/lit/ - Literature

>>11562873
You post here everyday. It isnt satire. Also your mom sucks my dick everyday.

>>11562886
Did i say it was satire? Anon your reading ability isn't too good, maybe you didn't get it after all...

>>11562873
>my contradictory advice,
what advice was contradictory, anon?

i did
FUCK

>>11562873
No, no. No contradictions here. You made quite clear. Realism is now in action, the praxis. The theory of international relations most often speaks of a realistic school; the basis of international relations is the proportionality of power. Today, the US makes a step further by putting realism as a moral principle; America has a "moral right" to violate international law when it suits her power.

Thanks, shitfuck.

>>11562873
/lit/ needs to read this

parts of it are satire, others not. moreover; some of the real advice is pretty terrible. what you'd except from a republican.

>>11562967
His whole shtick on alliances is one of the most glaring ones

But when a prince declares himself gallantly in favour of one side, if the party with whom he allies himself conquers, although the victor may be powerful and may have him at his mercy, yet he is indebted to him, and there is established a bond of amity; and men are never so shameless as to become a monument of ingratitude by oppressing you. Victories after all are never so complete that the victor must not show some regard, especially to justice. But if he with whom you ally yourself loses, you may be sheltered by him, and whilst he is able he may aid you, and you become companions in a fortune that may rise again.

In the second case, when those who fight are of such a character that you have no anxiety as to who may conquer, so much the more is it greater prudence to be allied, because you assist at the destruction of one by the aid of another who, if he had been wise, would have saved him; and conquering, as it is impossible that he should not with your assistance, he remains at your discretion. And here it is to be noted that a prince ought to take care never to make an alliance with one more powerful than himself for the purpose of attacking others, unless necessity compels him, as is said above; because if he conquers you are at his discretion, and princes ought to avoid as much as possible being at the discretion of any one

Machiavelli REALLY hates mercenaries. What did those of that honourable profession ever do to him?

>>11563020
>Political-military alliances continually changed, featuring condottieri (mercenary leaders), who changed sides without warning, and the rise and fall of many short-lived governments
>Between 1503 and 1506, Machiavelli was responsible for the Florentine militia. He distrusted mercenaries (a distrust that he explained in his official reports and then later in his theoretical works for their unpatriotic and uninvested nature in the war that makes their allegiance fickle and often too unreliable when most needed) and instead staffed his army with citizens, a policy that was to be repeatedly successful. Under his command, Florentine citizen-soldiers defeated Pisa in 1509.

>>11563010
wheres the contradiction? (also keep in mind...translations)

>>11563010
if thats the most glaring one, then...wew... any other examples, waiting for your reply of elucidation
>>11563058

>>11563058
>>11563063
>although the victor may be powerful and may have him at his mercy, yet he is indebted to him, and there is established a bond of amity; and men are never so shameless as to become a monument of ingratitude by oppressing you.
>And here it is to be noted that a prince ought to take care never to make an alliance with one more powerful than himself for the purpose of attacking others, unless necessity compels him, as is said above; because if he conquers you are at his discretion, and princes ought to avoid as much as possible being at the discretion of any one

So he tells you to always ally with someone (even if they are powerful) and never be neutral because it's bad and your ally is never going to be so shameless as to betray you but then goes on right after to tell you to be wary and paranoid because you will then be at your allies discretion. How is this not a massive contradiction?

>>11563090
Because the point about an alliance "for the purpose of attacking others" distinguishes between the two sentences. A victorious defensive alliance results in the victor being indebted to the prince, but a victorious offensive alliance results in the victor considering whether the prince might be an easy next target.

>>11563124
>But when a prince declares himself gallantly in favour of one side, if the party with whom he allies himself conquers, although the victor may be powerful and may have him at his mercy, yet he is indebted to him, and there is established a bond of amity; and men are never so shameless as to become a monument of ingratitude by oppressing you
>But when a prince declares himself gallantly in favour of one side, if the party with whom he allies himself conquers
>if the party with whom he allies himself conquers

Do i really have to keep pointing out every little thing for you?

>>11563142
"Conquers" means "wins" in this case, like conquering your fears. It does not mean an offensive alliance.

>>11563090
>So he tells you to always ally with someone
where does he say always ally with someone?

I will admit the language there (which is why I questioned translation) is very confusedly worded.
>But when a prince declares himself gallantly in favour of one side, if the party with whom he allies himself conquers, although the victor may be powerful and may have him at his mercy, yet he is indebted to him, and there is established a bond of amity

So this is an example maybe if who the prince allys himself with is more powerful than him:

The conquerer is indebted to the prince for allying/helping them conquer so established bond of amity/friendly relationship

>and men are never so shameless as to become a monument of ingratitude by oppressing you.
even if you ally, and there is bond, the conquerers being powerful before, and now after conquering more powerful, even though you allyed and helped, may due to any number of reasons still 'oppress', which can mean any number of things, including cracking jokes at you when you enter the room.

