A Philosophical Thought

[wrightofway]

Experts today still debate whether The Prince is a satire or not. Some of the ideas are pretty extreme. Personally, I say it was a satire, and a damn good one.

 

[Logan Keller]

No. Besides who am I to decide the greater good?

 

[Uszi]

No, because as he also argues you can only push people for so long before they're just going to kill you. He had three golden rules: make sure they've got enough eat, make sure they've got a place to sleep, and don't sleep with their wives. If you're going to be cruel, you still can only do so for the sake of preserving those qualities.

Machiavelli also wrote that a good prince is able to see his Kingdom like a series of layers or maps. He can see the big, all encompassing picture, and he can see the very tiny minute details of his kingdom. He understands what the poor person is going through and the rich one.

And finally, most of his political manipulation techniques relied on something that no longer exists today: information control. With the internet, you can no longer maintain the privacy and positioning against enemies that he relied on. Most of his tactics, including using cruelty to control the populace, still rely on the populace being ignorant. That isn't really possible anymore.

Experts today still debate whether The Prince is a satire or not. Some of the ideas are pretty extreme. Personally, I say it was a satire, and a damn good one.

If I remember, it was a satire that was taken to heart by one too many dictators, globally.

I seem to remember hearing somewhere that what has become the popular Machiavellian theory was actually written by Mr. Machiavelli with tongue in cheek. That is, Machiavelli didn't really espouse Machiavellianism.

I mean, if you want to talk about popular Machiavellianism, then sure, but I think we should acknowledge that the man seems to be quoted out of context almost universally.

On the merits of the theory: Rule by fear is done on some level everywhere. Take Obama for instance: He has to make damn sure we know that this is the worst economic situation since the Great Depression (debatable) whenever he talks about the economy. What does that create ladies and gentlemen? Fear, and it creates a need for government in your eyes, so that Obama the White Knight will swoop in with a trillion dollar stimulus package.

Bush did it with the War on Terror. Hitler did it with the Jews.

 

[TheBluesader]

Sometimes cruelty is a matter of context. Antivaccine people would say that it's cruel for the state to force them to get their children vaccines, but the rest of us would say it's cruel for their disease-ridden children to be running around, infecting us with mutated, vaccine-resistant Super Die. And the populations of Germany and Japan considered what we and Russia did to them after the war as cruel, but we just shrugged it off, since we considered what they had supported so vile they weren't in a position to judge.

I don't agree that the ends justify the means. But that's only because I ask a bigger question: where do leaders get their ends, and why should the rest of us let them pursue them just because they have some title? Most of the times, in retrospect, the ends themselves weren't really justifiable by any means.

 

[theklng]

there is a thing i am curious about. machiavelli's works were written some 500-600 years ago. by all standards we should have enough rationale for any given response to the questions he asked. i ask this: what justifies this thread's existence?

philosophy is a creative side of the mind; it shouldn't be repeated over and over again when all possible exits from a given thought have been run through. no, it should evolve, like our mindsets and cultures have. instead of proposing old, used statements that have been exhausted, let new ones flow. instead of just justifying yourself in asking the questions of machiavelli's critics, ask yourself, "how could i improve this? what could i do better?"

if more people thought that way, we'd have more general progress.

 

[Schaaka]

I do not think there is going to be a Text Book answer that will propertly answer your day to day philosophical moral decisions.
As long as this Prince meditates on the issue, seeks who has knowledge where it is needed and evokes an appropriate decision based on what he believes to 'right' is the best answer.
-Irregardless who is going to be hurt at the end (in any given situation there will always be some one hurt).

 

[Flying-Emu]

there is a thing i am curious about. machiavelli's works were written some 500-600 years ago. by all standards we should have enough rationale for any given response to the questions he asked. i ask this: what justifies this thread's existence?

philosophy is a creative side of the mind; it shouldn't be repeated over and over again when all possible exits from a given thought have been run through. no, it should evolve, like our mindsets and cultures have. instead of proposing old, used statements that have been exhausted, let new ones flow. instead of just justifying yourself in asking the questions of machiavelli's critics, ask yourself, "how could i improve this? what could i do better?"

if more people thought that way, we'd have more general progress.

But that's exactly what we're doing here. We're examining whether Machiaville's philosophies should apply or not in a modern setting. Tossing aside anything just because it's five hundred years old is ignorant and wasteful (Unless it's food or something. But even that has historical value).

