What we get wrong about Machiavelli
prospectmagazine.co.uk
What we get wrong about Machiavelli
1–10 of 61 posts
Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli
#2The 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 really matter -- for example legislation on climate change, and the preservation of the US ability to respond to global pandemics to name only two. One of Machiavelli's key messages is that there are some things that are more important than playing by the spirit of the law. Those in the modern west who reject Machiavelli and this message doom themselves and their constituents to live in states cursed with bad rulers.
Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli
#3It 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?
Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli
#4My 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 neutral, objective perspective throughout his writings.
Nevertheless, his objectivism is commonly, and wrongfully, interpreted as malignity.
Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli
#5It 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?
Clausewitz, Lenin
Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli
#6It 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?
Carl von Clausewitz, On War, is regularly cited.
Perhaps Striking Thoughts (quotes by Bruce Lee) or The Book of Five Rings, Miyamoto Musashi, as well?
Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli
#7Everything.
Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli
#8What 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).
Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli
#9I always thought the Prince reflected that the means should befit the prince (IE be apropriate to the governmening power if visible), and in general the more vicious the prince, the more visibly vicious it's possible to be without it be being effectively self-destructive. And that while the reverse is also true, IE a benevolent prince could reinforce itself with visible benevolence, the vicious is far easier and harder to get wrong.
Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli
#10It 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?
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.