>Victories after all are never so complete that the victor must not show some regard, especially to justice.
maybe this is like a princely respect thing, do we know how savage princes were to each other, or was it more like the generals of opposing armies who would meet in tents and hang out while their men killed each other?
>In the second case,
the case in which who the prince allys himself with loses

>when those who fight are of such a character that you have no anxiety as to who may conquer,
what... .a-are you allying with someone you have no anxiety will lose??

>so much the more is it greater prudence to be allied,

with.... the sure loser?


>because you assist at the destruction of one by the aid of another
ok, so, ally with the sure loser, because you chip away at a larger power hopefully, larger power that is your competition??

>who if he had been wise, would have saved him;
what...??? if the sure loser team had been wise would have saved themselves? If the sure winner were wise they would have saved the losers? The sure loser if they were wise would have seen they were sure loser so not have fought?

>and conquering, as it is impossible that he should not with your assistance, he remains at your discretion.
impossible for the maybe sure loser to win without your assistance, he will treat you well

>And here it is to be noted that a prince ought to take care never to make an alliance with one more powerful than himself for the purpose of attacking others

>unless necessity compels him,
>unless necessity compels him

>as is said above; because if he conquers you are at his discretion, and princes ought to avoid as much as possible being at the discretion of any one

If you ally with more powerful, then you are at their mercy, they can use their power against you even if on the same team:
if you ally with less powerful, you get to be the dick to them, and proxy attack more powerful

>>11563161
>even if you ally, and there is bond, the conquerers being powerful before, and now after conquering more powerful, even though you allyed and helped, may due to any number of reasons still 'oppress', which can mean any number of things, including cracking jokes at you when you enter the room.
No, what he means there is that if you are allied with a guy and you win, he's not likely to suddenly turn on you.

>maybe this is like a princely respect thing, do we know how savage princes were to each other, or was it more like the generals of opposing armies who would meet in tents and hang out while their men killed each other?
Both would happen, depending. But the line that you cite actually means that you will never win such a complete victory that you can stop at least being a little bit nice to the guys who lose, because you will never beat them so badly that no one will ever challenge you again. If you win and act like a dick afterwards, it's likely that people will act like a dick to you if they beat you.

>>11563177
well the
>Victories after all are never so complete that the victor must not show some regard, especially to justice.
comes right after the

>and men are never so shameless as to become a monument of ingratitude by oppressing you.
which I mistakenly read trying to parse this mess as, and men are ever so shameless, thus my faulty interpretation.

though now, I figure the Victories after all, line coming after that, and men are never, line, is a continuation of the thought that, to become a monument of ingratitude by oppressing you, hes speaking to the prince that allyed with the winner, that they will not be: monument of ingratitude by oppressing you, because: victories are never so complete...

And maybe those lines are where the claim that satire/sarcasm exists in the text? Could that be sarcastic:

>and men are never so shameless as to become a monument of ingratitude by oppressing you
>men are never so shameless
really?

And another, spanner, key word

>Victories after all are never so complete that the victor must not show some regard,
>not show some regard
>some
>some
>some

>>11563177
>>11563142
Ok so, maybe if the prince allys with powerful who conquers, maybe that powerful conquerer will not
"be so shameless as to become a monument of ingratitude by oppressing you"
but they will still be more powerful than you, you will have helped make an entity that is not yourself, that you are unsure of how exactly you relate to: that, maybe... must show... some! regard to justice...

and you will be at their discretion, you will maybe answer to them, be at their discretion, their power increased, maybe your power decreased? maybe they will call you to do this and that, and you will have to listen and obey

>>11563218
>Could that be sarcastic
It might, although you'd have to look through Machiavelli's life to determine whether or not it was a bitter sarcasm. But even if it was, the general point still stands because the polar opposite idea (that princes will always be monuments of ingratitude) is clearly not true. The advice is still good, although further caution should be urged.

>some
He leaves it vague because he's referring to general customs. There's no need to be specific. I guess "sufficient" would be clearer, but still vague.

>>11563236
>Ok so, maybe if the prince allys with powerful who conquers, maybe that powerful conquerer will not
>"be so shameless as to become a monument of ingratitude by oppressing you"
>but they will still be more powerful than you, you will have helped make an entity that is not yourself, that you are unsure of how exactly you relate to: that, maybe... must show... some! regard to justice...
>and you will be at their discretion, you will maybe answer to them, be at their discretion, their power increased, maybe your power decreased? maybe they will call you to do this and that, and you will have to listen and obey
and maybe this is why there was so long so many small warring factions, instead of large united: because the many-few rather have their own small separate much powers, rather than maybe lessening their individual powers, by having to combine into one solitary power, worried they may have to answer to a power above them

as assistant manager of the largest H&R Block in Tres Pinos, CA, i can tell you that The Prince has been an invaluable part of my success. i use niccolo's sagacious dictates every day as i marshal my team with an iron fist. the world is run by those among us willing to take responsibility for the running of it, and i shall be among their number

"Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved." - Niccolo Machiavelli [The Prince, c. 1513]

Oops, forgot pic related - it's me

>>11563249
>It might, although you'd have to look through Machiavelli's life to determine whether or not it was a bitter sarcasm
I dont think you would have to look all that much through his life, I think you would have to look at his awareness of the history of politics and man, the truth of the history of politics and man, and the truth of the past 50 or 200 years of his homelands history and his awareness of it, in relation to:

whether this statement, can be said to be true:
and men are never so shameless as to become a monument of ingratitude by oppressing you.

