Machiavelli's "The Prince"

After my recent lectures and discussions in my Lit class, I have developed an interest in Machiavelli's "The Prince". I have read excerpts from it and it seems like a great read for me right now. I was wondering if anyone else has read it, and what they think about it, and if they have anything to say to me befoe i actually pick it up

I've read passages of it, but never found it to be really engrossing story-wise or literary speaking good material. But.... we don't read "The Prince" for visions of "War and Peace" but for its deep, intrinsic knowledge of the human mind and how to use that knowledge to exploit for personal gain.

If anyone can link a copy to an online text version of it, please do.

I read it years ago in school. I hated it, but I don't remember exactly why at this moment. I believe there was a lot of nonsensical repetitions.

It's not going to blow your mind and there are no real revelations, but it's interesting from a historical point of view. A 'realpolitik' manual with historical examples and everything. Pragmatic and sometimes even cynical, lacking ethics, it gave him a bad reputation. One he didn't deserve, so I'm told. This should become clear if you read his other works, which I didn't. I just kept it in mind.

M

to cut short, it is one of the most.... no, the most ultimate reading on politology! short, condenced, no empty mambojambo, for lack of a better word - practical manual on how to lead and govern well and with a thought on your ppl.
if you haven't read it already, I strongly STRNGLY recomend that you do! and use no books which comment Macciavelli, read it raw, preferably in original language he he he... just kidding, but read it raw so you can make your own mind about it before you read someoneelse's opinion on it
have a best reading

Originally Posted by Mesamedasu

It's not going to blow your mind and there are no real revelations, but it's interesting from a historical point of view. A 'realpolitik' manual with historical examples and everything. Pragmatic and sometimes even cynical, lacking ethics, it gave him a bad reputation. One he didn't deserve, so I'm told. This should become clear if you read his other works, which I didn't. I just kept it in mind.

M

I don't actually want to offend you, and I understand that it is ONLY your opinion, but I will never agree with such a hastly and stereotipically shaped point of view. sorry... can you point to one, at least one place where Nicola is beeing unethical???
please do! please oblige me to counterargue!

Originally Posted by Giurza

but read it raw so you can make your own mind about it before you read someoneelse's opinion on it

I read it as raw as you suggested, to find my opinion more or less confirmed by what I read about it afterwards.

Originally Posted by Giurza

I don't actually want to offend you, and I understand that it is ONLY your opinion, but I will never agree with such a hastly and stereotipically shaped point of view. sorry... can you point to one, at least one place where Nicola is beeing unethical???
please do! please oblige me to counterargue!

I read this thing three years ago, don't expect me to quote from it.
However, I do remember uncle Nicola repeatedly saying something like: 'Be good if you can, or at least appear good, but if it's in your best interest: don't refrain from evil.' You tell me how you interpret this.

Another thing I remember was his general view of mankind, or at least the view he advocated in il principe. It wasn't very nice (I'd say misanthropic, but that's just to tease you). Things like 'quicker to forget the death of their father then the loss of their possessions', 'men is a sorry breed', many more ...

Now, Giurza, my opinion is based on this one book. The definition of Machiavellism is also based on this book (the disregard of moral scruples for political ends that leads to the justification and use of deception and force in all aspects of political life) For what it's worth, it isn't very flattering. But I said it already: I am aware that reading his other works will provide a better context for this one. I actually looked for his other works in the local library at the time, but there was only a copy of il principe. I gave up persuing it and started reading La Divina Commedia or something. I'm sure you can tell me which other works by this good man are key to understanding him.

Have fun counterarguing.

M

Originally Posted by Mesamedasu

I read this thing three years ago, don't expect me to quote from it.
However, I do remember uncle Nicola repeatedly saying something like: 'Be good if you can, or at least appear good, but if it's in your best interest: don't refrain from evil.' You tell me how you interpret this.

first off all N.M. is always, ALWAYS refering not to a wellbeeing of ONE man, BUT to a commonwealth of a nation, country or any other political entity. thus his apearant lack of ethics is not real, since what a man can call unethical or unmoral is not at all applicable to a nation, country or a governer (aka 'da Prince') I guess I took it very complicated... simply put it is as follows: 'use of somewhat questionable tactics in favor of personal gains IS unethical, while the same use in advantage of nation or a country, is perfectly acceptable'
exempel gratia: you want to become a president of a company, and you use blackmail, murder etc to achieve it. it is unmoral, and unethical since it is only you, max your family, that will gain an advantage.
you want to make your country stronger, or to protect it from foreign agressors, thus you kill decieve and lie... and it is not unethical, or unmoral, since you do it SELFLESSLY!
... still it is very complicated counterargument... isn't it? he he he

Originally Posted by Mesamedasu

Another thing I remember was his general view of mankind, or at least the view he advocated in il principe. It wasn't very nice (I'd say misanthropic, but that's just to tease you). Things like 'quicker to forget the death of their father then the loss of their possessions', 'men is a sorry breed', many more ...

but it is NOT unethical point of view... and I will never agree to anything else on this argument. N.M. ONLY STATES WHAT IS COMMONLY KNOWN AND MORE IMPORTANT - WHAT IS TRUE, but not all (actually none) will admiot it to themselves. (it is in our (human) nature to be hipocritical, EVEN about our own nature!)

