After rereading the chapters I felt that there may be a little bit of disconnect between a few of Machiavelli's ideals. I will be comparing a few chapters to the final one we read (XIX) and examining whether or not they can coexist.
In Chapter XV Machiavelli stresses the point that a prince should virtue and/or vice, whichever on is more fecund for his desired result, on his people. It would seem that if you ruled with more vice than virtue or simply vice alone your people would not like you. This would go against the claim presented in chapter XIX that one should avoid being despised or hated. Ruling with the aforementioned the people even if fearing you would not like you. We see another disconnect in chapter XVIII when he says that a prince "should be a great pretender" and that it is "very necessary to appear to have" the qualities that are pleasing to the public. Here I think that Machiavelli underestimates the people, masses, sheep, electric heard, what have you. If you say one thing to your subjects and do another the people will notice. If you preach virtue and do the opposite it will not go unnoticed. When people do start to raise an eye to these contradictory actions they will act accordingly, usually resulting in some kind of upheaval, general disdain, and both probably coupled with some sort of either rhetorical or physical conspiring. I like the idea of garnishing good favor because it makes sense, obviously, but I feel with the two previous mentioned ideals of a prince, that it just does not mix. Fear only goes so far before it is enough and the people take action. I would like to know what others think this notion is correct or if it is true we the sheep are "so simple".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I was actually thinking about the same kind of idea after thursday's class. It's statements like fortune and free will play about a 50-50 role in the outcomes of life (and ones you've brought up) that make me feel Machiavelli is a waffler. He isn't quite a yes man. He's a yes-no man, depending on the day (or should I say the chapter). I wonder though, since the Renaissance (as stressed in class) was a major precursor to the thought of the early modern period, if this is really the start of lazy relativist thinking. I'm not saying Machiavelli is a lazy relativist, but it's easy to see how one can move from Machiavelli's "do whatever works, man" philosophy to our present day "whatever, man" mentality. I wonder what anyone else thinks about what methinks
I agree; it does seem like Machiavelli’s ideas from one chapter to the next are a bit inconsistent. However, he acknowledges this inconsistency by arguing that there is no single doctrine a prince can follow to guarantee a stable principality. While this mentality seems a bit like “lazy relativism,” I think it’s actually very pragmatic and consistent with his views of free will and fortune. If, as Machiavelli claims, there are factors beyond our control, how can we plan a specific course of action that remains independent of the circumstances in which we find ourselves? In Chapter XXV, Machiavelli says, “One can see of two cautious men the one attain his end, the other fail; and similarly, two men by different observances are equally successful, the one being cautious, the other impetuous; all this arises from nothing else than whether or not they conform in their methods to the spirit of the times.”
I was about to go on a tirade on the necessary goods of making plans but now realize that you may not be saying that plans are unnecessary simply because they do not (and dare I say necessarily cannot) take the uncontrollable freak occurrence into account. So I ask what are you really trying to say when you bring in the quotation about the two prudent men? If you agree with me that plans, no matter their inefficiencies, can still be helpful, then we have nothing to really discuss. So before I turn into the pompous commenter (even though, sitting here in the middle ground at midnight, it seems inescapable now) might I ask to explain your point just a little further? I'm confused.
This is interesting Mark, I agree that Machiavelli is very callous and condescending in his assumptions of "the masses." It is true that people will notice one's virtues and ones vices, however Machiavelli does not necessarily intend for a Prince to preach virtue or vice. Instead, it seems that he wishes a Prince do actions that would make him appear virtuous and shrewd, so that the people may not mistake his virtue for weakness, or overplay his shrewdness as a worse vice for which he may be faulted. Machiavelli is (at times) inconsistent, I agree. However, he is still the most comprehensive and modern adviser when it comes to pragmatic ruling in a principality. I would prefer a callous and generalized play on the roles of the Prince and people than an idealized (and to an extent romanticized) state in which the Prince loves and is loved by his people.
Dev, we’re on the same page about the importance of making plans. I included the quote to show that Machiavelli believes there is not just one timeless formula or “master plan,” which is why some of his ideas may seem inconsistent from one chapter to the next.
Yeah. I figured as much. I'll just have to find something else to quibble about. Just kidding. Or am I? Either way, I'm glad we can agree on the importance of plans.
Collin, I do not intend for my comment to sound like I am for or believe in a romanticized vision of a prince. Instead, I would like to clarify that I do no think you can pretend to be a vrtuous prince while at the same time using oppresive force (as one contrasting example) to control your people. But enough on old points. I have been wondering if it was easier to control a society through deceit then as it is now. Afterall, he did write it as a contemporary piece, but could in no way account for things like video and its pimp, youtube.
I personally think that if a ruler could control a kingdom/ principality through solely love it could be the best of all chooses.
Let's imagine I rule Rome and the citizens see me more as a loving father not a wrathful lord. I believe that the people will back me fully if I have a new policy and even if it fails it is the policy that was bad not I, they love me for being kind, and intelligent. If they fear me, what are they compelled by? My sword, they might do my bidding but more reluctantly so they would be less efficient, so it is through love of the lord or a more nationalist civil duty to due what is best for the state that can create the best state. If they fear and love me I believe it is fake love, because I cannot love something I fear, can I love guns if I fear them, can I love Death man's biggest fear - no. So to say both love and fear is a cope out because it is unrealistic you have to pick one and I for one would choose Love!
Jon, I wonder if a child/parent relationship is an example in which an individual is both loved and feared. Although a child may fear punishment, he or she is still capable of loving the parent. Being feared is not the same as being hated (which Machiavelli says a prince should avoid).
On the basis that people are fickle and self-interested, Machiavelli argues that a prince cannot rely solely on love to secure his authority. I know this sounds rather cynical, but don't we often take advantage of those we love?
Post a Comment