Who Was Machiavelli? (The Prince) - 8-Bit Philosophy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 лис 2014
- Join Wisecrack! ►► bit.ly/1y8Veir
Press Start for "Who Was Machiavelli?” by 8-Bit Philosophy, where classic video games introduce famous thinkers, problems, and concepts with quotes, teachings, and more.
Episode 17: Who Was Machiavelli?
(Niccolò Machiavelli & The Prince)
"Is it better to be feared or loved?"
More 8-Bit Philosophy:
Is Capitalism Bad For You? ►► bit.ly/1NhhX2P
What is Real? ►► bit.ly/1HHC9g1
What is Marxism? ►► bit.ly/1M0dINJ
Thug Notes:
Lord of the Flies ►► bit.ly/19RhTe0
Of Mice and Men ►► bit.ly/1GokKHn
The Great Gatsby ►► bit.ly/1BoYKqs
Earthling Cinema:
Batman - The Dark Knight ►► bit.ly/1buIi1J
Pulp Fiction ►► bit.ly/18Yjbmr
Mean Girls ►► bit.ly/1GWjlpy
Pop Psych:
Mario Goes to Therapy ►► bit.ly/1GobKCl
Batman Goes to Therapy ►► bit.ly/1xhmXCy
Santa Goes to Therapy ►► bit.ly/1Iwqpuo
Email Alerts: eepurl.com/bcSRD9
Facebook: / 8bitphilosophy
Twitter: / 8bitphilosophy
Homepage: www.8bitphilosophy.com
Check out our Merch!: www.wisecrack.co/store
Written by: Matt Reichle
Created & Directed by: Jared Bauer
Narrator: Nathan Lowe
Animation Producer: MB X. McClain
Original Music & Sound by: David Krystal (www.davidkrystalmusic.com)
Academic Consultant: Mia Wood
Producer & Additional Artwork by: Jacob S. Salamon
© 2014 Wisecrack, Inc.
Hey, y'all. Getting lots of comments about The Prince being a satire. Again, we understand given the historical context why that could be an interpretation -- and you're not wrong. We're just looking at this work from a philosophical context, using the work as a guideline to ask whether or not one can ignore morality in the quest for power. This is not a criticism of Machiavelli but rather an exploration of his most noted work -- using it as an argument for a particular position. Whether The Prince is satirical is not the point... This is just meant to be an introduction to the concepts in The Prince.
Just because it was satire doesn't mean it wasn't trying to prove a point.
every satire have its part of TRUTH))
nymersic Exactly. The Prince was a guide to dictators on how best to continue being dictators. If you want Nicky Mac's opinion on what a well functioning government *should* be, read his Discourses on Livy.
If the Prince isn't satire, then explain the existence of the Torch weapon.
LAVATORR
The people needs to learn that whatever we do with that toughs is aour very responsibility. Stalin would be base his ideas on marxism, but Marx was already dead 100 years ago, so Marx does not have any guilty for what Stalin did with the misinterpretation of his ideas just like Machiavelli stablishes some points with no intention for this to being inspiration for dictators or the like.
Hate to be that guy, but you obviously did not read "The Prince" and probably did this video based on the abridged version (and not a very good one at that). Machievelli never questioned if it is better to be feared or loved. Hell, one of his most famous quotes is "The strongest fortress a Prince can build is the love of his people." He merely stated that fear is more easily gained than love, but it is paramount that a ruler be respected; wether it be through fear or love. And he absolutely DID NOT approve of the methods you used as an example to gain power, but merely stated bitterly that bastards always get the power and good guys finished last (Which came from experience, as he was commander of the Florentine militia before the Medici's came in and tortured and exiled him.
Exactly, Machiavelli pointed out the political climate, he didn't embrace it nor created it.
Kind of off topic but ya know what else bothers me about most if not all summarizations of "The Prince"? That they never seem to touch on how much Machiavelli hated mercenaries. I read The Prince over 20 years ago and I remember that being one of the central ideas of the book. Don't use mercenaries, EVER! Now if Machiavelli thought the ends justified the means and it's better to be feared than loved than wouldn't using mercenaries be just fine? Hell the more bloodthirsty & rapacious the better, right? If fear is better than love. But no Machiavelli explicitly and repeatedly states that the wise Prince never uses mercenaries as they are worthless troops, will abandon you, and will turn your loyal subjects against you.
