This article is a good summary of the "Machiavelli problem.It provides (a) a good summary of his life and experience(b) and raises the question I try to raise in class which is can we live with Machiavelli? Can we live without him. His means are ruthless but his end..a stable democratic republic.Do we have to become monsters to face monsters. I am wary of Machiavellis and I am suspicious of people who reject him outright.
posted by louis @ 4:55 AM
Eager to start writing again , I hit upon tne idea of starting A blog and calling it cogito ergo sum. For years I have been fascinated by a famous episode in Descartes Life. He decided to take R and R from military service for a few days to sit in front of a fire place,review everything he thought he knew,subject himself to a bath(closer to a tsunami) of scepticism, to see what he came up with that was immune to doubt. Finally it was "I think therefore I am". I have always found this result a bit lame but I have been fascinated by the process. I am also fascinated by the procedure attributed to the British historian, Keith Thomas whereby he took notes at random, put them in appropriate envelopes and when one became thick enough, he reviewed it more systematically. I will do the same on a variety of subjects, religion, politics, film etc until I reach summary statements. This will be useful to me even if no one reads anything I write here.
1 Comments:
Personally, I feel that one of the real dangers of our time is living in a "Machiavellian" system, having a such government, who is ruthless in their means, while being deeply deluded of this fact.
In my opinion, the greatest danger lies not in the power and means of our Western (supposedly moral or "Christian" in the case of the US) government, but in the blindness of the people, who, unable to cope with the brute reality proposed by Machiavelli and practiced in the Western system, delude themselves with ideas of justice, freedom and democracy.
There is no doubt that there is a degree of justice, freedom and democracy in our system; but recently the question that I ask myself is, "how much?" Is the West really a free, just and democratic entity? I have no answer for this. I suppose that only the people running the show, the people at the top, can shed some light on this question. (Cheney should be one of the first people questioned lol)
In a time when torture has become legal, when corporate scandals and corruption in government are a familiar sight, why do the people not question the system's means and its ends? Why do we continue to believe that this degraded form of capitalism is the best possible way that it can be?
I suppose that this is the genius of our Machiavellian system, that it can maintain the unending support of the people, the long-lasting belief in the American dream. We have been given just enough freedoms, just enough comfort, to keep living in our comfort zone, to keep our eyes set on the ball (on the dream of making an honourable living) without questioning, or bothering to inform ourselves, on the methods of our government. And if we are aware, we are too comfortable to do anything about it. We have too much to lose, or simply prefer to live in blissful ignorance.
I think Machiavelli's true, and somewhat utilitarian, (and please correct me if I am mistaken) notion of using any means necessary to build a stable and secure state, i.e. the greatest good for the greatest number, (assuming that one accepts the notion that a stable/secure state will bring the greatest good to the greatest number) has been lost in our current system. Instead, politicians will use any means necessary to secure their own interests (generally re-election and wealth for themselves), putting the welfare of the state, what should be their ultimate end, in second place.
I'm thinking primarily of the US.
I know that these questions stray a little from Machiavelli, and sometimes I feel like a conspiracy theorist, but really I ask these questions in the spirit healthy inquiry. Any thoughts?
Post a Comment
<< Home