8 Bit Philosophy: Who Was Machiavelli? (The Prince)

Darknacht

New member
May 13, 2009
849
0
0
Dynast Brass said:
Darknacht said:
His philosophy was that dictatorships where inferior to republic and the fear necessary to maintain the dictatorship would always lead to violence. The Prince is a book criticizing violent dictatorships not advocating for them.
Yes, I often wrote my criticisms in the context of sucking up to the powerful, and offering detailed and complete instructions to act like the object of my criticism.

:|
I see you are unfamiliar with satire.

Gorrath said:
I've never worried over whether it was satire or not because, as you say, it reads like an instruction manual. One of my favorite examples of this is where he talks about dealing with conquered lands. He mentions that merely stationing an army in a land you've conquered will do little to make that land your own. The heart of the people will still be against you and revolt is an inevitability. If you want to make a conquered land yours, you must send your own citizens to settle it. Whether he intends this as satire or not, the effectiveness of this tactic is unquestionable. Which is precisely why it is against international law to do it.

Through an amoral lens, much of what he writes in The Prince really is good advice for achieving the desired ends. It's just that the means he suggests are often immoral or unethical, but that was hardly a concern for Princes vying for power. I read The Prince as a manual for how to win at a specific game being played in that time and place. It's like a Gamfaqs for an unstable, principality-ruled Europe. Of course he wrote a lot about how the game was broken and how there were much better ways of ruling than those employed by the principality method, but within the confines of that method The Prince is a work of masterful insight.
Other had already written much more detailed guides and the princes where already being educated in these strategies. The difference between what others wrote and the Prince is that the Prince makes the actions sound reprehensible. It was either criticism on the system or it was so poorly written it is generally assumed to be criticism and when put into context of his life and other works and the fact he did not distribute it to the princes of Europe but instead quietly among his friends and other advocates for republics it seems that the former is more likely than the latter.
 

Darknacht

New member
May 13, 2009
849
0
0
Dynast Brass said:
Darknacht said:
Dynast Brass said:
Darknacht said:
His philosophy was that dictatorships where inferior to republic and the fear necessary to maintain the dictatorship would always lead to violence. The Prince is a book criticizing violent dictatorships not advocating for them.
Yes, I often wrote my criticisms in the context of sucking up to the powerful, and offering detailed and complete instructions to act like the object of my criticism.

:|
I see you are unfamiliar with satire.
Not at all, I'm just familiar with Machiavelli.
So you are familiar with his much more extensive works directly criticizing principalities and that he had a tendency to get arrested for advocating against them?
 

Darknacht

New member
May 13, 2009
849
0
0
Dynast Brass said:
Darknacht said:
Dynast Brass said:
Darknacht said:
Dynast Brass said:
Darknacht said:
His philosophy was that dictatorships where inferior to republic and the fear necessary to maintain the dictatorship would always lead to violence. The Prince is a book criticizing violent dictatorships not advocating for them.
Yes, I often wrote my criticisms in the context of sucking up to the powerful, and offering detailed and complete instructions to act like the object of my criticism.

:|
I see you are unfamiliar with satire.
Not at all, I'm just familiar with Machiavelli.
So you are familiar with his much more extensive works directly criticizing principalities and that he had a tendency to get arrested for advocating against them?
Yes, and the times when they were written relative to 'The Prince', and how he presented them in his lifetime. It's possible to be critical of something, and still provide a guide to live by within that framework, without satire or irony. His life and times suggest that kind of behavior, and the rest of his works do not support the notion of him as a great satirist.

But you know, people have to always be writing something new for their thesis, so we get this every so often, along with Shakespeare denial.
Figuring the majority opinion of scholars is that it was written as criticism, you seem to be on the denial side.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Darknacht said:
Gorrath said:
I've never worried over whether it was satire or not because, as you say, it reads like an instruction manual. One of my favorite examples of this is where he talks about dealing with conquered lands. He mentions that merely stationing an army in a land you've conquered will do little to make that land your own. The heart of the people will still be against you and revolt is an inevitability. If you want to make a conquered land yours, you must send your own citizens to settle it. Whether he intends this as satire or not, the effectiveness of this tactic is unquestionable. Which is precisely why it is against international law to do it.