Those of you who claim that The Prince is a work of satire, you probably know there are plenty of scholars who agree with you! There is good reason to believe, given the historical context, that the work was intended as satirical. Questions for the philosopher, however, remain. We might want to ask, for example, if one can, in fact, avoid moral considerations in the quest for power. We might want to ask if the nature of political power is always in the interest of the one who holds it, or if it is in the interest of those who are subject to it.
The work can also be interpreted as foundational to the discipline known as political science. Indeed, it is a significant text for the discipline of the same name. Historians are also interested in what Machiavelli has to say, and they will be among those most interested in whether or not the work is a satire or guidebook.
Remember, your discipline will influence how you approach a work - it’s like wearing a pair of glasses through which the world is filtered. It’s a good way to encounter a text, but not the only one. Since this show is devoted to philosophy, we’re focused on philosophical problems, topics, subject, and thinkers. Sometimes these are approached from the standpoint of the history of philosophy, which generally involves looking at how philosophers are responding to each other.
We decided to approach Machiavelli’s classic work from the philosophical standpoint that looks at the text as an argument for a specific position. The historical context, in this case, is more backstory than a major philosophical consideration.
Below is a very short list of introductory commentary on the question of interpreting Machiavelli’s The Prince. It includes pieces from scholars in disciplines like philosophy, history, and political science, and, we hope, will encourage you to reinforce but also expand your view. Enjoy!
Vincent Barnett, “Niccolo Machiavelli - The Cunning Critic of Political Reason” in History Today, 2006.
www.historytoday.com/vincent-barnett/niccolo-machiavelli-%E2%80%93-cunning-critic-political-reason
Garrett Mattingly, “Machiavelli’s Prince: Political Science or Political Satire?” in The American Scholar, Vol. 27, No. 4, Autumn, 1958.
www2.idehist.uu.se/distans/ilmh/Ren/flor-mach-mattingly.htm
Nederman, Cary, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Machiavelli
plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/
Quentin Skinner, Machiavelli: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2000.
(Consider also checking out a Philosophy Bites podcast and UA-cam talk featuring Skinner on Machiavelli.)
How Machiavellian was Machiavelli? Public lecture by Quentin Skinner
Wisecrack Citations in a youtube comment? Color me impressed.
Wisecrack Citations make me hard.
This is an okay summary, but it is very important that people need to read "The Prince" and the continuation AFTER this part to get what Machiavelli is getting at. Machiavelli is pretty explicit about fear in this case being more like "respect", and making people understand that you are undoubtedly in charge and getting them to follow you. Being respected, of course, is not the same as being liked, but Machiavelli also makes it clear that you shouldn't be a total prick about it and that you need to avoid making the people hate you completely. Because when all is said and done, if the population of your state hates you, all the castle walls aren't going to save your ass from the revolution. The point is to maintain power and control to ensure the stability and safety of the state, both from foreign and domestic enemies.
One thing that helps put the Prince in context is recognizing Machiavelli lived during the Renaissance age where Italy was a crapload of city states constantly feuding with each other and dragging in France from time to time in their petty squabbles. France, being the superpower of the era, was happy to oblige cause it meant "hey, free chance to take more land". So Italy was in a constant state of battles and intrigue and infighting that was making it ripe for exploitation from foreign powers, and Machiavelli didn't like that. In the case of Borgia there, it's basically "he's not exactly a nice guy, but at least he can keep his shit together".
On the flip side, Machiavelli's other writings like "Discourses on Livy" show him to be a diehard republican (in the sense of supporting republics, not Republican as in US Republican Party), and even in the Prince he's like "Republics are the best...but if you aren't a Republic, here's how to maintain power". Some do theorize that the Prince is supposed to be a satire, but honestly I never really bought that idea =P.
