Take a photo of a barcode or cover
reaganwaggoner 's review for:
The Prince
by Niccolò Machiavelli
Beautifully written: straight-forward, yet elegant. Much admiration for this man as a scholar and writer. The story of this book is rather ironic; it is dedicated to a Medici, who likely never read it, and Machiavelli's goal of securing an advising position was never fulfilled. However, many still read this book today.
Where I stop, however, is his content. This guy is strange. Ok, he's not that strange, but his morals are. “If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.”― Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
He talks incessantly of the path to power, of the importance of who or what has lifted one to a place of authority. Many times, he reiterates his sentiments on this subject: that a new ruler must fear those who lifted him to power, since they view themselves as equals, and possess a severe threat.
In an age of monarchy and absolutism, I suppose I understand Machiavelli's lack of moral consideration. However, I refuse to understand the sentiment that any ruler should seek to breed fear or terror within the people, to destruct their sense of independence or ability to rebel. The key difference here is my objection to the interference of the state in more of life than absolutely need be, and Machiavelli's encouragement of the state's invasion on as much of life as will make it more secure.
Me: I just don't get who reads that and is like, "I WANNA DO THAT. I WANNA BE FEARED."
Jessica: You make one wrong step and the people behead you. So gotta make sure there’s no chance of that.
Me: Yeah I know but I'd be like I’m outta here #katevibes
Jessica: Yeah hmm. I guess a lot of kings were like "hmm, sounds good to me, let’s do it"
Me: Yeah, I don't know. I mean, they were raised that way so... but I’d rather be beheaded than behead people soooo
Jessica: Well maybe that’s why you aren’t an absolute monarch in the 1700s
Anyway, long story short, I don't get this guy. He talks about his unfortunate and unjust situation of poverty early on in the book, before demonstrating his strong moral relativism and making me wonder why he ever used the word just. Then, he proceeds to advocate control and almost an early version of communism (credits to Jessica, I don't intellectually plagiarize)?
Anyway, this guy seems brilliant, and he writes extremely well, but his ideas are a little wack. The fact that he wrote this book for a purpose that was never fulfilled, yet it's widely read today, is very comical to me.
Five stars because it's definitely worth the read, not because I agree in any way, shape or form.
Oh yeah, now I can use the word "Machiavellian" and know what it means :))
Where I stop, however, is his content. This guy is strange. Ok, he's not that strange, but his morals are. “If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.”― Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
He talks incessantly of the path to power, of the importance of who or what has lifted one to a place of authority. Many times, he reiterates his sentiments on this subject: that a new ruler must fear those who lifted him to power, since they view themselves as equals, and possess a severe threat.
In an age of monarchy and absolutism, I suppose I understand Machiavelli's lack of moral consideration. However, I refuse to understand the sentiment that any ruler should seek to breed fear or terror within the people, to destruct their sense of independence or ability to rebel. The key difference here is my objection to the interference of the state in more of life than absolutely need be, and Machiavelli's encouragement of the state's invasion on as much of life as will make it more secure.
Me: I just don't get who reads that and is like, "I WANNA DO THAT. I WANNA BE FEARED."
Jessica: You make one wrong step and the people behead you. So gotta make sure there’s no chance of that.
Me: Yeah I know but I'd be like I’m outta here #katevibes
Jessica: Yeah hmm. I guess a lot of kings were like "hmm, sounds good to me, let’s do it"
Me: Yeah, I don't know. I mean, they were raised that way so... but I’d rather be beheaded than behead people soooo
Jessica: Well maybe that’s why you aren’t an absolute monarch in the 1700s
Anyway, long story short, I don't get this guy. He talks about his unfortunate and unjust situation of poverty early on in the book, before demonstrating his strong moral relativism and making me wonder why he ever used the word just. Then, he proceeds to advocate control and almost an early version of communism (credits to Jessica, I don't intellectually plagiarize)?
Anyway, this guy seems brilliant, and he writes extremely well, but his ideas are a little wack. The fact that he wrote this book for a purpose that was never fulfilled, yet it's widely read today, is very comical to me.
Five stars because it's definitely worth the read, not because I agree in any way, shape or form.
Oh yeah, now I can use the word "Machiavellian" and know what it means :))