Through an amoral lens, much of what he writes in The Prince really is good advice for achieving the desired ends. It's just that the means he suggests are often immoral or unethical, but that was hardly a concern for Princes vying for power. I read The Prince as a manual for how to win at a specific game being played in that time and place. It's like a Gamfaqs for an unstable, principality-ruled Europe. Of course he wrote a lot about how the game was broken and how there were much better ways of ruling than those employed by the principality method, but within the confines of that method The Prince is a work of masterful insight.
Other had already written much more detailed guides and the princes where already being educated in these strategies. The difference between what others wrote and the Prince is that the Prince makes the actions sound reprehensible. It was either criticism on the system or it was so poorly written it is generally assumed to be criticism and when put into context of his life and other works and the fact he did not distribute it to the princes of Europe but instead quietly among his friends and other advocates for republics it seems that the former is more likely than the latter.
I'm not sure what in the content of my post you are responding to. I'm making no claim as to whether The Prince is or is not satire. In fact it really does not matter to me if it is or is not. The point I'm making is that it is a good guide to the system being employed at the time among the Princes of Europe. Who he distributed the work to or whether other people also published works or whether anyone was already being educated in what was in The Prince is irrelevant (to this, my point). Whatever his intent, his insight into the matter shows in the way he's able to simply and matter-of-factly describe the situations, tactics and brutality of the game. I hope that clarifies my position. If you still find me to be in error, please do let me know which part you find objectionable. Cheers.
 

Darknacht

New member
May 13, 2009
849
0
0
Dynast Brass said:
You figure the majority opinion is that 'The Prince' is a work of satire?
Among scholars, of his works, the consensus is that it was written as criticism. Whether or not the word 'satire' is the best term to describe it is debatable.
There are some that disagree and say that it is not criticism but instead is meant as a trap, as some of the advice in The Prince would likely lead to a prices downfall, like quashing liberties and making the people fear you, while living among them, and arming them. I find this explanation unlikely as he did not distribute the Prince to the princes and even if it was its unlikely that they would have taken the advice of a known republican.
Only the fringe argue that it was simple a poorly written serious work made by a man who temporarily gave up his republican values before immediately going back to them after finishing the book.
 

Mullahgrrl

New member
Apr 20, 2008
1,011
0
0
I hope they do an episode on that great jingoist Mark Twain's magnum opus 'War Prayer' or the authoritarian George Orwell's manual 1984.

Or how about the holocaust-apologist Hanna Arendt?
 

PhantomEcho

New member
Nov 25, 2011
165
0
0
Dynast Brass said:
Darknacht said:
Dynast Brass said:
You figure the majority opinion is that 'The Prince' is a work of satire?
Among scholars, of his works, the consensus is that it was written as criticism. Whether or not the word 'satire' is the best term to describe it is debatable.
There are some that disagree and say that it is not criticism but instead is meant as a trap, as some of the advice in The Prince would likely lead to a prices downfall, like quashing liberties and making the people fear you, while living among them, and arming them. I find this explanation unlikely as he did not distribute the Prince to the princes and even if it was its unlikely that they would have taken the advice of a known republican.
Only the fringe argue that it was simple a poorly written serious work made by a man who temporarily gave up his republican values before immediately going back to them after finishing the book.
So, "No" then, good to know.
You really do have a way with manipulating and bastardizing information, don't you Dynast?

I'm fairly certain he said that the majority opinion, of people who are actually educated on the subject and therefore matter, is that The Prince was a work written in criticism of dictatorship and principalities.

So, no... what he's saying is "Yes, the majority of opinions that matter believe it was criticism. Not genuine advocacy for violent despots."
 

DerangedHobo

New member
Jan 11, 2012
231
0
0
If to maintain order you have to do heinous acts, I'd argue that order is not worth it. I'd rather die with my principles and morals intact than bend and contort them so I can keep my shallow sense of self-worth intact.
 