Is there any evidence that a power, or prince had received help from man/men and then oppressed them (in any way)?

>>11563249
>The advice is still good, although further caution should be urged.
but what the poster was trying to say is contradictory is:
he says at the end of all that, the prince should never ally with more powerful conquerer, but, if there is no worry of being oppressed by that victor, and no worry of that victor refusing to treat the prince with justice, what is there worry of allying with a more powerful conquerer than princes self?

It is that, even if the powerful victor will not oppress you, that does not mean that you will not kind of be working for them now? That by their powers increased, yours have necessarily been decreased, or ever greater in jeopardy of being, which has nothing to do with you being oppressed unjustly. ?
>some
>Victories after all are never so complete that the victor must not show some regard

>>11563249
>some
>Victories after all are never so complete that the victor must not show some regard to justice

>He leaves it vague because he's referring to general customs

I was drawing attention to the use of 'some' as its relation to the concept of 'absolute or all, or total, or complete'.

compare:

>Victories after all are never so complete that the victor must not show some regard to justice

Victories after all are never so complete that the victor must not show absolute regard to justice

>>11562873
So, OP, nice discussion on that one example, any other examples of contradictions?

>>11562996
It’s amazing that people think this knowledge/theory of various ancient philosophers and writers writing esoterically, such as Plato notably, is a revolutionary one “re-discovered” by Strauss. Anyone who has genuinely studied esotericism can figure this out pretty quickly. Academia is really far behind on some stuff. Eh, I guess it’s the point of esotericism that it hides itself from the masses and the dry rationalists, though.

>>11563400
>princes should avoid flattery and only listen to a select group of advisers
>machiavelli writes a dedication that is entirely flattery and he himself is obviously not a part of that dedicated group of advisers so by his own advice should be entirely ignored

>>11563415
don't be purposefully obtuse, anon

every artist would lick royal and papal boots back in the day so that rich guys would patronize their art. also reading an instruction manual is like reading a trusted advisor kinda

>>11563432
How is it obtuse? It's a contradiction in the work.

>dude don't listen to flattery
>but i'm going to insubstantially fellate you but that's ok and totally listen to me man

>>11563415
>you should avoid being taken away by flattery
That doesnt mean you cant use flattery idiot just dont let it affect you

>>11563460
Machiavelli doesn't say this though. He tells Princes to avoid all flattery when it comes to matters of his rule and to even not take unasked for advice at all. Unless you can show me a passage that says otherwise.

>>11563455
Princes shouldnt be affected by flattery, because they should be aware that flatterers may attempt to use their flattery to take advantage of the prince, or even, that it just may negatively affect the princes perception and ego

If in his book he tells powerful people not to be affected by flattery: and then he flatters the people he dedicates his book to, they will know not to be affected by the flattery, but can for themselves, consider if Machiavelli means it or not, or believes it, or that he is sincerely thankful for them helping him out, and he simply understands that he truly wants to somehow express his thanks for being helped out, so does that in his dedication.


Next! example

>>11563455
if you want to throw out that droplet of bathwater be my guest, but it really says nothing about the baby

next example!

What's with the all the lefties who seem literally autistic? Is this a large-scale effort to "infiltrate" the board or something?

>>11563501
>>11563511
So you're saying that what the text is saying isn't actually straight advice and you have to parse it, so Machiavelli isn't being entirely sincere? You're also ignoring the other point of Machiavelli saying to not take any unsolicited advice at all unless the prince asks for it, so by this notion the entire thing should be ignored

>>11563515
Based and Redpilled

>>11563515
cognitive dissonance with the prospect of someone who appears grounded, intelligent, rational, and in all other respects humane and civil, having a few bits of unsightly thought, forcing them to conclude the entire text must be satire or contradictory. As well as the disdesire to believe it possible for powers to have had access and belief in a doctrine that allowed them to be immoral, therefore, Machiavelli was joking. The fact that, can you call them lefties, do lefties call them lefties, liberals, neo liberals what have you, may have followed that doctrine. And the followers of that doctrine wanting to discredit and downplay its potential significance

>>11563550
Nice response. You have an autistic obsession with proving that a popular text is from 500 years ago is satire. What's wrong with you?

>>11563559
Sorry for wanting to discuss literature on a literature board. I'm sure posting about political boogeymen is more worthy of the board. If you aren't interested in the thread just don't bump it, it's not hard now is it anon?

>>11563572
You're taking up space for actual literary discussion by spamming your fantasies about Machiavelli every day. This isn't by any means your first thread on the topic, if it was, I wouldn't have wasted time posting in it.

