Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What we get wrong about Machiavelli

prospectmagazine.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 61 posts

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#21

Post by marshray »

klodolph wrote: post #12
tcgv wrote: post #4

My takeaway on Machiavelli's The Prince is that it is a diverse collection of ruling / governing practices he observed and recorded back in the 16th-century upon which he tries to extract lessons and learnings, similar to what we see nowadays with entrepreneurship success / failure stories analysis. Machiavelli doesn't seem to actively promote wrongful behavior nor engage in morality evaluations, mostly keeping a neu…

I've heard it explained by analogy as, > Imagine that Jerry Seinfeld wrote a book about politics and governance strategy, and sent it to Hillary Clinton, because he wanted to get hired as an aide. Everyone is fascinated by this book, and it somehow becomes an important work in political science. Five hundred years later, Seinfeld is mostly forgotten, but people still call things "Seinfeldian". That's Machiavelli.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if 500 years from now Seinfeld is considered essential reading to (mis-)undersand our age.

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#22

Post by afiori »

klodolph wrote: post #12
tcgv wrote: post #4

My takeaway on Machiavelli's The Prince is that it is a diverse collection of ruling / governing practices he observed and recorded back in the 16th-century upon which he tries to extract lessons and learnings, similar to what we see nowadays with entrepreneurship success / failure stories analysis. Machiavelli doesn't seem to actively promote wrongful behavior nor engage in morality evaluations, mostly keeping a neu…

I've heard it explained by analogy as, > Imagine that Jerry Seinfeld wrote a book about politics and governance strategy, and sent it to Hillary Clinton, because he wanted to get hired as an aide. Everyone is fascinated by this book, and it somehow becomes an important work in political science. Five hundred years later, Seinfeld is mostly forgotten, but people still call things "Seinfeldian". That's Machiavelli.

It would me more accurate if Seinfeld worked many years of his life as political consultant and/or ambassador.

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#23

Post by chrischen »

hyperion2010 wrote: post #2

The author of this piece lacks an understanding of how Machiavelli uses the term `virtu` (admittedly a common mistake). This failure to understand `virtu` is why countless political factions all the way up to the modern US Democratic party have failed their subjects and failed to protect their states -- they were unwilling to sacrifice the appearance of being good, of keeping their hands clean, for the things that re…

He's talking about the scene in The Dark Knight where Morgan Freeman tells Batman he doesn't want to be involved in getting his hands dirty with surveillance tech about to be deployed in stopping The Joker.

Freeman is the US Democratic Party, and Batman would be the FBI wanting to break into iPhones to catch killers at the expense of the law/privacy rights.

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#24

Post by keiferski »

klodolph wrote: post #12
tcgv wrote: post #4

My takeaway on Machiavelli's The Prince is that it is a diverse collection of ruling / governing practices he observed and recorded back in the 16th-century upon which he tries to extract lessons and learnings, similar to what we see nowadays with entrepreneurship success / failure stories analysis. Machiavelli doesn't seem to actively promote wrongful behavior nor engage in morality evaluations, mostly keeping a neu…

I've heard it explained by analogy as, > Imagine that Jerry Seinfeld wrote a book about politics and governance strategy, and sent it to Hillary Clinton, because he wanted to get hired as an aide. Everyone is fascinated by this book, and it somehow becomes an important work in political science. Five hundred years later, Seinfeld is mostly forgotten, but people still call things "Seinfeldian". That's Machiavelli.

But Machiavelli wasn't a comedian or entertainer in any way. He had various diplomatic and government posts prior to writing any of his books. None of them were very highly-ranked or important, though.

A better modern example might be: imagine a mid-level office worker at the New York Office of Public Records writes a book about politics and sends it to the mayor, hoping to get a job. He uses examples from contemporary NYC and past political history to illustrate his points. Years after his death, his book becomes read across the world and NYC is simply seen as a temporary setting for the broader ideas.

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#25

Post by paganel »

jerzyt wrote: post #10
danharaj wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clausewitz, Lenin

Which one of Lenin's books do you have in mind? I haven't read any personally, but he's not usually referenced with any of the others. Clausewitz, on the other hand, definitely qualifies, although it's a much longer read.

Not the OP but I can highly recommend Lenin's "What Is to Be Done?" [1], one of the best "no bullshit, no moralising, let's just get things done by seeing things as they really are" books of the "modern" era.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_to_Be_Done%3F

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#26

Post by goto11 »

cambalache wrote: post #8

What is this ridiculous trend of judging characters of the past by today's standards? According to the author Machiavelli highly original philosophy should be partially dismissed because he frequented prostitutes (male and female).

