Machiavelli.
Re-reading some of his works through much more mature eyes, I am of the opinion that Machiavelli gets a very bum rap. Machiavellian is a term for that which is self-serving in a particularly evil way and I don't think it fits. Something more concerned with result than substance.
This comes partially from the fact that his work The Prince was used by the protestant French as an evidence of the evils of Catholicism. The Prince, when seen in the absence of his other work, would certainly not speak well of Machiavelli. It is a work commissioned by the Borgias and deals with how to gain and keep power.
He has, however, a theme that repeats throughout this and his art of war is the idea--in order for Italy to maintain itself as a power in the world--that the princes need to allow the populace armaments and to have a unity amongst the Italian states.
What is that supposed to mean? Taken with his voluntary and un-commissioned discourses, we realize that his goal is an Italian democratic republic. He believes that the princes would be checked from excess by an armed public, and that an armed public would also guarantee the safety of the italian lands, which were at that point held by mercenaries.
He understands power as a desirable commodity and he is very shrewd in the ways of power, but he is a patriot who desires a republic as the best for his Italy. Yes, he is sarcastic, cynical, and knows that it is often the very bad people who get the best of the earthly goods. Machiavelli is a realist. He is not, unlike the species we have now, a realist who is without ideals. He is a man, who fully expects the worst, and is looking for a way to implement something that resembles his ideals.
This comes partially from the fact that his work The Prince was used by the protestant French as an evidence of the evils of Catholicism. The Prince, when seen in the absence of his other work, would certainly not speak well of Machiavelli. It is a work commissioned by the Borgias and deals with how to gain and keep power.
He has, however, a theme that repeats throughout this and his art of war is the idea--in order for Italy to maintain itself as a power in the world--that the princes need to allow the populace armaments and to have a unity amongst the Italian states.
What is that supposed to mean? Taken with his voluntary and un-commissioned discourses, we realize that his goal is an Italian democratic republic. He believes that the princes would be checked from excess by an armed public, and that an armed public would also guarantee the safety of the italian lands, which were at that point held by mercenaries.
He understands power as a desirable commodity and he is very shrewd in the ways of power, but he is a patriot who desires a republic as the best for his Italy. Yes, he is sarcastic, cynical, and knows that it is often the very bad people who get the best of the earthly goods. Machiavelli is a realist. He is not, unlike the species we have now, a realist who is without ideals. He is a man, who fully expects the worst, and is looking for a way to implement something that resembles his ideals.
Thanks for this post. Though I have not read much of Machiavelli, what I have read (and the lectures of a much respected philosophy professor) put me much in the way of agreeing with you. Yet I find it difficult to refer to Machiavelli and his ideas without provoking a kneejerk dismissal or negative reaction from a conversationalist.
ReplyDelete