13 replies to this topic

[Keen]

By Niccolo Machiavelli
It was said to be one of the most evil documents ever to enter publication....
If only people then had known what would be going on today....

So... has anyone here read The Prince?
Any opinions?

[Alakhriveion]

How is it evil? Self-Serving, maybe, but I think evil is the wrong word...

[arunma]

I have no idea what "the Prince" is. Please explain.

[Keen]

The Prince is a political treatise from the early 1500's written by Italian political fanatic Niccolo Machiavelli.

The point of the book is that a Prince (or any ruler regardless of the particular title) could maintain his rule by following certain guidlines set down therein.

It was regarded as evil at the time of its original release largely because it was quoted out of context and thought of as a general rule for any person (not just rulers) to conduct themsleves by. The book preaches many things which would be considered vices in the eyes of most and places little (or no) faith in the human spirit.

I personally agree with everything Machievelli said, not just for a ruler (as he meant it), but for any person regardless of their status. (Avoid making enemies who are powerful enough to threaten you. Keep what power you have and increase no one else's. Give kind gestures and your word freely, but never sacrifice your own power. In my complex moral system, however, I can accomplish this without demeaning anyone else.)

Basically, it was pure logic that in this age does not seem so harsh as it once did.

[arunma]

Based upon what you just said, I could very easily turn this into another religious debate (as I am prone to do). But since it's your thread, I won't. Unless you want me to, that is.

[Alakhriveion]

Basically, it was pure logic that in this age does not seem so harsh as it once did.

No, it's not "pure logic," and I'm sick of people calling it that. It's childish and greedy. It's a viable philosophy but it ain't Algebra.

[Korhend]

Machievelli at least wrote it with actual concern for other people, he felt that though unpleasant, power politics was necessary. Ayn Ryand's works are far more vile.

[Alakhriveion]

Before it starts- cool heads, everybody.

[davogones]

The way I see it, Machiavelli was only recording the objective observations he had made about what sort of politics work. He observed that certain ways of managing power were more effective. "Effective" here means better able to maintain that power. Machiavelli was not concerning himself with ethics, and was not really putting forth a united philosophical system of self-servingness. He was merely recording what methods he had seen to be most effective. It is true that some of these methods are immoral under certain ethical systems. This does not mean that Machiavelli was immoral, or that his entire system is immoral. All this means is that his ultimate goal in his book, achieving and maintaining power, is not a sufficient motivation for attaining moral good (under certain ethical systems). If one wishes to be a good person as well as an effective ruler, one musn't focus only on gaining and keeping power. Power ought to be obtained in order to do good. This, I think, is the point that Machiavelli either missed, or did not concern himself with. I do not think he deliberately recommended amoral methods, but I could be wrong.

[Korhend]

In the prince he simply did not concern himself with it. It was a how to book on power politics. However in his general philosophies he felt that it was not actually self serving to do these things. A leader maintaining good image while doing what needed to be done was, in his opinion, the most pragmaticly best. A good leader who is guided soley by ethics is weak and would fall to a crueller one. One who is openly cruel would lead to immense violence in a backlash. However one who keeps a firm hand on power while keeping the people content was, though not Ideal, as good as reality would allow. Machievelli was not evil merely cynical and pragmatic.

[davogones]

My impression is that The Prince is a dead-serious treatise on the best ways to gain and hold onto power. I didn't notice any elements of satire, but maybe Machiavelli was being tongue-in-cheek.

[Korhend]

I found no hints of that either, the Idea that it was "vile" should be taken in context. Machievelli had lost favor with the ruling class, and catholic morality dominated thought at the time, so of course its content was deemed horrific. Honestly if it was published today it would simply be called "Power Politics for Dummies"