Was Machiavelli Machiavellian?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- Humanist politician and philosopher Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli has been called the first modern man and the father of political science. His book The Prince, is among the most influential books in the Western canon and has given rise to our adjective “Machiavellian” to describe unscrupulous politicians. John Hamer of Toronto Centre Place look closely at The Prince and Machiavelli’s other writings to consider his political philosophy and to ask whether the author himself was “Machiavellian”.
I wonder what the “real news sources” the guy at about 1:10:01 was referring to . Would be interesting to hear what he thinks are the real news sources
He wrote the prince as a sort of satire/ political commentary against the inherent need for force to be used by any "good" state
To many people stop there reading of Machiavelli at The Prince. They really need to also read The Discourses. Which was written at the same time.
I love your work so much! Could you pleeeaaase give us lectures on the characters and stories of the Old Testament prophets
Curious that centuries after republican Giuseppe Garibaldi gave Naples to king Vittor Emmanuele for having a unified Italy
Very grateful for these lectures, to John Hamer for giving them, Centre Place for hosting, and all their supporters for making it possible.
Wasn’t Machiavelli quite thoroughly black listed after the Republic fell? It seems odd to believe the people who were willing to torture him so terribly and who wanted to replace the former republic would bring him back in.
John Hamer is a rockstar 💪🏼💪🏼💪🏼
S/o the Assad defender in the audience, dude wasn't having any of that western propaganda!!
Read “The history of the Florentines” and you will realise that Machiavelli was a nationalist
I spent great time listening to you, many Thanks
54:53
You can visit Machiavelli’s home in Tuscany. It’s beautiful. We went there in April of 2022. Gorgeous surroundings. Fascinating house.
I think that Machiavelli probably wrote The Prince so that it would be taken as a satire or practical advice depending on the reader.
Ex president donald trump can’t read but his behavior follows the prince..
Being evil is not "human nature". Evil people use that phrase to justify their selfishness.
You cant expect people to be selfless all the times
@@littleantukins4415 you're acting like people are selfless most of the time. That is not true.
Great comment at 1 hour and 9
Next up: Was 2Pac Tupac?
Machiavelli are the most overrated autor of all time, we can call he mr.obvius. I dont see any fact in his book that can be shocking. Politics was dirty and are dirty. When you shay that mercenary army are untrustable whats the news?
If you see Machiavelli life theres no shadow of machiavelism, he himself fell in ostracism.
It's the Tolkien Effect. Basically everyone who reads Tolkien today devoid of historical context will think he's another D&D hack writer borrowing all the standard tropes. The Prince reads like it's so obvious today because it's become the SOP for all leaders and modern governments. It wasn't quite so obvious when it was written.
@@andrewsuryali8540 I uderstand about inovation. But i am talking about the fact itself. Historicaly machiavelli was much important, but not a deep or very smart autor. And The prince doesnt created politics, The skills and The game exists long before machiavelli, Just read ancient roman writters...
@@nicolashippolitomota9493 I think you're missing the point of Machiavelli's innovation in The Prince. He wasn't simply advocating for using all those dirty tricks everyone had known about. He was instead proposing a completely new way to run a renaissance-era state that broke away from the norm. If you look at the model he proposed the one state that eventually put most of it to use was Frederick the Great's Prussia three hundred years later. The problem is that Machiavelli also had to include methods to achieve the reform of a standard Italian city-state into that model he proposed and people then got fixated on that part of The Prince instead of the truly revolutionary end-state model that was the purpose of the book. Basically, if what you have to start with is a mess like Florence, then you'd have to take some pretty drastic measures to fix it, and that's where being a totally ruthless asshole comes into play. The Prince was a practical guide book for transforming an Italian city-state into a centralized meritocratic state with a professional military drawn from its own citizenship. That's the original context and purpose. Unfortunately it also works at a grander scale because over time many nation-states evolved in ways similar to the Italian city-states of the renaissance era. That's why the concepts have been applied time and again in practically every modern state.
Also, on the subject of mercenaries, he's actually taken out of context. He was specifically referring to the Condottieri prevalent in Italian wars. Every army in his lifetime was composed entirely of mercenary forces. Machieavelli's understanding of professional troops taken from the citizenry was actually influenced by what was in his time evolving into the Landsknecht regiments. These are still mercenaries (all professional soldiers in his time were mercs) but they're mercenaries with a vested interest in defending their own home and their sovereign's interests because they're drawn only from citizens of the lands belonging to the sovereign.
@@andrewsuryali8540 Yes, I agree with all historical context that you describe. Maybe I express me wrong, i'm talking about people that think about machiavelli methods in his life. Most people that read this book have in mind pratical aplication, is about it that i'm talking. But you are right, Machiavelli in his context was great. For example, Sun Tzu are a book that have much more pratical aplication. What you said about historical context make me statement strong, because Machiavelli are much restricted for his time. I not denied the inovation, just aplication for mainstream reader.
@@andrewsuryali8540 People that put Machiavelism like pure evil and so on.... It is like a said, just politics, a great inovation but normal politcs. Nothing like pure evil or devils like the word machiavelism represent.
Bit of disappointment this discussion of Machiavelli. Machiavelli's negative view of Christian education and Christian compassion deserve discussion. These need to be discussed as well as his position on Good and Bad violence. We live in an age of compassionate fools.
Yes, I dont saw any new point too. This lecture is like a superficial descrition of mainstrean Machiavelli. I was waiting for some new like other lectures of this channel.
@@nicolashippolitomota9493 Machiavelli's critique of ruling by utopia's rather than "what is" is a breath of fresh air in the age of Wokeism.
@@kimfreeborn Explain your point better, i didnt uderstand so well.
@@nicolashippolitomota9493 The Prince must look at what has been achieved and not judge it in terms of some other worldly system. Machiavelli admires Moses and mosaic law because it does not make pretensions to Other-Worldliness in this world. Such views lead to covetousness and bad violence in the name of compassion.
@@kimfreeborn We cant fall in the mistake of anacronism. Will be useful if we remember that Machiavelli come from renascence so the religious base is much more present than today. But when I read The Prince I cant see anything especial, because have many others much more ancient intelectuals that talked about politics in this way. To finnish, Machiavelli give many wrongs teachs, its true for today politics and in his time. I consider Machiavelli a weak intelectual and much much overrated.