Saying that a science can't look back to look forward is silly. Everything does it; it's how we advance.

 

[theklng]

there is a thing i am curious about. machiavelli's works were written some 500-600 years ago. by all standards we should have enough rationale for any given response to the questions he asked. i ask this: what justifies this thread's existence?

philosophy is a creative side of the mind; it shouldn't be repeated over and over again when all possible exits from a given thought have been run through. no, it should evolve, like our mindsets and cultures have. instead of proposing old, used statements that have been exhausted, let new ones flow. instead of just justifying yourself in asking the questions of machiavelli's critics, ask yourself, "how could i improve this? what could i do better?"

if more people thought that way, we'd have more general progress.

But that's exactly what we're doing here. We're examining whether Machiaville's philosophies should apply or not in a modern setting. Tossing aside anything just because it's five hundred years old is ignorant and wasteful (Unless it's food or something. But even that has historical value).

Saying that a science can't look back to look forward is silly. Everything does it; it's how we advance.

i never said we couldn't look back. my criticism was not to machiavelli's work, it was to the purpose of the thread. there have been countless discussions on the topics of his works i am sure, most of which we do not need to repeat here. there might of course be something left that others haven't discussed or found, but up until now i have seen none of it in this thread.

machiavelli wasn't the first or the last to come up with these thoughts, but it is up to us to improve on what he or other people have said of importance. otherwise we can stay in the same soup asking the same questions and not be any wiser whatsoever. looking backwards will only give you half as much as thinking in progress.

 

[Copter400]

I've grudgingly accepted that the end justifies the means, but I think you really, really have to be sure of what your end is and whether or not the means are worth it.

Frankly, I don't want to rule the world if the only way I can do that is make people fear and hate me.

 

[Flying-Emu]

there is a thing i am curious about. machiavelli's works were written some 500-600 years ago. by all standards we should have enough rationale for any given response to the questions he asked. i ask this: what justifies this thread's existence?

philosophy is a creative side of the mind; it shouldn't be repeated over and over again when all possible exits from a given thought have been run through. no, it should evolve, like our mindsets and cultures have. instead of proposing old, used statements that have been exhausted, let new ones flow. instead of just justifying yourself in asking the questions of machiavelli's critics, ask yourself, "how could i improve this? what could i do better?"

if more people thought that way, we'd have more general progress.

But that's exactly what we're doing here. We're examining whether Machiaville's philosophies should apply or not in a modern setting. Tossing aside anything just because it's five hundred years old is ignorant and wasteful (Unless it's food or something. But even that has historical value).

Saying that a science can't look back to look forward is silly. Everything does it; it's how we advance.

i never said we couldn't look back. my criticism was not to machiavelli's work, it was to the purpose of the thread. there have been countless discussions on the topics of his works i am sure, most of which we do not need to repeat here. there might of course be something left that others haven't discussed or found, but up until now i have seen none of it in this thread.

machiavelli wasn't the first or the last to come up with these thoughts, but it is up to us to improve on what he or other people have said of importance. otherwise we can stay in the same soup asking the same questions and not be any wiser whatsoever. looking backwards will only give you half as much as thinking in progress.

Actually, after using my handy-dandy search button, there haven't been anything but casual asides about him or his works. And philosophy is a science of debate; new arguments will always arise regarding ancient works. Why do you think we have uni classes like Ancient Greek Philosophy? Because they still apply in the modern day. Without looking backwards, you'll rarely get inspiration TO move forward.

 

[theklng]

Actually, after using my handy-dandy search button, there haven't been anything but casual asides about him or his works. And philosophy is a science of debate; new arguments will always arise regarding ancient works. Why do you think we have uni classes like Ancient Greek Philosophy? Because they still apply in the modern day. Without looking backwards, you'll rarely get inspiration TO move forward.

i'm not talking about just this forum obviously. take a glance at google results or wikipedia; without looking myself i reckon there's bound to be tons of discussions on the same subject. i'm not saying we should stop looking backwards, but we should definitely not just ask these questions to get the opinion of a forum. it doesn't provide discussion, it provides opinion. opinion isn't argument, and therefore there is no base for discussion to take place.

i've said it before and i'll say it again: it takes for special kinds of people to realize what these things mean and how they can be used. and, having thrown pearls for swine too many times, i'd wager that the escapist has learned very little in the ways of discussion.

but you are right - discussions are what propel us forward. it doesn't matter what they are about, but it matters that they are discussions. great people have learned through them the same way we do. and through this one discussion i think i have finally found out what is wrong with these forums.

i tire of opinions, and i would love it if this place could get more discussion. sadly people are fearful of what might happen if people disagree and gladly ignore posts just to not start a conflict... unless they can prove you wrong by either logic or by already known knowledge.

