Machiavelli

[PLAYER57832]

So, I mentioned Machiavelli in another thread. I was taught that his book was most likely intended as a warning, somewhat "tongue in cheek" even to tell folks how to avoid becoming victims of the despotic type leaders of the day.

But, it seems people's idea of him are changing.

What do you think?

[suggs]

Good in the penalty area.

[RustyMonkey]

He wrote The Prince, but he also wrote the Discourses which say something different. One is based around full following of despots, but the other follows a more humanitarian approach. I go with other.

[jiminski]

yeah i went 'other' too; he was an incredibly astute man... but i do not quite concord with any statement in full.
tongue in cheek? ... hmm, i think you need to look at his life to give context to his words.

[FabledIntegral]

None of the above - I believe him to be a genius, but I believe everything he said to be taken literally.

In the end, everything in my book *does* come down to "the ends justify the means." I am not religious, and therefore that is literally what I live by. Simply because I am not religious does not mean I don't have a conscience, and the conscience is often affected in the "ends" process, thus inhibiting actions.

I think the guy is utterly brilliant.

[Simon Viavant]

None of the above - I believe him to be a genius, but I believe everything he said to be taken literally.

In the end, everything in my book *does* come down to "the ends justify the means." I am not religious, and therefore that is literally what I live by. Simply because I am not religious does not mean I don't have a conscience, and the conscience is often affected in the "ends" process, thus inhibiting actions.

I think the guy is utterly brilliant.

I agree

[Frigidus]

He was probably a big supporter of democracy, but the advice given in The Prince was directed towards principalities. It is genuine advice, but he makes it quite clear that he considers morality and methods of ruling in a democracy separate from those ruled by a monarchy of some sort. He starts off his second chapter saying "I will leave out all discussion on republics". As was pointed out earlier, he wrote about them in Discourses, and his suggestions of a properly run democracy are radically different.

I'd say that the best evidence that he meant to be taken seriously is that his last three chapters were on specific advice he offered to the Italian principalities to better their states, which were quite weakened at the time.

[autoload]

This guy.

memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=1545

He was a cool cat.

[Hologram]

He was incredibly smart, but I don't think The Prince was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek warning, I think it was honestly a how-to manual for gaining and maintaining power.

I don't know about his other works, but I'm sure he was a man capable of arguing plenty of views, nor was he a completely ruthless man. After all, he explains that if you have to kill someone to gain/maintain your power, don't take the belongings from the family, or you just garner hatred. He was pragmatic if nothing else.

[Snorri1234]

Incredible rapper.

[GabonX]

So, I mentioned Machiavelli in another thread. I was taught that his book was most likely intended as a warning, somewhat "tongue in cheek" even to tell folks how to avoid becoming victims of the despotic type leaders of the day.

But, it seems people's idea of him are changing.

What do you think?

It was definately a how to manual. It was written as a gift to one of the Borgias (sp?) and if you know anything about this family you know that they weren't the nicest people in the world (despite the fact that the modern Western image of Jesus is modeled after one of them). Historically there is no question about whether or not it was a warning although it could be read that way despite it's intent.

[PLAYER57832]

So, I mentioned Machiavelli in another thread. I was taught that his book was most likely intended as a warning, somewhat "tongue in cheek" even to tell folks how to avoid becoming victims of the despotic type leaders of the day.

But, it seems people's idea of him are changing.

What do you think?

It was definately a how to manual. It was written as a gift to one of the Borgias (sp?) and if you know anything about this family you know that they weren't the nicest people in the world (despite the fact that the modern Western image of Jesus is modeled after one of them). Historically there is no question about whether or not it was a warning although it could be read that way despite it's intent.

I believe he was tortured by them ... and their adversaries, both?