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.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if 500 years from now Seinfeld is considered essential reading to (mis-)undersand our age.
What we get wrong about Machiavelli
31–40 of 61 posts
Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli
#32What 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).
I only skimmed the piece but didn't see anywhere the author says his philosophy should be dismissed because of this? It came over more as a warts and all type picture.
Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli
#33The 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?
I think that he does, a lot. But he lacks empathy and is extremely self-centered. His idea about what looks good just does not look good to you.
Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Thanks for the link. Interestingly, I grew up in Poland, under Marxism-Leninism, but none of his books were ever pushed on us, so this is somewhat of a surprise for me.
I'm going to give it at least a quick scan to get an idea.
Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli
#35What 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).
What is this ridiculous trend of making up past standards how it suits us? Why cant we admit past successful people ever did something wrong or immoral by whatever standard.
> he picked up a pretty lad and, after he has had his way in the darkness, explains that he has no money, but states that he is called Filippo Casavecchia—and if he calls at his shop tomorrow, the boy will get his money. A surprised Filippo, a buddy of Machiavelli’s, denies it was him,
The falsely accused friend would not think it is ok and nor did prostitute boy.
> and the boy threatens him with prosecution for sodomy.
Apparently, the act was illegal.
> Filippo asks if the boy would recognise the man’s voice? The boy says yes, so he is taken to a spot near the Porta Romana where Machiavelli regularly holds court. The boy creeps up behind the bench where the great man is telling an anecdote. He sees the boy and runs off.
If that was ok by past standards, why did he run?
"Past" is not universal excuse. Easy example is that I wont excuse Nazi leadership for just being men of their time. "It was in the past therefore it was ok" is ridiculous standard.
Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli
#36My 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 don't get this analogy? Are you suggesting Machiavelli was a random person that didn't know anything about governing? Or that he was a comedian?
Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli
#37The 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…
Specifically, what course of action are you referring to that involves "the modern US Democratic party ... sacrific[ing] the appearance of being good"?
Drop gun rights for a minute, focus more on unfucking the health care system. Just an arbitrary pairing.
Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli
#38It just occurred to me that Machiavelli could be grouped with Sun Tzu and Saul Alinsky - each one of them wrote an incredibly insightful and influential book on strategy or leadership. Are there any other authors/books in this category?
Cardinal Mazarin's "Breviarium Politicorum Secundum Rubricas Mazarinicas" (translated from Latin to French, by Umberto Eco, as the "Bréviaire des politiciens") would be such a book (note that whether it was actually written by Mazarin is a subject of debate).
However I do not know if it was translated in English.
Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli
#39Earlier 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…
He had various diplomatic and government posts prior to writing any of his books. None of them were very highly-ranked or important, though.
This is just wrong!
He was Florence's ambassador to the Vatican (the major power in Italy), then ambassador to France (the major power in Europe) and Spain.
After this he trained and led a Florentine army to victory against Pisa, and then lost to a Papal and Medici funded army and was banished from Florence.
It was at this point he wrote his book.
It's more like if Henry Kissenger had been a Marine as well.
Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli
#40The 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…
Compromise is antithetical to a two-party system. One could make the same arguments against the Republican party, using their hobby horses as examples.
Every gain for party A is a loss for party B, so you must ensure (with varying degrees of subtlety) that the other party's initiatives end in failure to help secure your victory in the next election. And once you're in power, you must destroy anything the other party created that would bring them praise, so that they can't point to it in the following election cycle.