>>11563543
You are a pedantic stickler to the point of selfharm. Or not self harm, but whats a word, self-inability-to-clearly-think-and-see-and-be-practical-and-reasonable
>So you're saying that what the text is saying isn't actually straight advice and you have to parse it, so Machiavelli isn't being entirely sincere?

No, maybe it could be considered parsing to a baby or monkey, but its quite plain to see how its acceptable.

"Prince, dont be fooled by others flattery, who may want things from you or make you overly pricing your ego.... however, I want to thank you so much and appreciate you and your family and believe you will be great and do good and hope I can be of service of you, will throw in some, gracious and majesties because you are higher ranking and its just expected politeness"

Prince - "hmmmm... in the book he says not to accept flattery..... but here he flatters me...... that means he contradicts his advice... he does the opposite of his advice..... that means I should accept everyones flattery and let it go to my head, and maybe let them gain favors from me by flattering me...."
>You're also ignoring the other point of Machiavelli saying to not take any unsolicited advice at all unless the prince asks for it, so by this notion the entire thing should be ignored.

"Always be skeptical of what people say...well... everything except this of course..hehe"

"I am the master political thinker, and I quite obviously will humbly be on your side and team, first bit of advice, be cautious of listening to random strangers advice"

"hmmm, youre a random stranger, so I will not listen to you"

"ok, but maybe my book can help you.... and of course... telling to be cautious of unsolicited advice, is hardly to be judged to be malicious advise, it can be quite common sense, and a sign of goodwill for Machiavelli to show such concern"

Bottom line, Machiavelli worked on an epic treatise for 15 years, and he was offering it to a prince, he was not thinking of himself as a strange helper, but of friend or family, of true partner, who believed he could prove he honestly wanted to help and honest and legitimately had a book full of good advice, the proof would be in the pudding, maybe the prince could receive unsolicited advice potentially from 10000 people. Machiavelli is one person, who may have relations and friendships with people in high places and relations to that family.

>>11563605
>taking up space for actual literary discussion
I don’t even care much about Machiavelli or this thread, haven’t posted in it and was just idly lurking, but this IS literary discussion, you fucking retard. It’s a piece of literature, and a valid theory is being brought up regarding it, fostering discussion about it, you angsty retard.

Maybe tumblr or Facebook is more to your liking?

>>11563605
Yeah, just look at the board. This one topic on actual literature is taking up so much valuable space compared to the other amazing literature topics.

This is my first post on the topic too. I admit i saw a thread yesterday but i don't know where you think there is this massive spamming. Before that i hadn't seen a Machiavelli thread in ages.

>>11563543
>You're also ignoring the other point of Machiavelli saying to not take any unsolicited advice at all unless the prince asks for it, so by this notion the entire thing should be ignored
>so by this notion the entire thing should be ignored
this is when I knew you were a liar, beknownst to you or not

>>11563616
My post was directed at OP. I've seen this thread many times at this point, and I decided to call it out because it never goes anywhere. OP is unwilling to give any ground on whether or not it's satire. It's not a discussion. It's him rambling about what he wants to be true.

>>11563627
OP is not the only poster in a thread, other people can discuss it too. This is a literature board with literature discussions, by the way. They’re a frequent occurrence here.

>>11563627
dont you know this is the matrix

>>11563619
Why?

>>11563617
Blatant self-promoting of one's ideas while refusing to entertain any other takes on the topic is worse than the other shit on the board. At least that shit is honest in being retarded rambling. This is retarded rambling under the guise of "literary discussion"

>>11563647
because respond to this
>>11563606

>>11563647
because its intellectually dishonest and stunted, and retarded and scummy and dumb.

>>11563656
That anon is just shitposting though, there is nothing to respond to.

For one Machiavelli didn't work on the prince for 15 years and i'm the one being called a liar? He didn't he live 15 years after he got released from Prison when he retired to his estate and started working on it, so i don't know where he came up with this number

>>11563647
>>11563543
He was being Machiavellian you nigger

Dedicatory Letter

Niccolo Machiavelli to
the Magnificent Lorenzo de’ Medici

In most instances it is customary for those who desire to win the favour of a
prince to present themselves to him along with those things which they value
most or which they feel will most please him. Thus, we often see princes given
horses, arms, and vestments of gold cloth, precious stones, and similar
ornaments suited to their greatness. Wishing, therefore, to offer myself to Your
Magnificence with some evidence of my devotion to you, I have not found
among my belongings anything that I might value more or prize so much as the
knowledge and deeds of great men that I have learned from a long experience in
modern affairs and a continuous study of antiquity. Having with great care and
for a long time thought about and examined these deeds, and having now set
them down in a little book, I am sending them to Your Magnificence. And
although I consider this work unworthy of your station, nevertheless I am sure
that your humanity will move you to accept it, for there could be no greater gift
from me than to give you the means to be able, in a very short time, to
understand all that in so many years and with so many hardships and dangers I
have come to understand and to appreciate. I have neither decorated nor filled
this work with elaborate sentences, with rich and magnificent words, or with any
other form of rhetorical or unnecessary ornamentation that many writers
normally use in describing and enriching their subject-matter, for I wished that
nothing should set my work apart or make it pleasing except the variety of its
material and the gravity of its contents.