Thank you! I wish I saw this before I wrote my little summary, I think you got the point across better than I!
Always great to see that people are coming over to help add on to the discussion. I know he can only do so much with these vids so he has to leave parts out but it really is too important to not neglect the continuation on the themes of the book as a whole in regards to that statement of being loved or feared.
It is probably the best remembered phase because that chapter as a whole really just sums up the entirely of the ideology being presented in the text in several paragraphs with the rest of the text being examples and further in depth analysis. Hell you could only read that chapter and get a good idea of what he was trying to get across.
Great analysis and comment!
Just double checked: Chapter 14 is literally titled "THAT ONE SHOULD AVOID BEING DESPISED AND HATED"
Project Gutenburg translation: www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm#link2HCH0019
Superb job!
Most funny thing about Machiavelli was that he probably wasn't Machiavellian himself.
It's true that Machiavelli studied how power had worked trough history and pointed out his conclusions in The Prince, but that book was just "How things are" not "How things should be". The thing about The Prince was also that Machiavelli actually published it for everyone, not just selling it to those who were in power at the time. It's like revealing the trick for everyone and that way lessening the power dictators have over the people.
Machiavelli also pointed out that the church should be considered princedom since the tactics which it used at the time were so clearly "Machiavellian". The church actually tried to get The Prince banned, but I don't it was because moral reasons. They were just scared for their position of power to crumble because of it and well.. It kinda did crumble though not only because of The Prince.
Like Whammy Analysis said Machiavelli in his core loved Republic form of governing and The Prince actually paved the road towards that dream. I don't know was that intentional or not, but that's what happened.
One possible explanation is that Machiavelli wasn't seriously suggesting these things, but rather used The Prince to make fun of a particularly ruthless family.
HOLY SHIT AT Paptimus Scirocco (Gundam Zeta) reference! And using Kunio back ground characters. :)
I feel like the prince is one of the most misinterpreted books out there. The quote is it is better to be feared than loved if you can not be both. The key message there is that you should be both. Fear obviously has a lot more leverage than love, but it is a heavy handed way of doing things, and Machiavelli believed in being subtle and clever. Put on a liberal mask while acting conservative. Stalin, Castro and Nixon were all to overt to be Machiavellian in my opinion. The queen is a good pick though.
If I could from mobile, I'd comment with the thank you office meme
Project0061 well the correct quote that I often see is "SAFER" not better. More over this little video IMO got Machiavelli's philosphy wrong by missing out on one of the most important things he stresses a lot, avoid hatred. hell chapter 19 is literally titled "THAT ONE SHOULD AVOID BEING DESPISED AND HATED"
Then there is also the fact that Machiavelli is a republican, as in he supported a republican form of goverment. This is notably in that he states rather explictly that one's power base should be the common man. More over, As this video is "who is Machiavelli" not the "what was the Prince about" it also left out his other big important works, notably The discourses where he goes into more detail about this.
herkles1 Yeah I didn't have any material on hand to give direct quotes, but I think you've made a far better point than me as to how poorly this person represented Machiavelli.
Project0061 You are totally right. Machiavelli emphesized that it's ok to be dishonest, deceptive and immoral as long as you hide it well, if it gains you power/success. This is the basis of machiavellian behaviour.
Wow! With that background music, you're making me miss my childhood so much! I didn't even know I'd memories of these
a man feared by his people will never have their unquestionable loyalty ... but a man loved by his people will often succumb to those desiring power by any means ... its basicly two sides of the same coin ...
Tis why I vote for anarchy.
Anarchy is not a viable solution ether but a bit is always needed to start a revolution ...
Doesn't help that Machiavelli may have wrote it with the intent that the democracies he wrote as counterpoints to the way of the prince may have been a better option.
It's basically another coin toss of either "this is how you can rule better so you don't succumb to the use of a Democratic system" or "those democracies may actually have a good idea going on."
My comment was meant to be ironic. You can't vote for anarchy by voting at all :)
I vote for anarchy, by voting against the winning party ...
Gundam reference at 2:18, although I think either Char or Gihren would be better to use than Scirocco.
