POLITICAL THEORY - Niccolò Machiavelli
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 тра 2024
- Machiavelli's name is a byword for immorality and political scheming. But that's deeply unfair. This was simply a political theorist interested in the survival and flourishing of the state. Please subscribe here: tinyurl.com/o28mut7
If you like our films take a look at our shop (we ship worldwide): www.theschooloflife.com/shop/all/
CREDITS
Brought to you by www.theschooloflife.com
Produced in collaboration with Mike Booth
/ somegreybloke #TheSchoolOfLife
Fun fact: Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" for the Medici after he was tortured by them. He never complained about his torture.
This man knew the rules of the game.
whats ur source?
@@TahirNefjodov The Prince is dedicated to a member of the Medici family
@@TremendousSax that's not a source for the statement
@@TremendousSax Thank you :)
Fun fact: Tupac releases his album one week before he was assassinated and he was a true boss and leader.
Unfortunately, more often than not we have to endure rulers that are both ineffective and act without morals.
Tol Hydra
Amen.
Ah...decadency, tends to happen when countries and societies are not extremely vulnerable to some sort of threat.
Tol Hydra omfg fking truth
Tol Hydra part of the reason is because we have uneducated voters
Tol Hydra
That's kind of the whole point of machiavelli, to have rulers that are the precise opposite of that
The Church USED Machiavelli's techniques to suppress the spreading of his techniques... Can't get more ironical than that :)
More Machiavellian than that !
And they failed because the man is an icon
I mean is it really suppressing his ideas then?
The church? You mean that cult led by a pope that lies and that tortured people to death? That allowed his thugs to allow people to buy their way into heaven? Yeah that one? Thats no church. Thats a cult. No signs ever fallow their preaching. No proof no healing the sick no casting out devils. None of the things Jesus said would fallow the preaching of his word, as it says in the end of Mark 16. Frauds and fakes . And the blind shall lead the blind. Puh some church.
Astitv Shandilya the church: “yoooo machiavelli, stop telling your secrets!”
I'd love to see Niccolo Machiavelli and Karl Marx have a debate
Marx would win since he trumped all philosophers easily. But he did admit that he stood on their heads!
Marx was a materialist, standing on shoulders in a pyramid was popular as a gymnastic display. An idealist is someone who thinks an idea is implanted by god at conception,and it's a matter of searching within for the idea.
Marx was a materialist who averred that all thought came from without ,not within, nature,the world we live in. Machiavelli was a pragmatist like Henry Ford!
+Michael Fay To believe people are good by nature (which would be required for a Marxist society to exist) does appear idealistic, for unless a god or goddess implanted all our thoughts simple greed would lead to extreme instability. Take a rich man who initiates corporate raid, he is by no means in need of the money he would gain from the selfish tactic yet he still does it, ultimately to be a good person one must be a good leader, and to be a good leader means to be a halfway bad person.
Good and evil are idealist religious constructs. The Manicheans saw everything a human did as black or white good or evil. And the description of Christianity as double entry book keeping,heaven being the reward for good and hell, depending on the wicked deeds predominating.
I don't see myself as a Marxist being particularly good or evil, but if you have any objectivity at all, you realise quite early in your development that the only way to enrich yourself is the immiseration of others. Better by far that we all become better off with a bit of organisation increased use of technology and science,which is verifiable truth.
We are natures highest creations but of course still animals. Who judges what is a good cow,dog or budgie. I watched Mynah birds trying to rescue one of their own,who had been caught by my cat,diving on the cat 'till it let go. Psychologically it is almost impossible to kill another human being unless taught. Mynah birds and humans want their specie to survive and prosper!
Michael Fay 1 Good and evil is concept known even to Buddhists thus it's not a solely Christian concept. 2 If technology improves good for you, but if it only improves for you (or at least your society) then even better because you can use it to manipulate circumstance for yourself.
"Nice guys finish last"
-Niccolo Machiavelli
Nahil Nigar “that’s why I’ll treat you like trash”
-Niccolo Machiavelli
this mans entire philosophy can be immediately, 100% destroyed with the line "correlation =/= causation."
@@velvetymelt3764 The Psychology people, always out to get us lol
@@melanie851 psychology is pattern recognition, only a small percentage is true that is relatd to biology
did he actually say that?
Machiavelli's philosophy is of how things are and not how they should be. That is what people these days do not understand.
Context is also very important. Many of his propositions address the extremity of society at the time he was alive. Honesty and transparency is considered much more important today than it was at the time. As we move forward more people are beginning to understand the inevitability of globalization. Machiavelli’s time was one of survival, and while many larger conclusions may be drawn from his specific propositions for similar threats today, his suggestions will be counterproductive in future politics. Omitting instances of propaganda and severe conditioning, most citizens prefer/desire democracy. Our political requirements, just as collective society, continually evolve based on our environments. I may sound naive but I see society trending towards greater inclination for critical thought and fact checks.
But I also feel like every year gets weirder and I can’t shake the feeling that shit’s just hitting the fan. At this rate I’m not even sure we’ll even make it another 500 years, never mind what the fuck politics will look like.
Brandon Stewart Your comment’s value can’t be disputed even after 4 years have passed , my friend .
@trufiend138 He's right. Maybe in the Christian world those things were nominally important, but practically they were not. The ideas of absolutism and monarchy, the foundations of mediaeval Europe are irreconcilable with transparency. And that's before you get the pagans that worship gods of mischief and trickery.
Furthermore far moreso than today in fact cruelty and vengeance were far more stressed as parts of Christianity. Today even the right acknowledges the benefits of altruism and rectitude, but back then the spectrum of what is acceptable action was... mediaeval, shall we say. It's only been a few decades since capital punishment was pushed into 'unacceptable' by most of society; extrapolate that 10x over, and you'll find that barbarism like torture were not just tolerated or endorsed, but CELEBRATED. As in: they're used as an activity for fun at the faire. You take your kids to go watch the torturing. Even the harshest and most callous people, say the 10% today can tolerate that kind of thing, but that used to be a 90% thing.