>>11563671
Explain how. You can't call me intellectually dishonest and just call me names without making an argument. Seems even more stunted and scummy no?

And i'm the one being told i don't want to engage with anyone. Some anon has a weird vendetta for some reason.

>>11563686
He was being 'Machiavellian' but not copying Machiavelli's style at all?

>>11563285
Narcisst alert

>>11563675
http://www2.idehist.uu.se/distans/ilmh/Ren/flor-mach-lett-vettori.htm

>there is my desire that these Medici princes should begin to engage my services, even if they should start out by having me roll along a stone. For then, if I could not win them over, I should have only myself to blame. And through this study of mine, were it to be read, it would be evident that during the fifteen years I have been studying the art of the state I have neither slept nor fooled around, and anybody ought to be happy to utilize someone who has had so much experience at the expense of others.

>it would be evident that during the fifteen years I have been studying the art of the state

>>11563694
Ironic that you would accuse someone else of having a "weird vendetta" against someone...

>>11563675
>>11563724
>it would be evident that during the fifteen years I have been studying the art of the state
>Having with great care and
for a long time thought about and examined these deeds, and having now set
them down in a little book,

>>11563686
>>11563694
Machiavellis dedication containing some flattery (in the book, saying to be weary of others flattery and unsolicited advice) is before the text containing those lessons! So the prince would not know to be turned off by these DEvestating contradictions btfo! and read the book, and then get to that part, and then look back at the dedication, look at the camera and smile and say 'ohhh that machiavelli.... got me again!'

>>11563724
That doesn't mean he had been writing the Prince for 15 years, just that he'd been studying the art of the state, so reading and you know working in his capacity as a statesman, which was coincidentally 14 years.

>>11563755
>>11563712
>>11563694
>>11563686
Ouch
Dedicatory Letter

Niccolo Machiavelli to
the Magnificent Lorenzo de’ Medici
"Machiavelli and the Medicis would have hated each other. Firstly, the reason (or at least a major reason) Machiavelli wrote 'The Prince" was in order to impress Lorenzo de' Medici after the Medici family had reconquered Florence and turned it into a monarchy yet again. When the Medici family had regained power, Machiavelli had been exiled, and thus he had hoped that 'The Prince' would make him forgiven.

Lorenzo, meanwhile, was completely indifferent to Machiavelli. He read the work, gave it no thought, and that was it.


Machiavelli was basically the chief diplomat of the Florentine Republic, which had overthrown the Medici family earlier, and was, in turn, overthrown by them.

So Lorenzo knew that Machievelli had worked for his enemies, and didn't trust him."

>>11563766
this is another pedantic red herring. You are wrong about this point, in spirit, but thats not even important, you are ignoring all the other points and stuff made to focus on this 'exact 15 years exactly what constitutes on working on it or not'

>it would be evident that during the fifteen years I have been studying the art of the state
>Having with great care and
for a long time thought about and examined these deeds

his studying the art of state, and this below, for as he says 15 years, and that studying was the research for the writing, the writing could not have taken place without all that studying: so in essence, he was working on the text, conceptually, in theory, maybe not final draft, but he was 'doing the necessary fore work of creating the book'


>put on the garments of court and palace. Fitted out appropriately, I step inside the venerable courts of the ancients, where, solicitously received by them, I nourish myself on that food that alone is mine and for which I was born; where I am unashamed to converse with them and to question them about the motives for their actions, and they, out of their human kindness, answer me. And for four hours at a time I feel no boredom, I forget all my troubles

>>11563780
>Machiavelli had been exiled
>to his farm at Sant'Andrea in Percussina, seven miles south of Florence.

>>11563807
How do you have the patience to deal with OP's retarded backtracking every post?

>>11563807
>machiavelli hadn't been writing the prince for 15 years
>well ACTUALLY he was studying and therefore his conception of it began long before then

And you're calling me the pedantic one? So if someone learns some skills on a job, but then goes onto another job they actually started their new job earlier because they learned the skills beforehand so were conceptually working on their new job before they even started it?

>>11563543
If you're reading the book, you're soliciting his advice.

>>11563828
You're ignoring the fact that you've jumped to the alleged error in the amount of time he spent preparing it as proof of why it's satire. Take a step back. You're not making any sense.

>>11563845
Point to a post where i ever said this.

Why is 1600s considered 17th century, isnt it the 16th century?

>>11563825
I have extreme ocd in which I cannot tolerate witnessing wrongness proclaim itself validity in my presence

>>11563854
In the post I just reponded to, you claimed that he was being pedantic, and not you. As an outside observer, you're coming off as pedantic to the point where you've stopped making sense.

>>11563856
If this isn't a joke, the first century starts in year 1, not year 100.