Machiavelli: JOKES ON THEM!!1 I WAS ONLY PRETENDING TO BE A RETARDED.jpg (what I think everytime someone makes the satire excuse for Machi)
This work, frankly, is like _The Art of War_ for politics. Sun Tzu emphasized in his book, FUCK HOW YOU FEEL... THIS IS HOW TO WIN.
War doesn't give a fuck about how you feel.
Power doesn't give a fuck about how you feel.
There are rules to the game. Even if you intend to bring World Peace, you still have to HOLD ON TO POWER to do it. So unless you wanna end up like poor old Boethius, L2P or get the fuck out. Period.
well said
Avoiding war if you can is not a 'moral' principle. It's fucking common sense. War spends resources, human lives are resources, just like food, weapons and transport. Why spend resources if you don't need to?
When Sun Tzu fucking decapitating concubines after failing to do pretend drills sound like moral lesson to you? That was right in the goddamn intro!
Did his whole damn treatise on using spies, traitors, espionage and assassinations sound like the lessons of a morally righteous man?
LOL did YOU read the book? you musta read _Milnes' Art of Pooh_
this is amazing thanks for uploading this it's given me a new perspective to things i haven't thought in a long time
the amount of tupac in this video is much appreciated, because he was the first thing I thought of when I read the title, not the author. lol
TL;DR: Voldemort's "There is no Good and Evil. There's only power and those too weak to seek it." is pure Machiavellianism.
In what book did he say it ?
The First one. In the book he was being quoted by Quirrel, in the film he says it directly.
You need 2 teaspoons of fear, 2 of justice and 1/2 of kindness to cook the perfect soup of rulership.
Be feared but only from those that should fear you, bring justice and kindness to those who deserve it.
Thank you for beeing one of the top comments. This soup serves well to the people =)
2:18 : Zeta reference
... well, that's one way of interpreting it. You could also summarize the prince by saying: "Leader, leave your people be and focus on killing each other." Machivalli is significantly protective about the common people and claims that ultimately they hold the power and claims it is totally okay for a leader to be feared, as long as he isn't hated. So displaying the heads of your rivals on a pike is okay, while granting first night is not. He's also very sarcastic in this book, which is commonly interpreted as plain devilishness, but ultimately it's a book against tyranny.
One way to interpret the book is that he was encouraging the use of republics but here is a way you can get a pseudo-republic while maintaining your titles.
"it's a book against tranny" I wonder why you said that?
***** he didnt
Landon Rivers lol
Louis Parry-Mills Yes, that is.
"The end justifies the means."
Phoenix Wright: Dual Destinies, anyone?
Love that Pac is actually represented in a philosophical video! Y'all at wisecrack should do a piece on him! Because, what's love got to do with it?
This is fantastic!
Love that Paptimus Scirocco made an appearance. Its fitting and kind of an obscure reference.
"Does God Exist?" (Thomas Aquinas) - 8 bit philosophy
One of the most important questions of human society. Do it. Please.
This is an atheist channel. Forget it.
The Wisecrack crew don't have the balls to present that discussion.
MagnumBullets47 why would this have to be an atheist channel, ??? it's about philosophy
BUBBLEGUM GUN We are talking about a channel that made fun of the bible in it's last episode of the show "Earthling Cinema". I'm christian and i'm just judging Wisecrack by it's content. Saying that it is an atheist channel is only a logical conclusion.
MagnumBullets47 You are confusing philosophy and enlightened thought with atheism.
''Violence should never be the first choice, but if you do, don't hesitate and strike hard''
That's the way I raise my children.
You strike them hard without hesitiation?
Play List I don't have any children.
They dead?
Play List I hope so.
These deserve more views.
Dude been reading the prince and you defiantly clears up some things for me! You should do something for the art of war next, that be a good follow up on the prince!
The only problem of these series is that the I wish there were more videos, and that the videos were longer. AMAZING WORK.
oh crap, it's Paptimus. Whoever made this has some definite good tastes to pick something from zeta.
You guys have the best intro on youtube
One of my favorite books of all tme! Please have Dr. Sparky Sweets review this one!