 

[Flying-Emu]

but you are right - discussions are what propel us forward. it doesn't matter what they are about, but it matters that they are discussions. great people have learned through them the same way we do. and through this one discussion i think i have finally found out what is wrong with these forums.

That not every discussion is going to turn into a universe-altering epiphany? I apologize, my friend, but that's simply life. It's not what's wrong with the forums; it's the human race in general.

i tire of opinions, and i would love it if this place could get more discussion. sadly people are fearful of what might happen if people disagree and gladly ignore posts just to not start a conflict... unless they can prove you wrong by either logic or by already known knowledge.

Really? You tire of opinions? Yet you post your own here? Perhaps you should analyze what you say before hounding the words of others. And if they fear to place down their opinion, then that's their own problem, and you move onto the next; hoping to reach that next spark of intelligent debate. Once again, it's not the forums; it's jus tlife.

 

[Lukeje]

Actually, after using my handy-dandy search button, there haven't been anything but casual asides about him or his works. And philosophy is a science of debate; new arguments will always arise regarding ancient works. Why do you think we have uni classes like Ancient Greek Philosophy? Because they still apply in the modern day. Without looking backwards, you'll rarely get inspiration TO move forward.

i'm not talking about just this forum obviously. take a glance at google results or wikipedia; without looking myself i reckon there's bound to be tons of discussions on the same subject. i'm not saying we should stop looking backwards, but we should definitely not just ask these questions to get the opinion of a forum. it doesn't provide discussion, it provides opinion. opinion isn't argument, and therefore there is no base for discussion to take place.

i've said it before and i'll say it again: it takes for special kinds of people to realize what these things mean and how they can be used. and, having thrown pearls for swine too many times, i'd wager that the escapist has learned very little in the ways of discussion.

but you are right - discussions are what propel us forward. it doesn't matter what they are about, but it matters that they are discussions. great people have learned through them the same way we do. and through this one discussion i think i have finally found out what is wrong with these forums.

i tire of opinions, and i would love it if this place could get more discussion. sadly people are fearful of what might happen if people disagree and gladly ignore posts just to not start a conflict... unless they can prove you wrong by either logic or by already known knowledge.

So how would you propose to 'expand' on Machiavelli's work then? You can't state that there's no debate because everyone's to afraid to provide novel material, and then not provide some yourself.

 

[theklng]

That not every discussion is going to turn into a universe-altering epiphany? I apologize, my friend, but that's simply life. It's not what's wrong with the forums; it's the human race in general.

i tire of opinions, and i would love it if this place could get more discussion. sadly people are fearful of what might happen if people disagree and gladly ignore posts just to not start a conflict... unless they can prove you wrong by either logic or by already known knowledge.

Really? You tire of opinions? Yet you post your own here? Perhaps you should analyze what you say before hounding the words of others. And if they fear to place down their opinion, then that's their own problem, and you move onto the next; hoping to reach that next spark of intelligent debate. Once again, it's not the forums; it's jus tlife.

oh i always knew it was the human race in general. but these forums pride themselves on being an intellectual circle. i have seen very little of such thing during my visits.

also, you mistake a hypothesis for opinion. a hypothesis is a base for discussion, whether it is wrong or right or can even be defined as wrong or right. i proposed the argument that people are fearful and that it lead to less argument and thus less discussion. you answered it by the rebuttal that you have to keep trying until you reach out... and here we are.

my apologies if i seem smug, but i sometimes get into one of these writing moods where i write like a douche. read the semantics, not the words.

 

[theklng]

So how would you propose to 'expand' on Machiavelli's work then? You can't state that there's no debate because everyone's to afraid to provide novel material, and then not provide some yourself.

who says i can't do that? who says i would want to expand on machiavelli's work in the first place? i said evolve, and this is exactly what is happening: instead of talking about machiavelli, the thread evolved into a discussion that took off in an entirely different direction. there isn't a grain of hypocrisy in any of my semantics.

as a sidenote: i have material enough to write a book about these things, but as i said before: it's not worth wasting that on this forum as i would only waste time and become disappointed at the result. no, my works i give only to people who can understand them - until i publish them.