That was literally in the video. Bacon said: "We are much beholden to Machiavelli and others, that write what men do, and not what they ought to do".
I was always annoyed in school by people like you, who repeated what the teacher had just said in class, as if it were their own reflection. Why do you do it? Is it because you figure some people don't realize you just stole your line (I mean, you HAVE gotten 241 likes), or is it because you yourself were listening with half an ear, and therefor do not realize that you idea is in fact _not_ your idea?
I read Il Principe and ironically I found this true and still valid.
This is a very fair explanation of Machiavelli. I hate how he is so often demonized for describing the world and power politics as he so accurately perceived it.
He is demonized because the politicians don't want us to believe that he is actually speaking the truth. While I *DON'T* completely agree with him, I can confidently say that at least half of what's written in "The Prince" forms the barebones of politics since time immemorial.
its funny cause he is hated more than the actual leaders that commit the atrocities...
"It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.", inspirational
People often forget the part "feared and not hated" though.
“But never hated. “
Machiavelli was, in essence, perhaps the first pragmatist philosopher. It's a shame that more often than not people will completely misinterpret his views.
That's what I love,
*first pragmatic Western philosopher.
Read Kautilya.
It is helpful to distinguish between those who think for thenselves and those who blindly believe.
@@60ritikanand69 how is italy "western society"
I'm reminded of this quote from The Third Man:
"In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.
Exactly, necessity is the mother of innovation.
@Phoenix Ace we need war to bring back some interesting stuff to this country
They produced Jung I suppose
I would say God creates and gifts the earth with brilliant minds and gives them inspired ideas from heaven for witty ideas and inventions.
@Phoenix Ace to be honest italy is the 3rd largest economy in the EU, we have our problems for sure but Switzerland can't compare on a larger scale
Everything I need to know, I learned in kindergarten - then I read Machiavelli.
Dont get the joke, pls explaine
@@daymenpollet4202 There was a book put out in the late 70s ? that was titled:
"All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten".
It was about fair play, and consideration of other people, and was generally just a playful story about morals and ethics.
And then of course, Machiavelli is all about the "game of thrones" aspect of human relations...
@@coolworx u greatfull for knowing the truth now?
damn I remember killing Cesare Borgia in Assassin's Creed 2
smith2354 *brotherhood
smith2354 I can relate, so much nostalgia, although rodrigo de borgia survives
Thanks for putting up the guys name I couldn’t spell it for my politics essay! ❤️
thanks for spoiling it
@@thedislikebutton3425 The game is almost 10 years old lmao
Ah. . my degree in history from animus university pays off. i know who these people are.
but...but Cesare is a Templar... How can Machiavelli praise him? Aaaargggh
+Anurag Kumar I always felt Machiavelli must have been a templar in secret. Any Templar would love the Prince.
+Anurag Kumar When Ezio arrives in Roma, in Brotherhood, and meets with Machiavelli, they walk around the city and they talk. Machiavelli even says that he admires Cesare's way of conducting himself when asked by Ezio "is that admiration I hear in your voice." In Brotherhood, Machiavelli does admire Cesare's political abilities, but he also recognizes that he is dangerous and needs to be removed.
+andeace23 he is a pawn of cesare tho... check is REAL history not the in-game lore
+Jo Edwards lol, i see what you did there
I think this video misrepresents Machiavelli. He was first and for most a Republican who rose to power during the Republican period. He was tortured and exiled by the Medicis. The Prince is dedicated to the man responsible for his exile and torture. He is saying, "Look I can tell you exactly how to be a skilled tactician, but one day you are going to die (most likely at the hands of someone wanting revenge) and when you do everything you built will die too." Machiavelli was a realist. He knew that ruling as a singular person was too great a task and that was why some of the power of a prince needed to be handed over to institutions had could be handled collectively and could outlive the time span of one man. That is why he advocated for representative republics for the rest of his life.
The video appears to be a rather based on a rather superficial reading of The Prince. Calling Savonarola an example of a nice Christian goes beyond the pale. It also appears that he confuses what Machiavelli has written as observed with what he believed. For example, he refers to people as successful princes but points out where they do wrong (Cesare Borgia).
Machiavelli was based which is why he was cruel
Machiavelli was a republican but in the end he still concluded that only a Monarchy could function properly.
@@chuckhainsworth4801 Did he hate Christians? Or did he just have disagreements with what the Church itself did and how they acted?
@@quinnholloway5400 Machiavelli didn't hate Christians, the notion is quite absurd. Machiavelli regarded the church as just another player in the game.
Pretty much sums up how Lee Kuan Yew governed the city state of Singapore.
He was feared by his enemies while being pragmatic to the people.
In his death, turns out a lot of people respected and loved him for his effectiveness and attributed the success of the country to him.
Compared to other Southern East Asian countries your economy and state is doing very well! This is definitely what Machiavelli talked about and Lee Kuan Yew can be a positive example of Machiavellian thought! (I am Italian and my professor of political science is one of the leading scholars in the world about Machiavelli)
Such a beautiful example
Machiavelli the Don.
Killuminati all through your body. :D
hermanPla Hail Mary
Blows like a 12 gauge shotty
JP Fitness, RIDE
tupac
On the topic of Savanorola, I think that you should have mention that, under his reign, countless books, musical instruments and other forms of art were burnt in his so-called "bonfire of vanities". This also contributed to his execution.
Also that even though he turned Florence into a monastery he main goal was to rule as pope and control the world. This is just one example of how enemies of Machiavelli were still Machiavellian
+The School of Life Please make one video on Kautilya's Arthashastra. It was quite similar to this, but far older.
