You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
youniseader 's review for:
The Prince
by Niccolò Machiavelli
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.