I love the pixelated 2Pac "Makavali" at the end :D
Great vid.
Skateboard Plato gets me every time. Love these videos. :)
Great spirit.
I believe he said the the ends should be considered, not the determiner of actions.
I love this show and this channel. I'd love even more to see you guys do an episode on St Augustine writings. Although I'm not religious myself, religious scholars can give some pretty thought provoking ideas.
Doesn't Machiavelli argue in Chapter 17 that, in order to assert dominance, any kind of execution must be limited to a single man? And that the removal of property is a catalyst of descent? He wishes the leader to be feared, not hated. Furthermore, in the beginning of the chapter, Machiavelli also wishes that a leader could be both loved and feared but simply thought that unrealistic.
Another fantastic episode
Gonna pick up the Prince soon
Keep it comin
And happy thanksgiving
Awesome, but one detail: The Prince is a satire of the political systems in Renaissance Italy. Machiavelli wrote it to get back in favor with the Medicis but was actually making fun of them the whole time.
Machiavelli never said the end justifies the means
I've been telling people that for years
one problem with force is that it has to be sustained. everyone gets tired but one side has only one direction to go.
He also said it was even better to be feared and loved, only if you had to pick 1, it should be feared.
May I request something on Alan Watts. Great channel!
This is like Hitchhiker's Guide meets 8-bit gaming :)
"Whether it is better to be loved than feared?"
Yeah...a lot of people forget that it goes on for a bit afterwards to clarify that while you can last being feared, you should avoid being hated. People willl just gloss over the later parts of the elaboration on what it means to rule with fear over love.
From The Prince, chapter 17 "Considering Cruelty and Clemency, and Whether it is Better to be Loved or Feared."
"Nevertheless, a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred' because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women."
The text goes on to tell the prince that he should always do something if he has good cause, not just because he can harass or rob his subjects. A true Machiavellian is pragmatic and mindful of his or her situation, your only ruthless to your enemies, your allies you should be mindful of and take precautions in case they would against you but you don't go about screwing every single person you meet over. You start spreading yourself thin with that.
A farmer under the ideal prince would have to give a good chunk of his wheat away and pay their taxes, but is always left with enough to eat and maybe some extra and enough coin that they can contribute to the trade industry of the prince's lands. If they perform excellent service repeatably, they are given bonuses that reflect it as it their service is to the benefit of the prince first and foremost. A prince would allow minor mistakes and things out of the farmer's control to pass (you can't blame farmers for drought) but may chide them for but not taking precautions. However a farmer that withholds their wheat and taxes would be punished immediately and efficiently, as they went against the prince. They fear the repercussions of going against the prince but they do not hate the prince. As long as they work to the prince's benefit they have nothing to fear, and with the right attitude and competence, they may improve their station.
So yeah, yet again it saddens me but this video seems to only explore the Machiavellian pursuit that would make him wince at the ignorance displayed of his work.
They should show these videos in schools.
My speech teacher (Mr. Reichle) writes these and it's so badass
Be loved by your family and friends. Feared by your enemy's and opponents, And respected by all of them.
Hey, I'm doing a research project on Machiavelli and it is specifically on how the six tenets of the prince relate to modern leadership and politics today. I need to find examples but I am having some trouble. I need at least one example per tenet. Thanks in advance.
I particularly enjoy this episode because Machiavelli is a star character in one of my favorite game franchises; Assassin's Creed. In the game Machiavelli is part of the Assassin Brotherhood and even counsels Ezio, the main protagonist and leader of the Brotherhood. This certainly aligns with his real life idea that the end (free will and peace) justifies the means (lies and murder). Not only that, but in Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, Cesare Borgia is one the main antagonists. Although the Brotherhood seeks his death, Machiavelli did at one point tell Ezio that he respects the Borgia's methods of fear before approval.
+Kazuma - kun
I read the Book. That video was pure shit. I can only advise you to read the book or at least some comments, Whammy Analysis and Geistermeister6 do a good job explaining it here.