Gramsci modernized Machiavelli

>>11563875
Now you're changing your entire point and i'm the one not making sense? Where did i say say that him not writing it for that long meant it was satire? Do you think i'm being pedantic because i'm pointing out you and him are just making shit up?

>>11563828
>it would be evident that during the fifteen years I have been studying the art of the state
He didnt say that the sole extent of his studying the art of state was simply working in an office.
>Having with great care and for a long time thought about and examined these deeds of state
Studying is working on nigger, get back to a main point nigger.
Read this nigger.

>I have not found among my belongings anything that I might value more or prize so much as the knowledge and deeds of great men that I have learned from a long experience in modern affairs and a continuous study of antiquity. Having with great care and for a long time thought about and examined these deeds, and having now set them down in a little book

>and a continuous study of antiquity
>and a continuous study of antiquity
>and a continuous study of antiquity
>and a continuous study of antiquity
>and a continuous study of antiquity
>nigger
>nigger
>nigger

Get back on to a topicful point, you are proving yourself vacant by focusing on the red herring of my claim that he in spirit and theory worked on the information that would end up in the finished product for 15 years, dumb nigger.

>>11563915
You didn't make any point and you're still posting this retarded shit. If you're going to make a point then actually make it.

>every writer spent time studying their craft and expanding their knowledge so that means that's how we classify when they had written a work because they were writing it 'in spirit'

>>11563906
Again, I'm not the guy who has been engaging in discussion with you. I'm not "changing my point" my point is that you're retard who can't seem to grasp even the simplest of arguements that don't align with your view on the topic. The fact that the discussion has moved to the amount of time he spent writing it is one of the many ways that you've proven to be a babbling retard.

>>11563965
Explain what point i was meant to take from this post when is where the discussion supposedly derailed >>11563606

>>11563994
Because you responded to the claim of "he spent 15 years writing it" instead of his actual response to you?? Are you illiterate?

>11563937
My original phrase in passing showing the seriousness with which the text could be taken as he was presenting it to the medici prince, nigger, was that he worked for 15 years

This is the single line in this entire post>>11563606
that you decided to respond to, and make seem a huge deal, which lets us all know you are actually a dishonest shill.

>Bottom line, Machiavelli worked on an epic treatise for 15 years

Even if he wrote the book in 5 weeks, he says he continuously studied antiquity, and that he had studied the art of state for 15 years...

If he had not, there would have been no book. This is shallow pedantic semantic and you are a nigger for drawing this part out being unable to touch upon any other of the aspects because you were severely defeated and discouraged.


Your inability to grasp this is perfectly complimentary with your inability to grasp other aspects of the discussion, and why the contradictions brought up were done so faultily.

Any other examples of contradictions?

>>11564019
>>11563937

>>11564144
He didn't make a point??? He's walked through each one of the "contradictions" you brought up, line by line, explaining why they're not contradictory. You are yet to give convincing evidence as to what makes it a contradictory work.

Any more contradictions? People complain about plato and say there is no such thing as sophistry and stuff and philosophy isnt important but holy shit, I now see the practical value of philosophy if people like you exist, it is people like you, their actual actions in the world, beliefs and statements, as to why the term sophistry was invented.

Any other examples of contradictions OP?

OP were there any other contradictions you spotted?

Did you happen to come across any other contradictions OP?

Got more representations of contradictions op?

mayhaps you have some more statements in disagreement to show us OP?

contradictions where OP?

>>11563090
>even if they are powerful
powerful =/= more powerful than you

>>11563020
In short, you can't expect loyality and good military service from someone who only cares about money. Mercenaries won't fight with the same spirit and morale as someone who's part of their nation since he's trying to defend their home, culture and family. It was pretty common practice among Italian city-states to hire mercs to do their doing as you probably know, Machiavelli was just reacting to it.

Machiavelli argues out from self-preservation.
not all men should seek to be kings, but if you find yourself to be one: you ought to follow his advice

>>11564230
>>11564702
>>11565097
>>11565574
>>11565667
>>11565734
>>11565736
OBSESSED

>tfw lost my pretty hard cover The Prince book on an airplane

>>11562916
>advice not to be take seriously
Cucktier thought process anon. Almost as bad as what your dad must think while i bang ur mum

>>11562998
The definition of an underrated post

>>11563915
Is this brainlet the Op?

Any other contradictions you spot, OP?

Hello OP, I am contacting you in relation to a wondering, if it may be true that you have discovered another contradiction in this text, please respond if the answer is affirmative, thank you.

>>11566121
Wow that’s some gaudy shit. Be glad you lost it.

>>11562873
>Machiavelli was writing satire
Ive noticed there is this certain range of midwit that thinks this, and they have this entire blind spot about how social dynamics work, they can more or less play the game but are never the most charismatic person, just kind of followers, they dont understand what is going on. When they encounter something like Machiavelli they literally can't parse what he's saying because they dont think about social interaction in the abstract way he does

>>11562873
Contradictions?

>>11562873
>You didn't actually follow my contradictory advice
and what might some examples of these contradictions be, anon?