+G36Ghost yep and also "virtu" shlould not be translated "virtue" but remain "virtu". Might be minor but this detail is important ;)
Also if the Prince has to be brutal it's in a way to maintain at last the safety of his people, all thses lies and violence are not aimless. As it is said in the video, Machiavel went through quite hard times in Firenze that led him to consider that a weak or gentle Prince could not be a good one, because he could not finally protect his subjects... I think this was forgot in the video (which is however quite good as all the others)
+G36Ghost Yes, thank you for questioning this. I found that part of the video a bit surprising as I had always thought Savanorola's time in charge of Florence was that of a mad theocratic ruler, not 'the nice guy' at all. I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle of these two extreme views?
+G36Ghost burned
I find quite surprising that the common consensus in English-speaking countries is that Macchiavelli actually endorsed the politics he wrote about quite straightforwardly: that is not the case in his native country.
Considering his rivalry with the Medicis and his endorsement for Republicanism there have been many who would argue his Principe was not an instructions manual for despots but an expose' of their methods.
On one hand he was aiding the powerful, on the other he was showing the inner workings of their minds to the general public: "watch out, this is how they f**k you!", no wonder the Church had his work banned.
+Professicchio Interesting point, thanks for sharing!
Ha makes sense when you had popes like Julius II, Leo X, and Clement VII
+Professicchio i agree with you, in my mind Macchiavelli was a good person, who was too sincere to hold his thoughts from sharing them. He had really gave us a great manifesto of what politics means and how to understand it. It is valuable to the politicians as much to us citizens.
+Professicchio Here is an interesting article by Pablo Iglesias (Podemos) in the The Guardian, related to this subject:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/21/politics-isnt-fairytale-good-versus-bad
+Professicchio I've heard it called a political satire many times.
I'm here because of the program "The Deep Probe" of SMNI with the presidential candidates. One panelist, a professor, asked BBM about Machiavelli. Since I do not remember him from what I was taught in school some years ago, needed to search for a concise information about him and I found this channel. Now I have a better understanding on what was asked of him and what he answered. Thank you!
Same here, so what's your rection about bbm answer?
Me too
In my own opinion I think all politicians are Machiavellians because they have their own agendas to implement whatever methods they will be using. Maybe exceptions for Senator Pacquiao, late FPJ, Lito Lapid etc not sure if they’re machiavellians?
Same here. Understanding what this video has taught us about being a machiavellian leader, i know now the reason why Prof. Carlos smiled after hearing BBM's answer.
Me too, SMNI the best
I had a conversation with my mother one day because throughout my high school years, she would absentmindedly ask me “when did you become so Machiavellian?”
Naturally, I looked him up and his works and I agreed with the whole thing. He’s one of those historical figures thats misconstrued by people who don’t properly educate themselves on his work.
(My mother also had a stronger religious bias than I did- so the conversation was a good one to have)
I don't get it. Why would your own mother call you outright as Machiavellian? I hope you are alright.
I think if he existed today then he would not be either conservator right or liberal left as he's ideas is combination of both
Very much Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines. That is why towards the end of his term got the highest approval ratings in PH history.
Inevitable ethical trade-offs is the reason why I reject all general moral codes, and focus instead on empathy and decisions based on how I understand each and every unique situation/person.
***** I think this is usually known as Consequentialism. I'd be interested to know what sort of philosophical framework you apply when making these empathetic judgment.
Almus Quotch The only problem with Consequentialism is that it assumes that one is capable of reaching the "ends." What happens if you keep making sacrifices and you don't reach that supposed ideal end? I think this happens a lot more than people think. It's a lot like religion where one can do terrible things in this life for the sake of the next life, like with suicide bombers.
***** This is a new framework for me so I'm still trying to feel it out. But basically, the first step for me when I'm in this sort of situation would be to think to myself "Stop thinking superficially." I am still instinctively bound by general moral codes, and also I equate general morality to "superficial thinking" because really it disables one from thinking deeper into the emotions, values and logic at play in a given precarious situation. Whose emotions and values will I hurt if I proceed with option A? How is this person feeling right now? What would he feel afterwards? How about person B? What other things should I consider? What are my thoughts on mid term and long term effects? Thinking deeper instead of relying on knee-jerk moral fix-it-all's is really the core of it.
***** I probably have a lot of personal moral codes that I'm not conscious of. The only conscious ones would really just be focusing on empathy and tapping into the process of deeper understanding of people's emotions and situations. I'm not sure if that is a moral code, I think empathy is ingrained in all of us and that once we understand someone or where she is coming from, we inevitably care for the person. Personal moral code..hmm...I guess human rights?
Satoshi Nakamoto So you just make up your own morality. You do realize that our society would collapse without moral codes and specially if everyone is just making up their own.
Satoshi Nakamoto give me free bitcoin
Woah, Princess Bubblegum is Machiavelli
holy shit you are right! :o
HOLY SHIT... True...
mind = blown!!!!!
Ah, good ol' Savonarola, who else remembers rallying against him in Assassin's Creed II?
Criminal Virtue. What a phrase!
"Democratic Dictatorship" what a phrase! Humans can be so inventive at times.
The 51st Division
You're obviously not a member of a minority in a democratic country.
Ray Maritz That's an actual political concept btw. Google it.
Democracy is a type of dictatorship.a reactive one
The Mob Bosses saying their hail Mary's springs to mind 😂
Thank you so much for these videos! I'm including political theory from Machiavelli and Hobbes in my history essay, and these videos are really saving my life! A great way to get a general understanding before diving into the dense literature itself.
Please do LOCKE next!