Mullahgrrl

New member
Apr 20, 2008
1,011
0
0
Dynast Brass said:
PhantomEcho said:
Dynast Brass said:
Darknacht said:
Dynast Brass said:
You figure the majority opinion is that 'The Prince' is a work of satire?
Among scholars, of his works, the consensus is that it was written as criticism. Whether or not the word 'satire' is the best term to describe it is debatable.
There are some that disagree and say that it is not criticism but instead is meant as a trap, as some of the advice in The Prince would likely lead to a prices downfall, like quashing liberties and making the people fear you, while living among them, and arming them. I find this explanation unlikely as he did not distribute the Prince to the princes and even if it was its unlikely that they would have taken the advice of a known republican.
Only the fringe argue that it was simple a poorly written serious work made by a man who temporarily gave up his republican values before immediately going back to them after finishing the book.
So, "No" then, good to know.
You really do have a way with manipulating and bastardizing information, don't you Dynast?SNIP
If you can't control yourself, don't bother to reply, thanks.
Wow, and then you go and do the exact thing again.
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
I'm all for discussions on the merits or flaws of a point of view/philosophy. However these personal attacks and carefully worded snipes are not discussion material, and it shows a lack of maturity.

If you want people to take your views and posts seriously, ya'll may want to be more civil. No matter how clever you word a personal attack or a snipe, it still comes off as snarky and immature.

OT: That being said, some of you have tossed out some great points, but the murky nature of The Prince is central to the real debate. If I look at the history of Machiavelli and the content of The Prince, I can see it is a 180 degree turn from his professed views. It has been said that he may have written it to get favor from the current ruling classes that did not like him or his critical views on monarchy and the idea of rule by birthright rather than merit.
Begging the expert opinions aside for a moment, I'm going to say that Machiavelli was an intelligent man, and I could see him masking a criticism in the form of a satire. Satire is a great criticism, and if he wrote it in such a way that he fooled the people he wanted to fool, it may have worked in his favor. However because of the differences in time, culture and even language, our views are forever colored by modern perceptions. So we may never actually know if he was serious or writing satirical criticisms, and if the latter was true, was he slipping it past the ruling class? Passing it off as a serious work when it was a massive joke?
The way people argue over this idea, it makes me think that we'll never actually know. Experts never agree and we can't just dig him up and ask him.
 

briankoontz

New member
May 17, 2010
656
0
0
leviadragon99 said:
Well considering that the father of this philosophy lived out the rest of his days in exile, doesn't seem like that strategy panned out too well for him, or it's a tacit admission that he himself was unable to live by his words.

Hell, we've seen in the real world that that kind of attitude leads to pretty poisonous outcomes, with any benefit to the country or the populace thereof debatable at best, often running directly counter to their long-term interests by shortsighted tactics that burn too many bridges.
Right - and that's why the powerful have put their power into institutions, not individuals. You can't argue against a corporation - the face of a sociopathic bank cannot be met by a human being.

Institutions can achieve profit at any cost without there being anyone accountable.

"It's just policy" (and we have to follow policy to maximize shareholder value) - "So, you see, there's nothing we can do..."

Institutions provide cover for the powerful from the otherwise dangerous responses of injured parties.
 

Mullahgrrl

New member
Apr 20, 2008
1,011
0
0
Dynast Brass said:
Mullahgrrl said:
Dynast Brass said:
PhantomEcho said:
Dynast Brass said:
Darknacht said:
Dynast Brass said:
You figure the majority opinion is that 'The Prince' is a work of satire?
Among scholars, of his works, the consensus is that it was written as criticism. Whether or not the word 'satire' is the best term to describe it is debatable.
There are some that disagree and say that it is not criticism but instead is meant as a trap, as some of the advice in The Prince would likely lead to a prices downfall, like quashing liberties and making the people fear you, while living among them, and arming them. I find this explanation unlikely as he did not distribute the Prince to the princes and even if it was its unlikely that they would have taken the advice of a known republican.
Only the fringe argue that it was simple a poorly written serious work made by a man who temporarily gave up his republican values before immediately going back to them after finishing the book.
So, "No" then, good to know.
You really do have a way with manipulating and bastardizing information, don't you Dynast?SNIP
If you can't control yourself, don't bother to reply, thanks.
Wow, and then you go and do the exact thing again.
No, I'm just like most people, and I stop reading when someone starts insulting. Want to be heard? Be civil.
Well, that makes you look like a complete dickhead who can't handle being wrong.