This is one of the best things I've ever seen on youtube :)
didn't expect to see scirocco there I'm guessing some of you at wisecrack have seen zeta gundam?
I think this video could have a better title, Machiavelli contributed a great deal more than that. That said, this is a well done brief look at The Prince in particular.
"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us."
(a quote frequently attributed to, but likely not actually coined by) George Orwell.
So, clearly it is to be both feared AND loved that makes a good leader.
Machiavelli says exactly that in an ideal world it is best for a leader to be both feared and loved.
Xavian Brightly I didn't hear it mentioned in the video. Guess they skipped it?
EHW2 not in the video I actually read the book.
EHW2 so yeah they skipped it.
The question is more correctly put as "If you must choose between fear and love, which should you choose?" The Prince falls heavily upon the side of "fear," but under the context of "fear to inspire respect."
I learned something.
The ends justify the means, _as long as it is for the good of the State_.
Waaaaaay to many Machiavellian-esque dudes missed the memo on that one when they quoted crafty ol' Niccolo.
When examining the true meaning of the Prince, it's important to look into his other works - Machiavelli has a very strong habit of ...bending... the facts of history to suit his biases.
What one comes away with when looking at his other works is that he was a big fan of the Roman Republic. He saw the Italy of his time as a fallen nation in need of renewal. The Prince was his guidebook of how to begin that renewal.
The core idea of The Prince is his view of how to form a disparate group of independent regions into a single nation - much of the book is devoted to issues of conquest and retention of conquered lands for that very reason. If his ideas are correct, a ruler of his time enacting the concepts found in The Prince would have built a stable and sustainable realm within Italy. Depending on his "fortune" (another key aspect is the "fortune" and "virtue" aspect - The Prince teaches a ruler how to create a stable realm and capitalize on opportunities, which he labels as virtuous; those opportunities available to be capitalized upon are what he called fortune), he may even have founded an Italy-spanning Kingdom comparable to pre-republic Rome.
While this doesn't inherently lead to a new Roman Republic, it can be argued that he felt that this was all that might be achieved within a generation. After all, the Kingdom of Rome existed for more than 2 centuries before developing into the Republic he dreamed of. In The Prince he speaks of subsequent rulers having a much easier time than fresh conquerors and their direct descendents, because by the time the 3rd generation of "Princes" arrives, the people of the realm think of that realm as a cohesive whole, and the longer that goes on, the more thoroughly the people of the country will believe in that country being unified. (Britain is a contraindication of this, though that could be because of the decision to keep the old labels for Wales, Scotland and Ireland - I've never heard of a UK citizen claiming to be from Sussex or Wessex or Kent or any of the other Anglo Saxon kingdoms within England...well, except when indicating the city they live in.)
It's entirely possible he felt that the rise of the new Roman Republic would be a natural consequence of the existence of a Roman Kingdom, given enough time - after all, it had happened 100% of the time in prior cases of Italy being united under a single Kingdom. Or it's possible he felt that trying to suggest to some "Prince" that he should form a large and stable kingdom in Italy so that his descendants could lose power to a Republican council of some form would lead to his ideas being disregarded by said "Prince." My guess would be the latter - I doubt the average king of that era would be very pleased with the idea of his descendants not being kings of at least equal power.
I will admit, my source for this is largely biased. There's a series of lectures I heard called Machiavelli in Context. (It's available, but a tad expensive.) The entire premise of that lecture is in describing this viewpoint of Machiavelli and his writings. That said, I have read The Prince, both before and after listening to this lecture series, and the ideas espoused within make a lot of sense and match up nicely with the book.
Don't think that Clay Fighters sound clip slipped past me!
I'd really like to see an episode on Michel Foucault!
I'm not sure if I made the description accurate at the time, but when I first lead of Machiavelli in grade school my initial reaction was equating him with the likes of Voldemort. However, there's since been a lot of discussion among fans, and I was wondering if it still holds true; or, why not?
