The Stakes: Thoughts on Machiavelli

In this edition of The Stakes, Michael Anton, lecturer in politics and research fellow at Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center, and a Claremont senior fellow, is joined by Michael Millerman, founder of the Millerman School. The two discuss Strauss' complicated yet rewarding book, Thoughts on Machiavelli. Other topics include: whether and to what extent Machiavelli is a philosopher, how to read Machiavelli's writings effectively, and what wisdom Machiavelli had to offer that is still helpful in our current political climate. #MichaelAnton #MichaelMillerman #Machiavelli
- - - -
Learn More
Claremont Institute: www.claremont....
Claremont Review of Books: claremontrevie...
The American Mind: americanmind.org/
Follow Us
Claremont Institute Twitter: / claremontinst
The American Mind Twitter: / americanmind_us
Claremont Institute Facebook: / claremontins
The American Mind Facebook: / americanmind.org
- - - -

[@sethbracken]

Please unleash the fine-toothed comb series if Millerman is amenable. Also, thank you for shedding light on Strauss’ HPP essay on Marsilius of Padua. It’s inclusion has baffled me for a long time, but I never followed up on it because Plato, NM, Hobbes, and Nietzsche are so much more exciting. Marsilius, eh, not so much.

[@mannyvilla63]

This was a fantastic discussion on Strauss’ book. I enjoyed it and I will re-examine the book. Thanks again.

[@bryanutility9609]

One of the best podcasts you guys have done.

[@williambuysse5459]

Apparently entertaining oneself towards death is not just due to technological devices, economics, sex or other forms of entertainment. The esoteric kind and the exoteric kind.

[@badanimal907]

seems like the word whisker o the wisp moldbug would have subtracted some gravitas to the edification of many

[@jondaly4501]

If everything flows down from ontology, I have a hard time reconciling Machiavelli with Socrates and Plato. Nonetheless, I found this interesting.

[@jlwcarroll]

Q

[@williambuysse5459]

I need to add that it is an error to equate the ancient theology of Plato and Aristotle's time with the Catholic theology of Aquinas or Catholicism in general. To do so presupposes the modern critique of religion tout court. It is also historically inaccurate. Philosophy is distinct from Theology and Catholic Theology presupposes it. The tendency to lump all religion or theology together is often done under the spell of modern thinking. Plato and Aristotle had no Catholic Theology to reject. Machiavelli, Luther, and Heidegger did. The modern rejection of God is the rejection of man in whose image man was created. Humanism presupposes the second person of the Trinity. For otherwise humanism would be found in other areas of the world.

[@BrownOpsLeak]

Damn thought this was Curtis yarvin

[@mouthofpower8492]

God that intro music is slowest, least passionate music I’ve ever heard. Put me to sleep guys come on now

[@petervote7914]

That was deliberate. They wanted the most disciplined person who can get through that intro to reach this discussion. Only someone who could pass this test is worthy.

[@mouthofpower8492]

@@petervote7914 Holy cope...

[@FMDad-dm5qo]

I don’t know why they still use that music. An esoteric joke?

[@matsulrich7765]

1:20:55

[@matsulrich7765]

13:42

[@travismcgee100]

32:11 Anton says that Strauss says Machiavelli is evil because he "advises you to do it in his own name" (in this example, kill infants). Anton says "you" not "princes" even though at 34:32 Anton says Machiavelli is giving princes normative advice (not YOU).
Could Machiavelli consciously be a character in his own book? Could he be revealing to the world, let's say, what the princes already knew so that he might educate republican leaders of the future? "Here is what you are up against," Machiavelli tells them. After all, do we really think (or does Strauss really think) that Machiavelli thought he was helping princes with 'The Prince'? In 'Livy,' does Machiavelli recommend infanticide? Does Strauss tell us? From Anton and Millerman we know that as much as Machiavelli, Strauss is up to something.

[@moonban4086]

LOL strauss definitely was up to something, you got that right

[@williambuysse5459]

Very insiteful. I believe that Strauss is the new Plato who, in imitating Machiavelli, uses real thinkers to create his own dialogues.
Machiavelli uses Livy, Hobbes Augustine and Aristotle but following Machiavelli. I could go on.
The anti-Catholic polemic to all modern thinking is decisive
Nevertheless, I understand Strauss as aware of this. He is the tightrope walker par excellence who somehow manages to give something to both Athens and Jersulam.

[@matsulrich7765]

21:30

[@matsulrich7765]

1:23:28

[@appomattoxcourt]

The Stakes and 😎

[@marchess286]

Ku-za-ree, as we Jews say it ... or at least the Jews I kmow

[@matsulrich7765]

40:34