Originally Posted by Mesamedasu

Now, Giurza, my opinion is based on this one book. The definition of Machiavellism is also based on this book (the disregard of moral scruples for political ends that leads to the justification and use of deception and force in all aspects of political life) For what it's worth, it isn't very flattering. But I said it already: I am aware that reading his other works will provide a better context for this one. I actually looked for his other works in the local library at the time, but there was only a copy of il principe. I gave up persuing it and started reading La Divina Commedia or something. I'm sure you can tell me which other works by this good man are key to understanding him.

Have fun counterarguing.

M

I would very much recomend reading N.M.'s 'On war' not sure though about the name... 'cos I downloaded it from a russian site and it was in russian, so the name could have been changed. in this book the explicit reasoning ofr army aupkeep, completation, and training is given, not to mention that N.M. is showing his point of view on why he is thinking that way and not the otherway... as long as I am concerned He is a :wub:*in hero, and a PATRIOT. all his thoughts and writings point to that. and A PATRIOT can never be unmoral or unethical (at least not towards his own country)
EDIT:
p.s. I know that all I said may sound horrible, just as many think of N.M. works,... that they are horrible unethical and unmoral... but no one thinks it is unethical to steal, to kill or to lie just to get a better position, better job, or better bite of food... but as soon as it goes out to open and it is about country or nation all go 'OMG it is mchiavelism!!!' and start making cross signs with their fingers
EDIT2:
p.p.s. and N.M. sais it is most sad that governer's action must come to that, he always advises not to make anything unethical (AS LONG AS IT IS PRACTICALLY REASONABLE)

Originally Posted by Giurza

first off all N.M. is always, ALWAYS refering not to a wellbeeing of ONE man, BUT to a commonwealth of a nation, country or any other political entity. thus his apearant lack of ethics is not real, since what a man can call unethical or unmoral is not at all applicable to a nation, country or a governer (aka 'da Prince') I guess I took it very complicated... simply put it is as follows: 'use of somewhat questionable tactics in favor of personal gains IS unethical, while the same use in advantage of nation or a country, is perfectly acceptable'
exempel gratia: you want to become a president of a company, and you use blackmail, murder etc to achieve it. it is unmoral, and unethical since it is only you, max your family, that will gain an advantage.
you want to make your country stronger, or to protect it from foreign agressors, thus you kill decieve and lie... and it is not unethical, or unmoral, since you do it SELFLESSLY!

The preservation, or wellbeing, of a nation is above all ethics. Ethics are disregarded in this matter. I was often wondering what Machiavelli understood as the wellbeing of a nation. Although he dismisses selfishness, it seemed to me the balance tips over to it's rulers rather than to its people. Probably also due to the despotism at the time, it's inevitable. Did he address the possible conflict of interest between a nation and its ruler? That would have been interesting.

Originally Posted by Giurza

but it is NOT unethical point of view... and I will never agree to anything else on this argument. N.M. ONLY STATES WHAT IS COMMONLY KNOWN AND MORE IMPORTANT - WHAT IS TRUE, but not all (actually none) will admiot it to themselves. (it is in our (human) nature to be hipocritical, EVEN about our own nature!)!

It was to show he's being cynical.
All 'qualities' described by Machiavelli are undeniable aspect of human nature, but there are other, good qualities in human nature too. They remain conveniently ignored when he defends the infliction of evil.

Originally Posted by Giurza

I would very much recomend reading N.M.'s 'On war' not sure though about the name... 'cos I downloaded it from a russian site and it was in russian, so the name could have been changed. in this book the explicit reasoning ofr army aupkeep, completation, and training is given, not to mention that N.M. is showing his point of view on why he is thinking that way and not the otherway...

Maybe I will, if I can find a hardcopy of it.

Originally Posted by Giurza

as long as I am concerned He is a :wub:*in hero, and a PATRIOT. all his thoughts and writings point to that. and A PATRIOT can never be unmoral or unethical (at least not towards his own country)

This is where I strongly disagree. I'm not too fond of patriots. They tend to have their priorities confused, as far as I'm concerned.

Originally Posted by Giurza

p.s. I know that all I said may sound horrible, just as many think of N.M. works,... that they are horrible unethical and unmoral... but no one thinks it is unethical to steal, to kill or to lie just to get a better position, better job, or better bite of food... but as soon as it goes out to open and it is about country or nation all go 'OMG it is mchiavelism!!!' and start making cross signs with their fingers

Well, I, for one, do.