To be fair, the incident described where he cheats a prostitute for money and tries to pin it on his friend, would be considered just as immoral then as now. Perhaps even more so then, since he is damaging the honor of a friend.

And I don't see the article dismissing his philosophy due to this. It's a biography, so it is about his life as much as his philosophy.

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#27

Post by econcon »

hyperion2010 wrote: post #2

The author of this piece lacks an understanding of how Machiavelli uses the term `virtu` (admittedly a common mistake). This failure to understand `virtu` is why countless political factions all the way up to the modern US Democratic party have failed their subjects and failed to protect their states -- they were unwilling to sacrifice the appearance of being good, of keeping their hands clean, for the things that re…

Trump does not care about appearance of bring good. Does he?

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#28

Post by nl »

If you really want to understand Machiavelli then Ada Palmer's post's are excellent[1]. She studies "heterodoxy, heresy, freethought, censorship and information control, the recovery of classical thought after the Middle Ages, its impact on science, religion and atheism, and the history of the book and printing."

She puts Machiavelli into context, and points out that "the ends justify the means" was really an ethical argument putting for the first time the idea that the consequences of actions matter more than trying to justify actions by religion.

I discovered this via a HN comment and I can't recommend it enough.

Here's a quote:

1508. The Italian territories destabilized by the Borgias are ripe for conquest. Everyone in Europe wants to go to war with everyone else and Italy will be the biggest battlefield. Machaivelli’s job now is to figure out who to ally with, and who to bribe. If he can’t predict the sides there’s no way to know where Florence should commit its precious resources. How will it fall out? Will Tudor claims on the French throne drive England to ally with Spain against France? Or will French and Spanish rival claims to Southern Italy lead France to recruit England against the houses of Aragon and Habsburg? Will the Holy Roman Emperor try to seize Milan from the French? Will the Ottomans ally with France to seize and divide the Spanish holdings in the Mediterranean? Will the Swiss finally wake up and notice that they have all the best armies in Europe and could conquer whatever the heck they wanted if they tried? (Seriously, Machiavelli spends a lot of time worrying about this possibility.) All the ambassadors from the great kingdoms and empires meet, and Machiavelli spends frantic months exchanging letters with colleagues evaluating the psychology of every prince, what each has to gain, to lose, to prove. He comes up with several probable scenarios and begins preparations. At last a courier rushes in with the news. The day has come. The alliance has formed. It is: everyone joins forces to attack Venice.

O_O ????????

Conclusion: must invent Modern Political Science.

I am being only slightly facetious. The War of the League of Cambrai is the least comprehensible war I’ve ever studied. Everyone switches sides at least twice, and what begins with the pope calling on everyone to attack Venice ends with Venice defending the pope against everyone.

[1] https://www.exurbe.com/machiavelli-s-p-q-f/

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#29

Post by nl »

klodolph wrote: post #12
tcgv wrote: post #4

My takeaway on Machiavelli's The Prince is that it is a diverse collection of ruling / governing practices he observed and recorded back in the 16th-century upon which he tries to extract lessons and learnings, similar to what we see nowadays with entrepreneurship success / failure stories analysis. Machiavelli doesn't seem to actively promote wrongful behavior nor engage in morality evaluations, mostly keeping a neu…

I've heard it explained by analogy as, > Imagine that Jerry Seinfeld wrote a book about politics and governance strategy, and sent it to Hillary Clinton, because he wanted to get hired as an aide. Everyone is fascinated by this book, and it somehow becomes an important work in political science. Five hundred years later, Seinfeld is mostly forgotten, but people still call things "Seinfeldian". That's Machiavelli.

That's... wrong.

Machiavelli was the chief diplomat of Florence. He negotiated treaties with France (the superpower of the time) and with the (crazy!!) Borgias, and dealt with their fall.

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#30

Post by galfarragem »

keiferski wrote: post #24
klodolph wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard it explained by analogy as, > Imagine that Jerry Seinfeld wrote a book about politics and governance strategy, and sent it to Hillary Clinton, because he wanted to get hired as an aide. Everyone is fascinated by this book, and it somehow becomes an important work in political science. Five hundred years later, Seinfeld is mostly forgotten, but people still call things "Seinfeldian". That's Machiavelli.

But Machiavelli wasn't a comedian or entertainer in any way. He had various diplomatic and government posts prior to writing any of his books. None of them were very highly-ranked or important, though. A better modern example might be: imagine a mid-level office worker at the New York Office of Public Records writes a book about politics and sends it to the mayor, hoping to get a job. He uses examples from contempora…

A better analogy would be a top coach that had a mediocre career as a player.
Post reply on HN