[ 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: 18 KB, 223x346, 41Ut5NJIGtL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6038351 No.6038351 [Reply] [Original]

Just finished reading The Prince and now I'm beginning on Discourses in pic related.

I saw no suggestion that The Prince was satire, none. Before TP I read several of Machiavelli's letters to his bff's and in some of them he was clearly being satirical. Dat hooker None of this was found in TP.

It read like a very straightforward manual for any would-be autarch. But other than this it simply describes how some principalities fail while others do not and why.

Also, nowhere is the phrase "The ends justify the means" used. This could be attributed to translation >reading translations but this is what I read, and it's considerably more nuanced than the watered down "Ends justify means":

Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you. Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are, and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, which it is not prudent to challenge, one judges by the result.

For that reason, let a prince have the credit of conquering and holding his state, the means will always be considered honest, and he will be praised by everybody because the vulgar are always taken by what a thing seems to be and by what comes of it; and in the world there are only the vulgar, for the few find a place there only when the many have no ground to rest on.

>TL;DR Have I been trolled?

>> No.6038357

>Have I been trolled?
Yes, just look at his face

>> No.6038368

It's not a satire, it's a handbook of ideas that are useful for the given goals.

The idea that the Prince was a satire is a /lit/ meme on the same level as "Holden rapes Phoebe" but genuinely believed by some dumber posters here.

>> No.6038396
File: 31 KB, 317x435, Niccolo_Machiavelli.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6038396

>>6038357

>> No.6038406

It's not a satire.
It's not a political ideology, he doesn't want a dictatorship.

>> No.6038415

You are right, it is not satire. There is no historical or literary evidence to support this. Machiavelli honestly thought Roman virtue was a better belief system than Christian morality for European princes to follow in the cutthroat and chaotic 16th century. Isiah Berlin has an excellent essay on the subject:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1971/nov/04/a-special-supplement-the-question-of-machiavelli/

>> No.6038430

>>6038368
Except Holden did rape his sister, Phoebe.

>> No.6038447

>>6038351
Some of it is satire, some of it is honest. If you read the parts where he sneaks in republican ideology between the autocratic instructions and don't imagine him snickering, then you haven't truly experienced the book.

>> No.6038451

>>6038351

Well done OP you didn't fuck up reading Machiavelli.

People say Machiavelli is inconsistent due to him supporting Monarchy in the Prince and Oligarchy/Democracy in Discourses.

However, while Machiavelli probably preferred Oligarchy/Democracy (he wasn't from a "princely" family so wouldn't have realistically been able to become a Monarch), but just because he preferred one doesn't mean he thinks the other is bad, just different.

The most important lesson from Machiavelli is the it is power not justice that rules. This is why he has a big problem with mercenaries because it is mercenaries who have the real power (violence) not the states who employ them.

Men with swords never starve. One cannot eat gold.

>> No.6038522

>>6038451
>Men with swords never starve. One cannot eat gold.
Du was freund?

>> No.6038618

In my experience the people who claim The Prince is satire are the people who haven't read it.

>> No.6038677

>>6038451
He makes it very clear in the discourses that all types of government have good versions and bad versions

>> No.6038711

>>6038677

I'm aware. He however does not state that in The Prince, and for some reason some retards think the Prince is satire because "muh republic".

>> No.6038726

>>6038351
His ideas revolutionized thinking back than.
This cruel pragmatism, expressed in such a positive way, saying it is ok to do evil to achieve some goal was completely against the ideals of the church.
It influenced several major monarchs and political thinking in general.

>> No.6038883
File: 501 KB, 298x225, 1336022442143.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6038883

>Not seeing how it's satire

Have you even read his other works, especially his fiction? The Prince is straight faced satire in the same way that the Zombie Survival Guide is a serious guide to surviving zday.

>> No.6039911

>>6038351
I have no idea why people claim The Prince is satire. I can only assume they have never read it and only know about it because of an out of a quote taken out of context

>> No.6040773

>>6038351
>>6038396
he has a pedo smile

>> No.6040804
File: 15 KB, 400x400, hankhill911.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6040804

How people could for one second believe that a book that outlines the benefits of installing a partial military-colony within a subjugated kingdom/republic over a total subjugation of an entire realm is satire is beyond me.

You have to be a real masturbatory academic to even think about it.