You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.52 AVERAGE
3.52 AVERAGE
IF SOCRATES HAD REAL CRITICS IT WOULD BE MACHIAVELLI. This is my thesis for my philosophy final. Life is BOTH free will and deterministic. Ya look up his bad sexist statements, it’s real bad. and thinking politics is just power. it’s not. But this is the first book of political science arguably ever written. It’s not REALLY worth reading but the ideas are worth knowing. “We can’t be moral as a society so we have to make peoples lives good.” I disagree with this statement, but sadly society hadn’t proven me wrong. Great philosophy. Got me thinking more than ever really.
An absolute gorgeous book in terms of selection of art pieces placed throughout its pages.
“The Prince” itself is a blunt piece of literature that has been debated hotly to what the true intentions of Machiavelli were. The essays at the end of this edition are fantastic at portraying and exploring some of those arguments. One central to myself is that individuals that seek power (political or religious) will hold themselves to another standard of morality. Justifying any actions in the pursuit of the continuation of the institution they deem proper. It’s not hard to see with this commentary that is why the catholic church condemns this piece of literature, as many religious leaders (spreaders of fanaticism) don’t follow their own religious morality when spreading that very thing to hold onto its followers.
Overall a great edition of this work!
“The Prince” itself is a blunt piece of literature that has been debated hotly to what the true intentions of Machiavelli were. The essays at the end of this edition are fantastic at portraying and exploring some of those arguments. One central to myself is that individuals that seek power (political or religious) will hold themselves to another standard of morality. Justifying any actions in the pursuit of the continuation of the institution they deem proper. It’s not hard to see with this commentary that is why the catholic church condemns this piece of literature, as many religious leaders (spreaders of fanaticism) don’t follow their own religious morality when spreading that very thing to hold onto its followers.
Overall a great edition of this work!
Regardless of the furore it still causes even today, the Prince remains a great account on political realism, pragmatic instructions on how to rule , and how to deal with political challenges.
I don't think the ideas presented by Miachiavelli would be equally useful in today's "democractic"world, where it is hard to deceive the general public in the same way, but the general public still could be deceived, I mean how can someone vote for Donald Trump and is not deceived?
You might say, "it's horrific", but good politics has always been horrific in the general moral sense, yet it bears no moral judgment in the political sense, it is rather necessary. Indeed Miachevelli stated in many instances that morality which governs our societies is not the same morality that governs politics.". In politics, there is the enivitability of survival. You either do what you gotta do or lose power, or sometimes fail your nation! And that's the same principle that we, humans, stand by when we are in extreme danger (be it when fighting for food in supermarkets, or escaping a predator and leaving your friends behind. So in politics, as a ruler, you must defy morality to survive, either as a president, a king, or any position of power, as well as to protect your country and establish security so your nation could survive.
Since the book is more than 600 years old, a lot has changed in politics; systems, the way politicans reach power, terrritoty expansion, and how the general public deal with poiticians. Yet I think that the fundementals assumptions made by Machiavelli still makes sense, mainly morality in politics is different from morality in social relationships. If we look at failed revolutions, and overthrown presidents, and the instances are many, we would find that most of those whom their power was taken, have been morally right in the general sense, uncompromising of their values, or simply politically naive, unwilling to sacrifice for the sake of the survival of their nation.
I rated it with 3 stars because of the writing. I know it's an ancient book, but It was rigid and exhausting to read.
I don't think the ideas presented by Miachiavelli would be equally useful in today's "democractic"world, where it is hard to deceive the general public in the same way, but the general public still could be deceived, I mean how can someone vote for Donald Trump and is not deceived?
You might say, "it's horrific", but good politics has always been horrific in the general moral sense, yet it bears no moral judgment in the political sense, it is rather necessary. Indeed Miachevelli stated in many instances that morality which governs our societies is not the same morality that governs politics.". In politics, there is the enivitability of survival. You either do what you gotta do or lose power, or sometimes fail your nation! And that's the same principle that we, humans, stand by when we are in extreme danger (be it when fighting for food in supermarkets, or escaping a predator and leaving your friends behind. So in politics, as a ruler, you must defy morality to survive, either as a president, a king, or any position of power, as well as to protect your country and establish security so your nation could survive.
Since the book is more than 600 years old, a lot has changed in politics; systems, the way politicans reach power, terrritoty expansion, and how the general public deal with poiticians. Yet I think that the fundementals assumptions made by Machiavelli still makes sense, mainly morality in politics is different from morality in social relationships. If we look at failed revolutions, and overthrown presidents, and the instances are many, we would find that most of those whom their power was taken, have been morally right in the general sense, uncompromising of their values, or simply politically naive, unwilling to sacrifice for the sake of the survival of their nation.
I rated it with 3 stars because of the writing. I know it's an ancient book, but It was rigid and exhausting to read.
i only really read this because I wanted context to the term “machiavellian” and also like the book cover on my edition, did not really care for the writings.
basically a how to on the consolidation of power and unsurprisingly still modern/relevant in methods when applied to those in power now too.
off with their heads is all i say.
basically a how to on the consolidation of power and unsurprisingly still modern/relevant in methods when applied to those in power now too.
off with their heads is all i say.
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
informative
slow-paced
O Príncipe de Maquiavel é considerado como o primeiro tratado político, ou pelo menos o tratado mais antigo que se aproxima ao que hoje reconhecemos como tratado político, e tal é patente ao longo de toda a obra que disserta vários pontos interessantes mas muito específicos ao objetivo da obra.
Há que relembrar que este livro foi escrito com o intuito de ensinar as melhores técnicas para tratar um principado do século XVI em Itália, (é claro não sendo exclusivo a tal pois muitas das suas lições podem ser aplicadas em outros locais do mundo desde que sejam principados) por isso transportar estas palavras para a política moderna é complicado e falta muitos pontos, mas os pontos que estão revelam um caracter de líder autoritário mas não totalitário visto que o príncipe deve ser muito perguntador aos seus conselheiros e fundamentar a sua base no povo. Podiamos argumentar que Maquiavel se revela um autoritário populista nesta obra, mas tal seria errado. Também não podemos argumentar que se trata de um despota por completo. Por fim o melhor termo que pode ser aplicado (usando um compasso político moderno) é o de Nacional-Conservador. Ou seja nacionalista/populista pois sabe que um príncipe que se fundamenta no povo está mais seguro, mas conservador pois terá (e deverá querer) manter o seu lugar mesmo que tenha que alterar a ordem das coisas.
Há que relembrar que este livro foi escrito com o intuito de ensinar as melhores técnicas para tratar um principado do século XVI em Itália, (é claro não sendo exclusivo a tal pois muitas das suas lições podem ser aplicadas em outros locais do mundo desde que sejam principados) por isso transportar estas palavras para a política moderna é complicado e falta muitos pontos, mas os pontos que estão revelam um caracter de líder autoritário mas não totalitário visto que o príncipe deve ser muito perguntador aos seus conselheiros e fundamentar a sua base no povo. Podiamos argumentar que Maquiavel se revela um autoritário populista nesta obra, mas tal seria errado. Também não podemos argumentar que se trata de um despota por completo. Por fim o melhor termo que pode ser aplicado (usando um compasso político moderno) é o de Nacional-Conservador. Ou seja nacionalista/populista pois sabe que um príncipe que se fundamenta no povo está mais seguro, mas conservador pois terá (e deverá querer) manter o seu lugar mesmo que tenha que alterar a ordem das coisas.