Hello from Brazil! I just found out this channel and I have to say how much I loved it.I got so impressed how good this explanation is.This helped so much ☺️ By the way,history is my favorite subject. Thank you
what Machiavelli tried to explain is that goodness lacks the spirit to do whats necessary to accomplish things, the world will never a perfect place as long as there are people with different ideas there will be a majority that rules and a minority that is oppressed. In order to accomplish anything with humans sacrifices need to be made and there comes his amazing phrase "criminal virtue" the ones who are not afraid to go to any extent to achieve what they believe is "right" Hitler, Mussolini and more all fit in Machiavelli's work
+Marc Rogue Hitler and Mussolini are terrible examples but your argument is correct sometimes to achieve a goal brutal measures have to be taken an example is the Manhattan Project Japan is a country which has a brutal warrior culture (Samurai and the bushido code) so the USA had to show Japan the cost of continuing World War II they had no choice same is true in South Africa apartheid had to be dismantled so brutal sanctions were implemented it hurt the people but apartheid must end
You forget Stalin!
I think a better example for rulers who fit Nicolo Machiavelli are Julius Caesar or Genghis Khan
I appreciate the effort but again you only deal with the prince. When Machiavelli said that a leader must be ruthless, deceptive etc. he assumed a dictatorial model. That in a dictatorship the leader must act in such a way. In the discourses he openly states that dictatorships, (principalities) are inferiour to republics. In that book he advocates for separation of powers, free speech and holding public figures legally accountable. Why is it that Machiavelli who so idolized Rome almost rarely mentions the emperors and almost always invokes the republic? He even says that Julius Caesar brought Rome to ruin. Because he stood for an open republic where citizens participate in government. The prince was concerned with how to rule if and only if one insisted on a dictatorship. Even then his study shows how such governments are tyrannical and cruel. The Prince was every bit as much a warning as anything by objectively demonstrating the facts on the matter.
+Necrosis Pain i am aware of that, yet i continue to employ his ideas because they continue to provide satisfactory results, and that's what matters the most.
***** i was speaking from my perspective, never said it was a universal standard.
+Jerad Clark Republics still have leader and the leader can still be ruthless despite separation of powers, free speech and holding figures accountable (just don't leave evidence of your actions or don't commit crimes but still do despicable things).
+Necrosis Pain Nonsense. It's irrelevant what Machievalli really thinks. You're doing the Ad Hominem fallacy. The Prince could have been written by an anonymous source or a child. Judge the text by the matters.
+Jerad Clark Jared he didn't mean a totalitarian Stalinist leader he meant a leader who can get things done if you look at today politics there is a lot of wishy washy politics people have a hard time focusing on a task and getting things done I CAN GET THINGS done I can do whatever the hell I want just ask anyone If I say I am going to learn Chinese I will do it 我学中文 dictatorships do not work because the people will rise up (hitler) the solution is obvious I discuss it in my book May 7 When Mzingu Mtwetwe becames president of Malawi she is a ultranationalist (though not in a fascist way) she wants to develop Malawi and the African continent NO MATTER What It takes she decides on what she calls Citizens Consultative Committees which is the citizens will make a list of issues that concern them and Mtwe will brutally implement them the politics of developing her beloved Malawi were brutally implemented but she achieved her goal (at a terrifying price) Mtwe is the kind of person who believes she can achieve anything she want but it's not going to be mollycoddling nursing babysitting YOU WILL ACHIEVE IT through your own effort she is brutal because in the world of African politics she is a rarity a women but she is sick and tired of being portrayed as this inferior miserable women who needs handouts from World Vision she knows what kind of help she will receive from the international community here is rice aid here is food aid here is a aid money why? this is politics of pity not politics of regeneration SHE BUILDS her nation Mtwe is not a dictator SHE SPEAKS FOR HER PEOPLE she cares very deeply about her people and she knows Malawians and Africans deserve better and through her blood sweat toil and tears she gets it done I thought May7 was an impossible goal but I did it I did it politics is not a game for pussies the people demand results when a person votes for a politician the people are saying "THIS IS WHAT I WANT THIS IS WANT I DEMAND" and I expect to be done NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES sometimes difficult decisions have to be made to achieve that goal I myself could have drunken beers went to late night parties and so on but I knew that African development for the next 100 years was crucial SO I DID IT now it's available on Amazon the point is you can do whatever the fuck you want but you're not get there by being a pussy
Love your channel! Even though I have graduated college its still fun to look back at those insightful philosophy classes. Keep up the good work! Cheers!
Being the best politicians is being the Ultimate Crime Lord.
Such an amazing series and one of my favourite authors. Some people may complain that your videos are too broad and lots of stuff is missing, but you have a very short amount of time to get complex theories across in a concise manner and the visuals really help. I think this is a great leap pad do go and do further research. Amazing stuff. 🤓
The problem is not that politicians use this ideal, it's that they use it to serve themselves rather than the interests of the society, and by extension the state they serve. It is then they cease being representatives, or leaders, and become thieves.
Precisely
Machiavelli also stated that you can use his methods for individuals (personal gains), so it can go both ways.
Oh, this is a very tough lesson... Truth is a bitter pill to swallow as they say and I have big trouble swallowing this one. There is a terrifying conversation between Michael Sandel and Peter Singer on youtube where Sandel asks to Singer if it would be OK to torture the 14 year old innocent daughter of a man who kidnapped 10 children. He would only talk and say where those children are, if they tortured his daughter. Peter Singer says yes you could do that!! Because it is only about numbers. You destroy one child , but save 10. But this is so horrible... I have no cold blooded, intellectual argument I can bring against this yet, but it feels deeply, absolutely wrong...
Than I thought about the fratricide issue during the rule of the Ottoman Empire. Here is a short passage from Wikipedia that explains what it is:
"In the Ottoman Empire a policy of judicial royal fratricide was introduced by Sultan Mehmet II whose grandfather Mehmed I had to fight a long and bloody civil war against his brothers (which brought the empire near to destruction) to take the throne. When a new Sultan ascended to the throne he would imprison all of his surviving brothers and kill them by strangulation with a silk cord as soon as he had produced his first male heir. The largest killing took place on the succession of Mehmed III when 19 of his brothers were killed and buried with their father. The aim was to prevent civil war."