 

[Flying-Emu]

That not every discussion is going to turn into a universe-altering epiphany? I apologize, my friend, but that's simply life. It's not what's wrong with the forums; it's the human race in general.

i tire of opinions, and i would love it if this place could get more discussion. sadly people are fearful of what might happen if people disagree and gladly ignore posts just to not start a conflict... unless they can prove you wrong by either logic or by already known knowledge.

Really? You tire of opinions? Yet you post your own here? Perhaps you should analyze what you say before hounding the words of others. And if they fear to place down their opinion, then that's their own problem, and you move onto the next; hoping to reach that next spark of intelligent debate. Once again, it's not the forums; it's jus tlife.

oh i always knew it was the human race in general. but these forums pride themselves on being an intellectual circle. i have seen very little of such thing during my visits.

Yeah, we experience the ups and downs. We're in a recession, if you will.

also, you mistake a hypothesis for opinion. a hypothesis is a base for discussion, whether it is wrong or right or can even be defined as wrong or right. i proposed the argument that people are fearful and that it lead to less argument and thus less discussion. you answered it by the rebuttal that you have to keep trying until you reach out... and here we are.

A hypothesis should always be formed in the "If - Then - Because" form, otherwise it's just an opinion. Especially since a hypothesis, by definition, is a testable guess to a specific question.

Now if you meant it was a theory (which I think is a better word for it), then yes, it's completely true. People are fearful of social rejection; it's Psychology 101. Whether you want to lie or not, you do desire social approval. It's one of the five basic needs of the human Ego (Ego as in the Greek term meaning Soul, or Self).

my apologies if i seem smug, but i sometimes get into one of these writing moods where i write like a douche. read the semantics, not the words.

No problem. We all have our moments. You don't seem smug, you seem certain; which I appreciate in a discussion partner.

 

[Lukeje]

So how would you propose to 'expand' on Machiavelli's work then? You can't state that there's no debate because everyone's to afraid to provide novel material, and then not provide some yourself.

who says i can't do that? who says i would want to expand on machiavelli's work in the first place? i said evolve, and this is exactly what is happening: instead of talking about machiavelli, the thread evolved into a discussion that took off in an entirely different direction. there isn't a grain of hypocrisy in any of my semantics.

as a sidenote: i have material enough to write a book about these things, but as i said before: it's not worth wasting that on this forum as i would only waste time and become disappointed at the result. no, my works i give only to people who can understand them - until i publish them.

You seem to have judged us without giving us a chance; come on, just one 'evolution' of Machiavelli's work... you know you want to...

 

[theklng]

So how would you propose to 'expand' on Machiavelli's work then? You can't state that there's no debate because everyone's to afraid to provide novel material, and then not provide some yourself.

who says i can't do that? who says i would want to expand on machiavelli's work in the first place? i said evolve, and this is exactly what is happening: instead of talking about machiavelli, the thread evolved into a discussion that took off in an entirely different direction. there isn't a grain of hypocrisy in any of my semantics.

as a sidenote: i have material enough to write a book about these things, but as i said before: it's not worth wasting that on this forum as i would only waste time and become disappointed at the result. no, my works i give only to people who can understand them - until i publish them.

You seem to have judged us without giving us a chance; come on, just one 'evolution' of Machiavelli's work... you know you want to...

you've had your chances before and you wasted them. it's rarely i get frustrated, but when i do, i slam my gavel down.

if you want evolution, look at the discussion you have become part of.

 

[Lukeje]

you've had your chances before and you wasted them. it's rarely i get frustrated, but when i do, i slam my gavel down.

if you want evolution, look at the discussion you have become part of.

I thought you said you weren't elitist? So I'm not 'good enough' to debate with now?

 

[Anomynous 167]

Sometimes cruelty is a matter of context. Antivaccine people would say that it's cruel for the state to force them to get their children vaccines, but the rest of us would say it's cruel for their disease-ridden children to be running around, infecting us with mutated, vaccine-resistant Super Die. And the populations of Germany and Japan considered what we and Russia did to them after the war as cruel, but we just shrugged it off, since we considered what they had supported so vile they weren't in a position to judge.

I don't agree that the ends justify the means. But that's only because I ask a bigger question: where do leaders get their ends, and why should the rest of us let them pursue them just because they have some title? Most of the times, in retrospect, the ends themselves weren't really justifiable by any means.

This is the 1st post in this topic that was at least halfway descent. (No offence to the people that posted later,)