Wisecrack is getting me through intro to political theory
I feel like this topic needs another video. This video is well done and well researched, being an introduction for and bringing some context to a popular thought and sentiment in modern philosophy and fiction, but I think that the topic needs to be broadened. After all, being ultimately feared over being loved wasn't what he was actually arguing, and I do honestly think that there is some value in the 'it is better to be both,' argument. It would also be cool to pose a counter argument to the fear/love idea. But as it stands... Just... Personally, when people say that The Prince argues that it is better to be feared than loved, but then don't immediately provide the larger context nor any of his other arguments, it just slightly irks me because it feels like people are being misinformed, and getting the wrong idea of what he was actually arguing. I understand why you decided to tackle this topic in the way that you did. I just find it somewhat disappointing that you had to make it so narrow.
Scirocco made a cameo. :P
1:23- I think u misunderstood wat the Prince was getting at. It didn't state that gaining power was the end in and of itself. It stated that maintaining political peace and security was the end.
Hetalia made a reference to Machiavelli as the only thing good in Italy besides food.
Well, that's certainly one facet of Machiavelli's writing. But I think if you're gonna talk about Machiavelli, you should at least mention the work that might not be as recognized, but Machiavelli was most proud of: The "Discorsi" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourses_on_Livy).
I find it especially important since it makes it obvious that the methods in "The Prince" - be they satirical or not - are not those Machavelli wishes to embrace, spending a good deal of time discussing the "health of a government" and how it can be corrupte from within, or how one can act to prevent such corruption.
I dunno, just something to consider for y'all.
I like the inclusion of Tupac. He was a fan. lol
Has any one noticed that the video is talking about the massacre in Beijing on june the 4th 1989?
Force will be met with Force
Love will be met with Love
This is inevitable.
Si pudieran subtitular al español estos videos sería genial!
Ya esta subtitulado al español :D
You need to do David Hume at some point
"Whenever the majority of men are not deprived of their property or honor, they live contentedly" -- Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince; Page 79 (from my own copy)
Do defend your property rights is Machiavellian then. This does simplify it more than other ones I have seen, but not bad. Heredity some times, well my family were counts in Hungary till communism, and that sense of superiority and title I think exists still in my own genetic memory, but I suppose that would be more for Jung's Animus. It is true some bastards win, a lot of the time, especially in popular votes rather than severed regional votes. You are not as likely to get a Coolidge or Reagan in Russia.
Machiavelli was seen as an early forerunner to the belief in "checks and balances", and was imprisoned for political dissent. The quote: "The Ends Justify The Means" is from a 17th century Protestant translation, designed mostly to make the Catholic Church look bad (Niccolo was Italian, Old Nick soon became English vernacular for The Devil.) His actual work was far more nuanced, complicated, and satirical. Honestly, this video dumbs it down so much that it's really not worth the time, except if it leads tangentially to the viewer doing their own research and finding the correct version.
Wait, "Old Nick" was slang for The Devil? What does that say about "Old 'St.' Nick"?
Machiavelli the don. The boss of all bosses.
If you have four people who want to drive in a car together, how would you decide who drives?
My first guess would be to vote.
But if you know the person who was voted can't drive at all (puts everyone at danger), whereas you can drive well - if think it is rational to try to get behind the steering wheel even with force. In general that wouldn't be possible because you might have to fight three people.
But this doesn't mean that dictatorship is better than democracy: If someone else tries to pull the driver you voted for, away from the steering wheel, you should prevent that.
And it also doesn't mean that you should try to drive, if you know you are a bad driver.
DO ALAN WATTS PLEASE
AND/OR JOSEPH CAMPBELL'S THE HERO'S JOURNEY
They didn't get to be where they are by following the golden rule
Machiavelli sure sounds like a pleasant guy!
Heyyyy shout out to Zeta Gundam
Why not do both, that's how religion works!
Preparing for angry comments in 5, 4...
its sad how no one replied to you
+madinsomaniac Methinks it's rather funny.
+John Porteous Except here's the thing. That was exactly what Machiavelli was arguing for.
The actual quote from The Prince says that in the question of being feared or loved, it is better to be BOTH. However, if you cannot be both it is better to be feared than loved.