Where are the contradictions

>>11563010
>Autismo gets his jollies from shitting on The Prince
Go back to Cracked

>>11562873
OP, contradictions you speak of are what?

>tfw when I hired mercenaries

FUCK FUCK FUCK WHY DID I BOTHER

>>11570562
>tfw somethings might have changed since year 1500

>>11565884

You're a fucking little bitch who has never read Machiavelli

>>11562873
Dear OP, upon you perusal of this ancient text, did you perchance come across what may be considered to be called, what some might say, undictions, contra, dictions: mighteth ye be of the ableness to share these such findings of yers

-yours truly
me

follow what contradictory advice?

>>11570562

advice that was contradictory, really, do you have noncontradictory evidence of that?

>>11562996
>>11563401
Would be interested to know more about this. Recs?

>>11574020
just ignore the mystic schizo esoteric

>>11562873
>You didn't actually follow my contradictory advice
wait... his advice was contradictory? do you happen to have any examples?

Wait...OP, you're trying to tell me that book contains contradictions?!?!? Well heck, lets see some of them

>>11562873
>You didn't actually follow my contradictory advice, right anon?
You didnt actually make a thread about a writers book containing contradictory advice and not include in the thread any successful examples of your claim, right OP?

>>11562873
>contradictory
well what ya waiting for then, post em ay!

The Machiavelli pose is so damn smug lmao

Wow. What a mind-melter!

>>11562873
>A failed diplomat who vibrated his booteus maximus wishing in another plane of existence he was Cesare Borgia.
>Surprised he gives contradictory advice.

OP post contradictions

POST THE CONTRADICTIONS YOU FOOL POST THE CONTRADICTIONS YOU FOOL POST THE CONTRADICTIONS YOU FOOL POST THE CONTRADICTIONS YOU FOOL POST THE CONTRADICTIONS YOU FOOLPOST THE CONTRADICTIONS YOU FOOLPOST THE CONTRADICTIONS YOU FOOL YOU FOOL YOU FOOL YOU FOOL YOU FOOL YOU FOOL YOU FOOL YOU FOOL YOU FOOL

>>11578519
Don't you have a job or something? This is an unhealthy obsession with a 4chan thread.

>>11578687
There are many of us. The thread is still not even halfway to the bump limit so just get used to it chump.

>>11578706
No it's all you, i know it is. The poster count hasn't gone up at all

>>11578710
There may not be NEW posters but that doesn't mean there can't be MULTIPLE posters.

>>11574020
Check that book (Arthur Melzer's Philosophy Between the Lines), Leo Strauss's Persecution and the Art of Writing, and Laurence Lampert's The Enduring Importance of Leo Strauss (Which is about Strauss's rediscovery in particular, and his own use of esoteric writing).

>>11562873
>>11563010
>>11563090
Wait, so you don't take qualifications seriously, and that's enough to say "Machiavelli contradicts himself?" Do you just not know how to read qualifiers?

>>11578710
are you the OP.... and you are failing to respond to the crowds pleas!?!?!? but still keeping eyes on the thread?!?!?!?!?

OP, could you please exhibit contradictions found in Machiavelli's The Prince...

>>11562873
Contradictions? You dont say.... no really you dont say....... say please

>>11562873
You didnt actually post a contradictory OP right OP?

The contradictions OP, post em over

>>11562873
I really really really really really really really really hope you will be able to provide us with some contradictions op

>>11562873
I say contra, you say dictions, contra
*holds mic*
contra
*holds mic out to your face*
lets see emm yayyyayyyyyy!!!!!!

>>11562873
Post contradictions or else the consequences will never be the same.

>>11563822
No internet, no phone, no blogging, do you think he could, back then exercise the same kind of influence in that condition?
Also it was 20 km, 12 miles and he held no political office.

>>11582380
no but he could still put a cloak on and take a horse towards the city to see some fireworks every once and a while I bet, or get close enough to get some good pizza too

>>11562873 contradictions...?

>>11562873
Dictate the contras op

>>11562873
You didn't actually present any of his contradictory advice, right anon? You do realize this thread then wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

>>11562873
This motherfucker looks evil. Definitely not reading him.

>>11562873
It would be truly foolish to follow such advice, could you give specific examples of these contradictions so I can do my best to avoid them?

>>11562873
Huh, I looked all throughout this thread and did not see any reference to this contradictory advice, do you happen to have any examples OP?

>>11562873
Are you sure?

>>11562873
??????????????????????????????????

>>11562873
Alright, that was funny OP, good one, hah! but now you can provide some of these contradictions you speak of

>>11562873
the contradictions, hand em over

>>11562873
This is dick up! put the contradictions in the bag and noone gets squirt!

>>11562967
>some guy has been sitting in this thread for almost 5 days posting the same shit

>>11563290
hahaha you faggot

>>11588488
>>some guy has been sitting in this thread for almost 5 days posting the same shit
Some OP has made a thread with a claim and has not backed it up for 5 days, an honorable citizen has been righteously dedicating himself to amending this inconsistency

>>11562873
Ok, OP, you have had some time to read and reflect, so, have you found any contradictions yet? Or... are you forced to admit you were mistaken?

