Niccolo Machiavelli

[Alcon]

I personally disagree.  Politically, it's valid, but I think the idea of living your life solely for your own personal gain is deplorable.

Wikipedia refer

[Machiavelli]

What do you think, Native savage half-blood?

[© tweed]

I heard somewhere that all of Machiavelli's writings are satires and not actually what Machiavelli himself believed; rather, he believed the opposite.  It's impossible to prove that true or untrue because of how long ago it happened, but it's something to chew on.

[Gabu]

Living your life purely for your own personal gain, likely at others' expense, is a classic example of failing to cooperate in an instance of the Prisoner's Dilemma.  If everyone did it, no one would get anywhere; the only reason it works is because there are enough people who are good enough not to do it.

People who fail to cooperate in an instance of the Prisoner's Dilemma are those to whom I apply the scientific term "assholes".

[Erc]

Machiavelli was a political writer...you can't try to make a life philosophy out of that.

And as for the Prisoner's Dilemma--then I hope for your sake we never pull off a crime together.

[John Dibble]

I believe that one should work towards one's own self-interests, but I believe it should be done in a well reasoned fashion. In the long run, it's best to work towards your interests without crushing anyone who's in the way. If one screws over others in their attempts to gain what they want, they are less likely to receive help in the future because they have gained the reputation of being, as Gabu stated it, "assholes". While they can often make some large gains in the short run in this fashion, they usually come crashing down hard and are worse off than they were from the start.

[MaC]

I heard somewhere that all of Machiavelli's writings are satires and not actually what Machiavelli himself believed; rather, he believed the opposite.  It's impossible to prove that true or untrue because of how long ago it happened, but it's something to chew on.

Yeah, I think I heard that he wrote "The Prince" as a how-to book for people that wanted to gain political power.  And I heard he wrote another (much lesser heard of) in praise of democracy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Another example of why wikipedia shouldn't be people's only source of information.

[Giant Saguaro]

Machiavelli wasn't advocating the political system he talks about in The Prince as much as he was just describing it as he saw it in accordance with how he saw human nature. He was attempting to decribe politics realistically as opposed to idealistically. He, of course, fell victim for a while to the stuff he talks about - imprisonment, persecution, some people think he was totured, etc. I think he wrote The Prince after his experiences and after the Medici family was restored to power.

I don't know a great deal about him. I started reading The Prince one time and found it very, very dry. It's a short read, btw.

[© tweed]

I don't know a great deal about him. I started reading The Prince one time and found it very, very dry. It's a short read, btw.

I tried to read it last year.  It's impossible to do.  Maybe it's the language barriers, but it's as boring as hell and I fell asleep twice when reading it.  I only got to about 20 pages in.  The only interesting part was a short biography of Machiavelli's life that was the introduction in this version of the book.

[Giant Saguaro]

I don't know a great deal about him. I started reading The Prince one time and found it very, very dry. It's a short read, btw.

I tried to read it last year.  It's impossible to do.  Maybe it's the language barriers, but it's as boring as hell and I fell asleep twice when reading it.  I only got to about 20 pages in.  The only interesting part was a short biography of Machiavelli's life that was the introduction in this version of the book.

I find it to be more of interest to the hardcore philosophy folks. I guess there's some contextual interest for us historians, but you are right that it's a very slow read. I think it has to do with the fact that he distances himself so much from the subject in order to more objectively and thoroughly describe / analyze it. It reads a bit like a manual.

For stuff like this, I recommend Norton Critical Editions. The essays they come with are usually older, seminal stuff that helps one get into it. They usually present other writing as well that is in the same context in order to help you understand it through comparison.

[12th Doctor]

Machiavelli's philosophy is largely misunderstood.  All most people know about him is The Prince, which is nothing more than a practical guide to how a prince should rule a state effectivly.  Many of his other works, for instance Livy highly praise Republican virtues and active citizenship.

[J. J.]

I heard somewhere that all of Machiavelli's writings are satires and not actually what Machiavelli himself believed; rather, he believed the opposite.  It's impossible to prove that true or untrue because of how long ago it happened, but it's something to chew on.

Yeah, I think I heard that he wrote "The Prince" as a how-to book for people that wanted to gain political power.  And I heard he wrote another (much lesser heard of) in praise of democracy.

The Discourses.  One of it's themes is on keeping faith with the people.

[Lephi]

I strongly agree with Machiavellian's thesis.  As my Church requires I contribute to charity and do my best. 

However this is because God requires it, not because I sympathize with the welfare trash than my money probably goes to.  Few people are truly disadvantaged.  Most of them are just human scum.

 I worked hard for what I have, and God is right to make me humble but I can-not feel bad for the welfare trash.

[A18]

I strongly agree with Machiavellian's thesis.  As my Church requires I contribute to charity and do my best.

However this is because God requires it, not because I sympathize with the welfare trash than my money probably goes to.  Few people are truly disadvantaged.  Most of them are just human scum.

 I worked hard for what I have, and God is right to make me humble but I can-not feel bad for the welfare trash.

LOL

[Lephi]

I strongly agree with Machiavellian's thesis.  As my Church requires I contribute to charity and do my best.

However this is because God requires it, not because I sympathize with the welfare trash than my money probably goes to.  Few people are truly disadvantaged.  Most of them are just human scum.

 I worked hard for what I have, and God is right to make me humble but I can-not feel bad for the welfare trash.

LOL

I probably should make it more clear.  I think charity is important and right.  But I can-not stand how the government has managed welfare.  The Church of LDS has done a wonderful job determining who deserves charity and distributing it well.  The US government on the other hand gives it out to crack whores who cant stop producing children.  What is so funny about that?

[A18]

Okay, never mind. It's just the way you put it.

[Lephi]

Okay, never mind. It's just the way you put it.

To be honest I've always had difficulties with connecting my church'srequirement of charity with the current establishment.  I'm loyal to it but the mishandling of tax dollars is atrocious.  100% of my charity goes to the church where it is not given to crackwhores.

[Ebowed]

The US government on the other hand gives it out to crack whores who cant stop producing children.

What do you propose we do with these children?

[Lephi]

The US government on the other hand gives it out to crack whores who cant stop producing children.

What do you propose we do with these children?

I feel bad but we can-not support them.  My tax dollars should not go to a welfare mother to keep producing children.  We need to tie her tubes and find homes for the children

[J. J.]

I support the view that the state must look out for its own self interests and that leaders must take immoral actions, at times.  I wouldn't expect FDR to be completely honest about when the invasion of Europe was planned, for example.

[MarkDel]

Another example of why wikipedia shouldn't be people's only source of information.

Al,

Now those are words of wisdom. Wikipedia is, at best, a very rough outline for a subject which you are examining for the first time, and it essentially useless if one hopes to gain any substantive, unbiased information about a given subject.

[Democratic Hawk]

I think the idea of living your life solely for your own personal gain is deplorable.

Ditto

Dave