[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 48 KB, 564x800, the prince.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10313886 No.10313886 [Reply] [Original]

What makes people think it's satirical?

>> No.10313891

>people should fear their dictator

>> No.10313908

Because the same man wrote Discourses on Livy

>> No.10314035

>>10313886
wishful thinking

>> No.10314076

>>10313886
Naive liberals
t. Cynical marxist

>> No.10314078
File: 343 KB, 1446x1080, oberstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10314078

>>10313886

>> No.10314079

>he hasn't read the Discourses
wew
there were also dozens of guides to "proper princely conduct" being circulated at the time

>> No.10314100

He wrote it for the family that destroyed the Florentine Republic and tortured him.

>> No.10315059

>>10314078
this

>> No.10315087

>>10313886
He wrote many satirical plays. He was known for his wit. That being said, his analysis of power is way too accurate to simply be "satire". If it were, it never would have become the handbook for sociopaths and the hyper-competitive. That being said, I don't think Machiavelli thought this analysis was "the right thing". It was an excellent account of the "is", not the "ought". The confusion (I think) stems from this. Was Machiavelli being tongue-in-cheek by simply listing the "is" as if it were the whole of political truth? Either way, to simply say yes or no to the question "was Machiavelli satirical" is to ignore nuance for the sake of brevity or ignorance.

>> No.10316306

>>10313908
The Prince is a study of political power and what gets men to and keeps men in that power. There is nothing contradictory in having certain political beliefs and yet objectively trying to delineate features of great statesmen of the past.

>> No.10316496
File: 904 KB, 245x200, tumblr_mir61gIGaw1rmtenjo3_250[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10316496

>>10313886
Because they haven't read any actual satire from the period to compare it to

>> No.10316510
File: 43 KB, 312x445, 71hb4WtXvHL._SY445_[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10316510

why do poltards have problems understanding satire?
is it autism?

>> No.10316512

>>10316510
Not an argument.

>> No.10316523

>>10316512
It was a question, susan. An innocuous question.
Stop getting your panties in a twist.
Are you on your period?

>> No.10316537

>>10316523
Why do you think it's satire? I think Machiavelli was a scientific mind, and his intention was to find some regularities and rules that describe the workings of ruling positions. Regard pre-Machiavelli studiy of politics, and notice how innovative and scientific his treatment of the subject was, and I'd say still is.

>> No.10316621

>>10313886
I haven't read it but I've attended a lecture about it. One of the reasons it is considered satire/ironic is that some of the ideas he comes up with are a double edged sword and some think that is on purpose. For example he suggests that once you conquer a city that you should sleep within the city walls to establish dominance, but that also increases the likelihood of assassination attempts.
So that is one of the reasons why some think that it is satire.