception is that he was friends with the Medichies. He was and so was anyone who wanted to survive. Machiavelli actually tried to get the Medichies to modify their behavior for the benefit of the Republic. Some did listen and ruled quite well. Others didn't and caused long term and short term problems which could have been prevented if they listened to his advice.

Don't judge people when you don't know their historical context and complete facts. If you listen to academics you will get a biased, incomplete, and unrealistic interpretation of the actual doctrines.

Read, Study, Learn. Don't base you opinion on what others say about his works. If you just read "The Prince" you can easily misinterpret actual living conditions.

Remember this - Perspective, Perspective, Perspective.

[jongaltsr]

Yes. Bad people take advice as well as good people. If you ONLY consider the evil people you will only see things through a biased filter. Have you asked how many Good Rulers have read and practice Machiavelli principals in context with current times?

Obviously you read one of the discourses (and only a minor point to boot) and made a judgment based on "one" set of facts, ignored ALL of the rest of the overall facts presented in the complete discourses.

[jongaltsr]

GREAT point. IS is the point.
now for another perspective - It depends up what the definition of what IS is. “Bill Clinton”.

[jongaltsr]

Lucrezia knew had the power and accepted her fate. She had no other choice.

[jongaltsr]

He says what should be done, not just what is done.

ANOTHER GREAT POINT!
He told his "Princes" what was best for the people, the Republic and the success of their rule. It was all based on what worked and didn't not work in the Realm of Human Nature. It was up the them to do the right thing.

[Calpernia]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1870462/posts
Nelson Mandela’s Group of Global Elders a Who’s Who of Pro-Abortion, Pro-Population Control Movement

>>>>The Elders

Sounds frightening reminiscent of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. That was a Russian, literary forgery.

Elements of the text in the Protocols appears to be plagiarized from an 1864 pamphlet, Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu (Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu), written by the French satirist Maurice Joly.

Emphasis: Machiavelli

[txhurl]

To whom should we really attribute ‘bread and circuses?’