>>11562873
evidence?

>>11562873
machiavelli represents every modern politician, just in a more ethical manner

>>11562873
Proof?

>>11562873
confirmation?

http://berlin.wolf.ox.ac.uk/published_works/ac/machiavelli.pdf

If anyone here isn't just memeing and is interested in why Machiavelli wasn't just some edgelord writing le satire ;^)

>>11562873
CONTRADICTORY!? anon please do tell of this contraction of contradiction within the mind tainting advice of mr red pill himself

>>11562873
where dem contradictions at boiiiiiiii

>>11562873
.....what........the heck are you talking about op?

>>11592687
Much of his advice can work well or horribly backfire. For example once you conquer a city he advises you to sleep the first night within the walls of the city to establish dominance. This might work but it also increases the chances for the locals to assassinate you in your sleep.

>>11593227
Also a true prince wouldn't help anyone rise to power. A true prince would write a book to mislead others in order to become more powerful himself.

>>11570780
Nice argument there, faggot. I had to write a dissertation about him so stfu

>>11562873
Proof?

>>11593227
>For example once you conquer a city he advises you to sleep the first night within the walls of the city to establish dominance
Does he say for the prince to do this, or the princes army to do this?

>>11562873
where day at doe?

>>11562873
No... ya think? No really... do you think?

>>11562873
ermmmmmmmmmmmmm???

>>11562873
>'it's just a prank bro!'
>name then associated with cruelty, psychopathy, and tyranny for all time

>>11562873
hmmmmmmm?

>>11594337
Both

>>11562873
wher wher whererppp we ww w w where they at where they at re re re re emiiixxx where they at doe where day where day day day day where day at doe at doe at doe at doe where day at doe?

>>11598655
Well come on, that cant be a major point against him. Conquer has shades of grey, maybe over 50, but, we figure the prince would sleep somewhere surrounded by 100s of his men (much of who would not be sleeping)

>>11562873
true?

>>11599842
bigly so

>>11588488
>>some guy has been sitting in this thread for almost 5 days posting the same shit
Not everyone who uses lit does so every day, why are you so quick to want your unsightly mistake unseen?

>>11599904
how so?

>>11562873
How so?

>>11562873
how'st so'st?

>>11562873
Go figure ....... how to post these contradictions

>>11562873
Go figure.......how to post these contradictions

How do posters reconcile his differing views between the prince and his work on the Roman republic?

>>11601972
Can you be more specific? But even before I hear your embellishment, I will take a gandering geuss, in a word, pragmatism. Perhaps as much as he had ideals, he believed his faith in them could not move the mountains that were the status quo of the prevailing powers, so if he could not defeat them...

>>11593227
>>11593230
In that vein, the Prince can be read as a type of "Psychopath's handbook," and conversely, act as an aid for more empathetic individuals to avoid being taken advantage of. I don't know how widely it was originally distributed, but being dedicated to a Medici it might have sought to raise some eyebrows among the public and bring greater scrutiny upon the family.

>>11602145
>I don't know how widely it was originally distributed, but being dedicated to a Medici it might have sought to raise some eyebrows among the public
"From correspondence a version appears to have been distributed in 1513, using a Latin title, De Principatibus"
It wasnt published for public consumption until 5 years after he death (1527) in 1532

>>11562873
sooooooooooooooooo.....?

>>11562873
proof?

>>11570780
but that's exactly what Machiavelli was talking about

>>11562873
Are you surely certainly positively sure, cerain, positive?

>>11562873
prove it

>>11562873
OP, have you perhaps thought that giving examples of these contradictions would help you make your case?

>>11605625
this is 4chan a place where a strong assumption is the only proof you need to get a feeling of significance. also talking vaguely about something makes you seem superior since the thing you are talking about is so "obvious" it doesnt need proof or explenation

>>11605625
You could have read the Prince 5 times over and found the contradictions yourself by now

>>11563090
So you are just illiterate

>>11606762
>You could have read the Prince 5 times over and found the contradictions yourself by now
I did, and I didnt find any! Which is why I need the genius that is OPs help

i wacked off all morning now i'm self-conscious about going to the kitchen to get some food but i'm out of powerbars

>>11606694
This entirely. And then there are always anons like >>11606762 who allude to "damning works" which they clearly haven't read.

>>11562873
>contradictory advice
that would be...?

>>11562873
no?

>>11563049
Seems like bullshit considering historical examples of mercenaries...just look at any Swiss mercenary at any point in time. They were professional soldiers (which is a lot more than most soldiers) that got paid well. In most cases, they're less likely to switch sides or flee or betray you than your own national/citizen soldiers. They're not so fickle as depicted.

>>11608757
yeah but then consider all that afghan goofs america has been trying to train for the last 15 years, those dudes are fucking all retards, and at the first sign of danger they run off and join the taliban

>>11563020
Throught history they've proven to be unreliable and opportunistic at best, especially mercenaries from Western Europe.