I don't remember if he said anything about religion in this matter, but no matter what your religion, the fact that many churches have manipulated their followers through using a combination of fear and love cannot be denied. After all, you get others to follow your faith by offering community, help, kindness, or salvation, but then can manipulate them by telling them that if they don't do what you say, that they will not be able to obtain these things and then proceed to ostracize them for not following your commands.
This is indoctrination. This is a real thing that some religions and cults do. This is a reason why some people will drink poison, commit suicide, attack others, lead lynchings, and do acts of terrorism for their religion. So while you wrote this to be controversial, you are actually correct in your analysis.
Religions can be very VERY Machiavellian. And this is why you need to be careful in your beliefs.
Machiavelli said religion could be beneficial in politics as a means of winning over the populace. He noted how influence in the Vatican helped some leaders achieve their goals.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggghhhhhh!!!!!!!..........
Love desires what is best for ALL whilst fear keeps people in an everlasting state of Dread and Subjectivity, which sounds like Fascism. Shakespeare said
"There is no such thing as good or evil, only the interpretation thereof "
He doesn't think good guys finish last. He thinks good guys are more vulnerable to losing what they have and less likely to gain it. His good guy example is mostly just Marcus Aurelius who he notes probably just got lucky being with that attitude.
He says being feared is preferable as in it is more consistent in giving you the result you want, but not the only path. If you can be loved you should not pursue fear for the sake of it. Then you're just asking for needless trouble. He thinks love is stronger, but last for a shorter time than respect.
Also Machiaveli is not at all particularly against hereditary rule at all. He doesn't see it as a good in of itself as some did. He would rather have hereditary rule by powerful leaders who do not exercise absolute power and rely on well paid, highly depended on the ruler advisors. Coincidentally finding himself to be someone advising a current strong ruler of his period.
Machiavelli can be blamed more for advocating chain reactions to nearby conflict that could turn to world wars if everyone involved thought his way. If there's a conflict nearby and there is something to gain from taking a side you should always take a side. Two world wars after that mindset might still exist unchanged.
His way of thinking puts the cart before the horse. Stability above all else. Peace at the cost of anything, likely everything. There is no war in North Korea right now. It's quite peaceful. Not only is the government there not hated, by some it is even loved and feared at the same time.
funny that you bring up Tupac at the end, considering he went under the name makaveli in the later stages of his career
Evil will always triumph because good is dumb - Dark Helmet, Spaceballs :)
What about vampire royalty and demon princess and or princesses?
You know what annoyed me more than the (excellent, btw) things some people have commented? That this doesn't seem to take into consideration the "discorsi", which is a much more important and unambiguous book to understand Machiavellian thought.
This was not a particularly good video.
Wisecrack is currently the most awesome UA-cam channel. Everyone subscribe!
Is it better to be feared or loved? Is it too much to ask for both?
112steinway Aiming for both is what The Prince is ACTUALLY suggests. It's just more that it says if you have to choose, prioritize fear of crossing you instead being liked by everybody. Also, it does make clear you should aim to never be hated too, don't go too far in fear.
+112steinway I want people to be afraid of how much they love me.
The book is not about who Machiavelli was, it is about what he wrote. I was hoping for a walkthrough of Machiavelli's life...
Machiavelli: Chanakya of italy
Does this mean 2pac is still alive?
No
No
Yes
Yall should try Emile Durkheim
Makaveli in here, Don Killuminati...
All through your body, it blows like a 12 gauge shotty
Chris Christie 2016!
Ya I've heard the same especially cause the family he was writing about kinda hated him and likewise. It seems a lot more like a political satire.
Ahhhh paptimus noo
Trumpiavelli?
+BeatOfTheDead More like Ted Cruz really.
Hillary Clinton, more like
No assassin creed : Brotherhood reference?
Given the title, I was really hoping this would contrast The Prince, where Machiavelli was trying to get brought back into Medici's good graces, with Discourses, where he shows his true (and decidedly less cycnical) colors. I'm rather disappointed =(
No mention of how The Prince was a satire?
I could only think in one guy: Frank Underwood
My boi pac lls and I'm go try and read the price thanks vid was on point lls