Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.52 AVERAGE
3.52 AVERAGE
informative
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Principele de Niccolo Machiavelli este o non-ficțiune, un fel de manual, pentru cel care vrea să se afle la conducerea unei țări - un fel cum să și cum să nu. Explică în ce constă puterea, cum poate fi obținută, păstrată sau pierdută, aducând drept exemple evenimente din istoria apropiată sau îndepărtată. E genul de carte ce te face să vezi, încă o dată, cât de statornică e firea umană - că, cinci sute de ani mai târziu, omenirea se confruntă cu aceeași dorință de putere și avuție, perfidia e în floare, iar corectitudinea nu e aproape niciodată, istoric vorbind, cheia spre succes.
[Reviewed as part of The Illustrated Book Club]
"Machiavellian" has now entered the language as a synonym for "deceitful", "conniving", or just plain "evil". Ming the Merciless was Machiavellian, as was Doctor Smith in Lost in Space (why those dated examples sprung to mind, I've no idea...), and the guy in Despicable Me, whatever his name is (good, a more topical reference - we're back on track!). The point is, he's become a stereotype of villainy, a cultural trope. But the real Machiavelli seems a thoughtful, cultured individual, well-read, well-versed in history and the classics, and concerned only that if someone is to assume absolute rule, then they should do it right.
What makes - made? - the book controversial is its honesty. As philosopher (not painter) Francis Bacon put it, Machiavelli writes of "what men do, and not what they ought to do". In other words, he is a student of human nature, and being also a cynic, human nature doesn't come out too well. I am reminded of the worldview of Game of Thrones when he says, "men will always do badly to you unless they are forced to be virtuous" (I hate Game of Thrones). And so, he argues, rulers should not try to be virtuous - all who have done so have come to naive and sticky ends - but merely to appear to have those virtues. But hold on: isn't there a Bible quote along those lines? Matthew 10:6: "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves." Well, Machiavelli prefers two different animals: namely, the lion and the fox, for their bravery and cunning respectively, but maybe there is a certain parallel attitude here: innocence doesn't always cut it, even when your ends are good - and, arguably, Machiavelli's are. He wants glory for the state, for Florence, Italy and its people, but he also wants prosperity and peace. He scorns the example of Agathocles, who, despite achieving and maintaining absolute rule, was, by all accounts, not a nice guy. As M puts it, despite his success as a ruler, "his brutal cruelty and inhumanity, his countless crimes, forbid his being honoured among eminent men."
So, Machiavelli is not your straight forward might-is-right, Nietzschean supervillain (and neither, in fact, was Nietzsche). He is simply someone who believes that the ends justify the means, and his ends are the traditionally good ones. That said, the means are sometimes ghastly: he condones betrayal and trickery, pre-emptive war, wiping out the families of one's enemies, and other heinous actions deemed political necessities. It is 'realpolitik' in its most open and honest form. However, in among this is a subtle, almost 'spiritual' approach to state craft - it is perhaps not the precise word I'm looking for, but at a number of points (which I wish I'd made note of, now), I found myself thinking, "This is just like Sun Tzu!" (of Art of War fame): advice on seizing the moment, being flexible, knowing when to attack or not, when it's the right time to use repression and violence and punishment (and when it's simply too late), and other things that bear no little resemblance to a Taoist treatise on following The Way (a keen knowledge of which, it's no secret, can serve both spiritual and martial applications). For Machiavelli then, as perhaps for Sun Tzu, the 'way' of good government should not be entangled with moral concerns. For modern readers, much as we would like to avoid this hugely depressing and repugnant conclusion, it seems based on a view of human nature that is close to ours. Isn't that what we think of people? That they're basically selfish, greedy, untrustworthy? I think it's that which is most challenging about the book - that is, the challenge to reach a different conclusion, or else to abandon that shared, Game-of-Thrones premise.
Gareth Southwell is a philosopher, writer and illustrator.
"Machiavellian" has now entered the language as a synonym for "deceitful", "conniving", or just plain "evil". Ming the Merciless was Machiavellian, as was Doctor Smith in Lost in Space (why those dated examples sprung to mind, I've no idea...), and the guy in Despicable Me, whatever his name is (good, a more topical reference - we're back on track!). The point is, he's become a stereotype of villainy, a cultural trope. But the real Machiavelli seems a thoughtful, cultured individual, well-read, well-versed in history and the classics, and concerned only that if someone is to assume absolute rule, then they should do it right.
What makes - made? - the book controversial is its honesty. As philosopher (not painter) Francis Bacon put it, Machiavelli writes of "what men do, and not what they ought to do". In other words, he is a student of human nature, and being also a cynic, human nature doesn't come out too well. I am reminded of the worldview of Game of Thrones when he says, "men will always do badly to you unless they are forced to be virtuous" (I hate Game of Thrones). And so, he argues, rulers should not try to be virtuous - all who have done so have come to naive and sticky ends - but merely to appear to have those virtues. But hold on: isn't there a Bible quote along those lines? Matthew 10:6: "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves." Well, Machiavelli prefers two different animals: namely, the lion and the fox, for their bravery and cunning respectively, but maybe there is a certain parallel attitude here: innocence doesn't always cut it, even when your ends are good - and, arguably, Machiavelli's are. He wants glory for the state, for Florence, Italy and its people, but he also wants prosperity and peace. He scorns the example of Agathocles, who, despite achieving and maintaining absolute rule, was, by all accounts, not a nice guy. As M puts it, despite his success as a ruler, "his brutal cruelty and inhumanity, his countless crimes, forbid his being honoured among eminent men."
So, Machiavelli is not your straight forward might-is-right, Nietzschean supervillain (and neither, in fact, was Nietzsche). He is simply someone who believes that the ends justify the means, and his ends are the traditionally good ones. That said, the means are sometimes ghastly: he condones betrayal and trickery, pre-emptive war, wiping out the families of one's enemies, and other heinous actions deemed political necessities. It is 'realpolitik' in its most open and honest form. However, in among this is a subtle, almost 'spiritual' approach to state craft - it is perhaps not the precise word I'm looking for, but at a number of points (which I wish I'd made note of, now), I found myself thinking, "This is just like Sun Tzu!" (of Art of War fame): advice on seizing the moment, being flexible, knowing when to attack or not, when it's the right time to use repression and violence and punishment (and when it's simply too late), and other things that bear no little resemblance to a Taoist treatise on following The Way (a keen knowledge of which, it's no secret, can serve both spiritual and martial applications). For Machiavelli then, as perhaps for Sun Tzu, the 'way' of good government should not be entangled with moral concerns. For modern readers, much as we would like to avoid this hugely depressing and repugnant conclusion, it seems based on a view of human nature that is close to ours. Isn't that what we think of people? That they're basically selfish, greedy, untrustworthy? I think it's that which is most challenging about the book - that is, the challenge to reach a different conclusion, or else to abandon that shared, Game-of-Thrones premise.
Gareth Southwell is a philosopher, writer and illustrator.
informative
slow-paced
informative
reflective
medium-paced
dark
slow-paced
informative
reflective
slow-paced
slow-paced
challenging
informative
medium-paced
challenging
reflective
fast-paced