Well, I don't know how many lives that Sultan saved through this prevention, but if he had asked me before, I would rather say: Mehmet my dear, do not strangulate your brothers, good boys don't do that.
We all laugh at this now, but I don't think we made that much progress since then
( even if Steven Pinker does not think so.)
Looking at our century, Voltaire would have perfectly said this again right now:
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
So I am thinking if it would be too naive to expect that may be, in some hundred years, people will be tired of wars and humanity will be so far that they will prefer kind and gentle leaders, rather than those who inspire fear? I don't know...
I am desperately trying here to think of a "kind and effective" leader. Would Michelle Bachelet be a good example? But friends from Chile would know it better than me of course... From what I can say, through the news I follow and a documentary I have seen about her life, she really seems like an " ethical being", a very intelligent and very tender women who is fully in the service of others. I guess she is much more loved than feared in Chile too. in 2006 she was elected with 53 percent of the votes. Seven years later she got 62 percent!
( Thank you very much for this lesson as always! )
***** The question first posed reminds me of a question formerly used in to identify psychopathy. I believe the question went along the lines of this... "There is a train heading on course for a group of ten people tied to the tracks. You are stood at a switching panel and have the opportunity to divert the train to another track. However, on the other line lies a singular person also tied to the tracks. Do you pull the switch?" The underlying point is the question "does a human life hold a comparable value to another human life?"
We are often led to believe for that to be true as we live in a society that places responsibility onto individuals. If you are less "useful" you are worth less. Or equally, If you are causing harm you are worth less. A leaders power is usually seen to be self-standing but realistically it is a complex structure that can have many effects other than what said leader intended. Just look at how many different opinions arise under the names of the same leaders.
Most modern leaders in rich countries would be considered absurdly kind in comparison to the ways of the leaders from Machiavelli's time. It has changed the political world in a big way... but it hasn't stopped the corruption or abuses of power and position. It takes leaders who are willing to show that you can let the reigns loosen and still succeed to prove the claims of Machiavelli to be more out-dated. So far that has been true and the ethical trade-offs in successful countries has escaped the realms of murdering and maiming people as a sign of dominance... mostly...
***** I think torturing that girl wouldn't have any effectiveness because such a monster who could kidnap 10 children wouldn't give a rats ass about this girl.
Good point the whole question is kind of riding on the premise that torturing children could be helpful in the first place. Regardless of the answer you give you are allowing the asker off the hook with that false premise.
In fact it's worth noting that torture has been shown to be an all round ineffective method to get anything done. John Oliver recently did a segment about it. I would put this forward as even more data towards machiavelli being somewhat incorrect. Americas brutal torture camps have only united it's enemies, upset it's citizens and failed to achieve what it claimed to do.
***** Hello again. First I'd like say that was an insightful comment, but something to take into account
We don't actually have to be brutal unless the times demand it. Take the famous Legalist Han Feizi (280-233 BC), who wrote an even more brutal book than Machiavelli, where people were required to be robots for nothing better but for the betterment of the state. The text written within that book was ruthless pragmatism that would shock the average person, his ideas inspired the emperor Qin Shi Huangdi, later recognized the emperor of China. Qin shi Hunadi implemented the system of legalism within that book and managed to unify all of china, however although he managed to unify china his empire only lasted 15 years after his death, which was replaced by Confucian Han which lasted 400 years. Seeing as how legalistic Qin only survived 15 years, while Confucian-Han survived 400 years is a testament of the ineffectiveness of Legalism post-warring states. The system of legalism clearly worked in Qin's favor during the warring states period as one state needed to be more ruthless than the other, better ordered than the other, and much more disciplined than the other, however the system of legalism was too brutal and strict leaving no room for compassion, Qin can be excused for adopting legalism as it was a dog eat dog world during the warring states, but once that was over there was no longer any need for the brutality, the strictness, and the lack of compassion, its why legalism failed and Confucianism prevailed with the emerging Han. Han saw there was no longer any need for brutality, but time for mercy, development and compassion. For that reason Han survived 400 years. It was as Machiavelli said "In order for a prince to enjoy constant success, he must change his conduct according to the times if he does not he will be ruined". The conduct of legalism was better suited for times of war and strife, but once there was no longer any wars to be fought, the time for compassion and Confucianism had to be opened up.
We don't have to be amoral, indifferent and without compassion. We live in a world where we have human rights and were much more globally connected. We live in compassionate times compared to the past, so we must do what we can in our own ways to make the world a better place for ourselves and for future generations so it doesn't have to become like legalist Qin where people are treated as an object that can be used and thrown away. We are all human beings and we must treat each other as such.
Hope that clears everything up :)
***** If I am given the choice, I will make a show of ripping the daughter from the murderer, explain the situation to the daughter, and give her a deal. Give her enough money to set her for life, or a stipend for the rest of her life, or scholarship for her university of her choice, if she will just pretend to be tortured. The murderer will not see much, but he can hear a lot. Then get the confession.
Of course, it's not as clear cut as in life. But the best choice to benefit the most people and harm the least is what I will take. And I will not have any qualms if I had to kill a few hundred along that path.
I honestly love these videos so much. The calm insights and the elaborated explanations of these thoughts otherwise so hard to access help me get myself together to finally sit down and get to the original source. Even as a political analyst i tend to turn to these first accesses you provide me with. I feel like i earn a grip through these videos, and i appreciate it very much. Thank you!
Yes
His thoughts can be applied on many fields in life not only politics and I became so addicted to your channel .
i've read the prince and understood some of Machiavelli's concept , but this video is very good at connecting the thoughts of machiavelli and his philosophy in a condensed and simplified video.
Thanks school of life , this really illustrated the book and the author.This will greatly help me. Keep up the good work.