M

Originally Posted by Mesamedasu

The preservation, or wellbeing, of a nation is above all ethics. Ethics are disregarded in this matter. I was often wondering what Machiavelli understood as the wellbeing of a nation. Although he dismisses selfishness, it seemed to me the balance tips over to it's rulers rather than to its people. Probably also due to the despotism at the time, it's inevitable. Did he address the possible conflict of interest between a nation and its ruler? That would have been interesting.

hmmm yes and no. N.M. indeed balanced between wellbeeing of a nation and an advatage of its ruler. but this happened because he (understanding the nature of his time) wrote to 'da prince' with intention that 'DA PRINCE' will hear him. and if you want some stupid blockheaded prerenaissance prince hear you, you MUST write that it is in HIS, not nations interrests to do this or that. but N.M. makes it quite clear (with certain very slight and subtle notes) that it is NATION he is concerned about.

Originally Posted by Mesamedasu

It was to show he's being cynical.
All 'qualities' described by Machiavelli are undeniable aspect of human nature, but there are other, good qualities in human nature too. They remain conveniently ignored when he defends the infliction of evil.

oh wait! hold on! is it N.M. beeing cynical??? I think it is our society, it is we that are cynical. he only stated THE REALITY! I am very sorry to counter this, but there is like 5% maybe 10% max of good ppl all over the world and the rest... they are either true evil, or just pretending good since they were not given a chance to disclose themselves...
Himler *ring a bell?* he was a freakin teacher!.... but given a certain circumstances... and voila! you've got yourself biggest vilain in all times! (well maybe the third biggest... 1Stalin 2Hitler)

Originally Posted by Mesamedasu

Maybe I will, if I can find a hardcopy of it.

I really hope you do, 'cos it is realy mind blowing... I wrote a philosophy topic on this one when attending Military accademy. it is really good, makes one rethink the whole system of armed forces. and it is very indepth.

Originally Posted by Mesamedasu

This is where I strongly disagree. I'm not too fond of patriots. They tend to have their priorities confused, as far as I'm concerned.

oh... I won't argue with this one... why? because I like you, and I like this conversation, I like it civilized. so I won't argue with this one!
(myself beeing a patriot)

respectfully!

I have read only bits and pieces of it in my highschool World History class.

What I learned from it? Machiavelli was a cynical ass-hole.

Exploitation, manipulation of the system, the pseudo-disenfranchisement of people.... that's not unethical?

It's Machiavelli for a reason.

I've read it. It was alright.

My key piece of advice to you is to NOT READ IT LIKE A NOVEL. Read it as if you were reading a manual to something. Because in essence, it is.

My favourites from Machiavelli's rules are that you should always be very generous in giving away property to your supporters, as long as it isn't your own property you're giving - and also that if a task must done that will make the doer unpopular, appoint a lieutenant to do it for you and then execute him and stick his head in public where the people can see it and be grateful to you.

I have read only bits and pieces of it in my highschool World History class.

What I learned from it? Machiavelli was a cynical ass-hole.

Well if thats what you think then ok, but i dont see how you think this. I know someone may not agree with his works, but are they really wrong? They are different, not wrong. And putting aside what he wrote about, you have to agree that he was a great writer. Thats one of his qualities i like.

My key piece of advice to you is to NOT READ IT LIKE A NOVEL. Read it as if you were reading a manual to something. Because in essence, it is.

Exactly how i want to approach it, and with the bits and peices i have read that is what I am doing. I dont see how someone could read it as a novel, that would be just plain stupid. Treat what you read for what it actually is. In this cae, like you said a manual on being a good ruler.

From what i have read from his book, I have found many things that I agree with, but a few things i disagree with. But the reader has to realize that this was written in a time where power was more concentrated on one person- hence the title "The Prince". When one reads you must remember how leadership was back in his time, and not totally relate it to something wou may find today (a government like a Republic, Democracy, etc.). After a discussion in class about this point I realized that, and it seemed like some people do read it like that. Hence they do not get the knowledge out of it that they should.

just a few thought i had on what I have read, sorry if they are a bit unorganized.

Originally Posted by Cluny the Scourge

My favourites from Machiavelli's rules are that you should always be very generous in giving away property to your supporters, as long as it isn't your own property you're giving - and also that if a task must done that will make the doer unpopular, appoint a lieutenant to do it for you and then execute him and stick his head in public where the people can see it and be grateful to you.

I love Machiavelli.
Must start reading this asap.

p.s. the title 'the Prince' comes only from the real objective of this writing. N.M wrote it to a real prince with a hope to reinstitute his own reputation in prince's eyes...

2pac read it :O

I was wondering if anyone else has read it, and what they think about it

It's a brilliant piece of work. One of the few books I actually enjoyed reading.