What do you think about the Prince? Does it really matches his reputation? Was it really that dark?
if you read a song of ice and fire, i believe George RR modeled Tywin and his father Tytos after Machiavelli's writings. Tytos only cared for being liked by people, but this caused him to be a very weak ruler. Tywin saw this and pretty much does the exact opposite. Tywin inspired fear and order, just as Machiavelli advises
Leper King That's why Tywin is one of the most amazing characters.
Leper King He admitted that Petyr Baelish was based off Niccolo
Tywin's pretty close, but he's also a pragmatist who's focused solely on his family. For a real Machiavellian, someone who aims to make the state stronger, I'd point to Tyrion.
I would say a combination of Tywin and (Book) Stannis
so by extension, tyrion will be the perfect conclusion for these two lannisters right? compassionate as tytos and as brilliant as tywin...
The School of life u should do a video on Chanakya's Arthashastra. Chanakya was arguably the greatest political scientist in Ancient India. His pupil Chandragupta Maurya rose from a position of being absolute nobody to founding the vast Mauryan Empire. The first person to unify most of India under one single regime. Such a feat wasnt replicated until the arrival of Great Mughal King Akbar.The Mauryan Dynasty and Empire is now considered an absolute model of the near-perfect state in India. Chanakya's teachings were somewhat along the lines of Machiavelli's. It would be nice to see him and some other eastern political scientists whose views changed their nations.
Well, I would say that Akbar shouldn't be called "The Great Akbar", he was great indeed. But not for us as he was an intruder.
@@tanishqdaiya rulers and their states are judged on the basis of their performance, military wise, economy wise, admisnistration wise.
I was thinking the same
Ever heard of the Gupta empire or Delhi sultanate that came after Mauryans and before Mughals? Otherwise, you're right.
One of the most important books of my life.
This short film is an excellent supplement to the reading of The Prince. Watching this before and after reading The Prince helps to solidify the profound principles propounded by Machiavelli.
Machiavelli spoke a Truth that we may not all like, but we all know to be Truth. The World is not fair and no one ever said it was supposed to be "fair". The moral and ethical battle of "the ends justify the means" is an internal battle for ALL of humanity to face. Maybe being a sociopath is an evolutionary trait that unburdens some of their ethical struggles. Perhaps we all realize that Machiavelli was right, but we sure do hate to admit it. Fight the good fight and do your best to maintain good ethics. It may not always be possible but we can't outright surrender to our darker side...
One must go beyond good and evil, or, do like Machiavelli. Use both. For good.
"Actions be Machiavellian but intentions should be good" this is what I follow and this is what real world is
"Dealing with the world as it is and not as we feel it shoud be" In others words it is what it is. Ty Mr Niccolo
In my opinion Machiavelli as a political theorist is a good representation of the ultra-realist and almost nihilist side of politics which is often forgotten, but he dismisses the whole "utopian" side of politics as well, which is as crucial as the other side of the coin. Look, if we follow Mach's politics the state will forever wallow in status quo, power is not challenged, elite rules without conditions for their own benefit, and the "peasant" pays with his life for the maintenance of status quo. But in politics there is always an aspiration towards "what could be", instead of "what is". You can always dismiss this utopian side by appeal to Machiavelli, so to say, and say that it is unrealistic, and power resides where one is willing to bend the rules. In the end, this dismissal always destroys the prospect of a "better world", one where the next generation just might do a little better in the future.
I have a feeling, that the fact we live in more democratic societies these days, has to do with the fact that we have acknowledged and embraced that utopia of what could be, instead of the reality that is. We have moved past Machiavelli in many ways, which is not to say that he is unimportant, but a ghost from the past, the darker side of the coin.
RestInPieces Might I add that Machiavelli, when you go through his politics, really deserved some of the bad reputation that he has had, maybe not as bad as it sometimes is or has been (Machiavelli basically equals Antichrist), but basically he is an apologist for totalitarian rule, nothing more, nothing less. Although he is a product of his times, so it is sometimes kind of unfair to judge him from our times.
Sir George Severn Why wouldn't it?
RestInPieces "we have acknowledged and embraced that utopia of what could be"
There is no utopia. There is no denying our need for resources and influence. Nature itself is a struggle to kill or be killed at every tier. Even in peace there will always be those who will seeks to rise above others, because without competition, there is stagnation. And stagnation stretched across millennia leads to retardation of evolution.
Maybe we can regulate everything to curb the excessive brutalities as we do now, but as long as humans remain a species of organisms that operate as individual units, there will be no Utopia. And neither is Utopia desirable.
Gaurab Chatterjee No, there is no realist utopia per se right here or in the future. I was talking about the subjective/intersubjective aspirations of individuals towards societies that are not existing as of now.
Yes we need resources and some people crave power, but that does not debunk the moral duty we have to better ourselves and the societies we live in.
Ummm. Have you actually looked at nature and thought about it for more than a second? Nature is not purely kill or be killed, although that is a big part of it. Animals kill each other, but some also work in mutual trust and create manifold "societal" (ant colonies etc.) structures to better their position in the game of evolution, just like humans. Competition is one factor in evolution, but to suggest like you do, that it is the only factor, and without competition there is only stagnation, is out of this world. For example niche construction and mutual aid are important factors within species. Plus, you can't in actuality stagnate evolution... It will continue even in the absence of competition.
For your last point about humans being a species of individual units, take look a around. What do you see? You probably live in a house that wasn't solely built by you. There probably are a few people in the very same house, and you are not fiercely competing among them. You probably live in a state where you maybe have elections now and then, and so on. Humans form manifold social structures that range up all the way to international organizations. So do we, humans, actually live like individual units, and what does "individual unit" actually mean?
RestInPieces When I say competition, kill/be killed, I was talking about different species. Even species of predators slaughter each other and their cubs, just to eliminate competitors for resources. An even then there are regular face-offs between members of the same pack/pride to assert greater dominance, to get the "Lion's share" of the meat. Among males this also includes competition to bag the best genetic prospect to further their lineage. Similar is seen among females too bat that is less common. This is even seen in infant animals, where they engage in mock fights. In short competition requires you to be better in some or the other way.
As for humans co-operating, we have this unique capability to come together to form societies as a means of ensuring our predominance and prosperity compared to other species (at the end of the day). But that doesn't mean that humans are a hive minded organism. Each human is a seperate individual entity. No matter how many preachings of love and co-operation are doled out, by instinct a human will always try to ensure optimization of its own living conditions. If that involves 1) making small compromises/sacrifices for another human to try make sure that human is more predisposed to help in his own time of need 2) Enter into a co-operation which is win-win for both (exactly why no one wants to be in the raw end of a deal), then so be it. A society is just above two happening at a large scale.
In short, the notion of a better kinder society just for the sake of a better kinder society is ridiculous. A better society is simply one where not only the majority of its individual units are well provided for but the its next generation brought up in such a manner so as to achieve them or better. And that includes the sense of competition between individuals to raise themselves to a higher status to get better access to resources and lower chances of exposure to harm.
Would you consider doing an episode on Frederick the Great's Anti-Machiavel as a counter-point to some of these ideas?
Omg there are Sooo many videos like this one but what really stands out is your fūcking voice.
Love it, smooth and very pleasing
I'm Italian and this is by far the best resource I found online, thank you I really really appreciate this video, it will be extremely helpful.
Avoiding using his expression for "The end justifies the means" is a significant gap in the video
To the contrary! There is no point in stating what’s already known and obvious.
The opposite. That quotation is completely built into our culture
I feel like this guy gets such a bad rap, but honestly he’s honest. At the end of the day being right when it’s important is more important than being loved.
yeah he's honest because he doesn't have those values that would make him ashamed
So why is he an assassin not a Templar? HE FUCKING LIKES THE BAD GUY OF BROTHERHOOD
In the beginning of Brotherhood, Machiavelli actually praises Cesare for a little bit while walking with Ezio through Rome.
EdFan 287 i haven't played the game since it came out. Guess i need to replay it
Alexander Coelho . incoherent nonsense . Night
EdFan 287 a game know rash face feature . a game
In the Prince he admired the duke of Milan for taking on and weakening the church.
Great video! I instantly subbed to your channel, can't wait to watch some more!
A "good" politician is a "bad" politician.
- Summary of Machiavelli(?).
True, you're right, Wicklow Chief
Not necessarily. Take Cesare Borgia, he goes down in history as a cruel ruthless leader. This is however partly untrue because the regular citizens he ruled loved while the nobles and superpowers (like Della Rovere) were the ones who hated for his massive gain of power. Good leaders are hated, not by the citizens usually, but rather their fellow leaders who lose power out of success from a good leader.
What a dumb summary lol
really to generalize Machiavelli is to say "Do what is right and necessary for the greater populace of your respective state instead of what is seen as 'correct' and 'nice', because what is usually is seen as 'correct' or 'nice' option usually benefits the interests of the Elite or the Enemy."
Not a good summary
All problems can be solved by
hiring a samurai
@Larry Alfaro It worked for Oda Nobunaga, didn't it?
Ah I see you'e a man of Bill Wrutz as well
Only rich people hired samurais.Those who couldn't afford to hire samurais did not hire samurais.
What are you? A hit man or something!!
And samurai hired ninjas
This is a brilliant video that voices the thoughts that run through many of us. It truly represents Machiavelli and the thought that upholds his work. Thank you, The School of Life!
It really does! It's very relevant to our time now.
Hey guys!
Fab job with all these great personalities, however I was wondering if you could do a couple of videos on these personalities as well: John Mill, Gramsci, Hannah Arendt.
Kind of like watching your videos to get a base perspective on their theories for studies you know.
Much love for your channel!
Being violent is practically the default position of the State
I can't help giggling at Machiavelli's little smirk
Reminds me of Mitch McConnell.
I had to study this at secondary school, at the time it was a drag, although Savonarola was kind of fun but looking back, I am glad I had to study this both in philosophy and history.
I really love your videos, I'm a big fan. I'd be really happy if you did a video on Franz Fanon and his theories
Machiavelli's whole concept reminds me of that of Robin Hood's. It is okay to do a bad deed as long as it is done with good intentions.
If anyone is into Japanese animation, a series called "the legend of the galactic heroes" introduces a very Machiavilian character. The series also tackles democracy, autocracy and other topics in a futuristic world.
oh, some good taste here
so true, Reinhard is very idealistic but Oberstein is very pragmatic. Both clash but in the end, Reinhard become just as same as Oberstein kekw.
Lelouch from Code Geass is also a very Machiavilian character
@@UMIF001 I havent watched LOTGH but Lelouch does fit yeah. He gets the job done and knows when to be ruthless while still being an effective leader who works to defend his team and Japan
i see you are spreading the word of a legendary classic sci fi anime to the western world.
this was an awsome education piece.
I was always curious. Thank you for being so clear and entertaining!
As always informative and enlightening.Thanks Alain.
I recommend The 48 Laws of Power (Robert Green) as a follow up to The Prince.
The 48 laws of power gets some of its stuff from the prince
The ideals of Machiavelli and tactics of Sun Tzu are personified in Frank Underwood.
I just found his book The Prince in a free book store and decided to look him up. This is great can't wait to read it!
I recognize the characteristics of Machiavelli's "leader" in several politicians on the world's stage today and throughout history. It's amazing when you see this formula bubble up to the surface in light of Machiavelli's political theories - the mold powerful leaders must fit in to. I'm certain his insights are included in the playbook of those who strive to be in power and those who are currently in power.
Well done and concentrated video. Thanks!
love,love this piece..thank you school of life
"He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done sooner affects his own ruin rather than his preservation." - Niccoló Machiavelli
I think at the end of these videos they should have where the political views would be on a political compass. It could also show famous leaders and historical figures (Gandhi in the libertarian left, Stalin in the authoritarian left, Hitler and Mussolini in the Authoritarian right, Ayn Rand for the libertarian right)
Adam Kocur TV It could be for machiavelli but for the others it would make sense
Parker Barandon Gandhi was authoritarian left, and friends with Hitler, look it up.
he learned the hard way the virtues of pragmatism
you can't both very good and very effective or very bad and very effective...you have to find balance and in the case of maintaining power; be willing to make "ethical trade offs"
Although I mostly agree with Machiavelli's philosophy, everyone would end up navigating the real world as it is rather than moving towards an ideal state if it is followed.
I think the exact same, the world in order to keep on with developments needs to believe in something and not completely accepting the reality
This reminds me of Jordan Peterson Philosophy. "It's best to be able to commit cruelty (gain since of power, strength & effectiveness) than not being able to inflict cruelty & will eventually will be considered weak and harmless.
deej kingz “to be able” is the key word
I came here because of the recent Presidential debate here in Philippines. This is one of the questions.
This channel is just too brilliant
"The hardest choices require the strongest of wills." - Thanos
"...from their rulers...", haha, i love it. By the way, will you do a video on Anarchism?...
3:01 Not very relevant but how the hell did the artist manage to make stone look like delicately folded fabric?? I could imagine the feel of that tunic on his skin, the ease with which it would fall and ruffle when he changed his posture. Amazing! This is the first time I am truly impressed with the lifelikeness of a statue, someone please recommended more works like this for me!
I love this guy's ideas so much!
I feel like playing Assassins Creed again
Actually in Christianity we see also both.. I mean even in the Bible we can see that the Lord must be feared and loved at the same time.
brilliant, objective summary of a great piece of work. Thank you.
So well put together!
you should make a video on Chanakya, the Indian philosopher. He is called the Indian Machiavelli even though he lived 2500 years ago. But Machiavelli should really be called the Italian Chanakya.
You must do a video on him, guys!
thanks for this...I just looked him up
Totally agree!!
I think we base the name "of something" on relevance and macchiavelli seems more relevant in studies after.
Alexander Rose Thyren you need to read Chanakya to see that he and his work are still relevant. Also, his work is much, much more elaborate and makes Machiavelli's work look miniscule. ☺
chotto chotto I suggest you do a comparative reading of both Machiavelli and Arthashastra. This isn't about glorifying one individual over another. I'm only asking them to do one more video.
I'd love it if they would do one on Sun Tzu too.
Your narrow-mindedness is none of my concern .
"Mac" may be the most practical political philisopher yet. In politics, nice guys finish last. Witness Jimmy Carter: seen as weak.
After a long time have I been recommended a good video due to online classes.
Thanks for this video, tomorrow I have to talk about Machiavelli in my Intro to Political Thought Class.
Probably the only channel where I'm quite tolerant of poor photoshop-picture-cut job.
Keep up the good work!
It's the style, though, isn't it?
Yeah it is. I tolerate it because it's a feature, not a bug.
Hmm. A Vietnamese
Great job..i just learned a lot under 7 minutes
I learned the basics of political theory within a day, thanks to the School.
Machiavelli is really one of the must successful red pill guys in history.. I just love him for giving us the true nature of politics, leadership and relationship..
Whats the name of the painting to the left in 6:23 ??
A crazy painting who makes me feel a lot?
The best politician is a reluctant one.
hermanPla
makers sense
hermanPla Maybe, or maybe the best politician is the one who can play the game to the highest standard, but is doing so in order to change their nation for the better.
If you can't play the game, you won't ever get anything done.
People who don't want to be politicians rarely, if ever, take their job seriously. They don't last long.
Ambition doesn't make someone ineffective. It makes them scary, which is why we're so instinctively fearful and critical of career politicians. And in an age where you can dig up dirt on literally anyone, it's harder and harder for someone to take pages from The Prince without getting called out. But does that really make them unfit? Perhaps it's time for the electorate, now that we're so powerful, to start thinking like Machiavellians. What do we want to accomplish? Who will do that for us? And we can throw ideological purity out the window.
Like the Atreides dynasty in Dune series.
A bit late to the party, but I'd just like to say the choice of artwork is always brilliant!
Gained so much respect upon studying this again. Gotta love epistemology ♥︎
there's more strength in compassion then in domination. what's harder, to lift up or sit on top? To cling to life or lay it down?
It is important to remember that Machiavelli is talking about a principality rather than a democracy or republic. these kinds of tactics would serve well to someone ruling as a tyrant, but would be unlikely to work as ideally in modern western countries.
Sean Davison We are ruled by tyrants... This Neo Liberal Democracy we live in is really an Anarcho Tyranny!
i like how people think anything other than democracy is tyranny lmao
I think a good example of this kind of Machiavellian thinking is comrade Khrushchev.
He had a role in Stalin`s purges. He also invaded Hungary which resulted in the deaths of thousands, though mainly soldiers and armed Hungarian rebels.
Afterwards he denounced Stalin and freed millions of people from Stalin`s death camps, and rerouted lots of resources from the military to consumer production, greatly improving living standards in the USSR.
Nebojsa Galic I agree, i believe though that he, like all highranking officials, didnt have any choice but to support Stalins deeds, or else he would have landed in a Gulag too :/
Adrian Schreiber Exactly there were two kinds of people in the Soviet government when Stalin died, innocent and living
Nebojsa Galic That quote sir, is gold :)
could i get the notes for this? i'm am doing a report on Niccolo Machiavelli and you have many good ideas I would like to go through more carefully.
I'm not sure if today's "tough decisions" necessarily translate as a neo-machavelli philosophy but I do enjoy the video and the chat debates!