Wikipedia defines “The Prince” as a 16th-century political treatise written by Italian diplomat and political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli as an instruction guide for new princes and royals.
I have been (re)reading it and it’s just as valid today as it was 500 years ago. In the sense that history may not repeat, but it rhymes, I find myself mentally changing the names to contemporary actors to see how they sound. Some stories sound pretty darn familiar.
As in the Bible, the game of chess, William Shakespeare, acupuncture and the atlatl, anything that stays popular for hundreds of years probably is something worthwhile to learn about.
One main takeaway I recall; the best way to motivate people is by using fear.
Reinforcement can be
a) either positive or negative
b) either consistent or intermittent
Behavioral research found that the most effective type is intermittent positive (which explains why a lot of romantic relationships gone on past their due date).
All three dark triad traits are conceptually distinct although empirical evidence shows them to be overlapping. They are associated with a callous–manipulative interpersonal style.
Narcissism is characterized by grandiosity, pride, egotism, and a lack of empathy.
Machiavellianism is characterized by manipulation and exploitation of others, an absence of morality, unemotional callousness, and a higher level of self-interest.
Psychopathy is characterized by continuous antisocial behavior, impulsivity, selfishness, callous and unemotional traits (CU), and remorselessness.
Machiavellianism is characterized by manipulation and exploitation of others, an absence of morality, unemotional callousness, and a higher level of self-interest.
Machiavellianism is deeply rooted in reality. I have read the book many times, first as a college assignment and later looking for the evils people attribute to it. I have yet to find those evils. The essence of the book is to teach a Prince how to govern successfully. Cruelty does not lead to success. Realism does.
Of course, for Utopians Machiavelli is the Devil himself but they have only themselves to blame for their lack of realism.
Machiavelli was crucial to the coming of what is often called the enlightenment! He was a remarkably clear thinking guy living at the beginning of the Renaissance when the Medicis and their friends and enemies were lying and betraying and pretending to innocence, and he saw that what was really needed to clear away our cobwebs of pseudothoughts (in the West mostly superstitious and pietistic and mumblymouthed pseudo-christianity).
The ice water worked. Crucial thinkers greatly benefitted from Nicolo’s clarity, and his ferocious destruction of delusional goodness, not for the triumph of evil, but for the education and forearming of decency and kindness.
The Enlightenment angle is very interesting, better historical context.
A better historical context is Florence/Lorenzo the Magnificent/ The Renaissance. Machiavelli is first a statesman/citizen of Florence. I don’t know when he first had the idea to begin writing the treatise, but Machiavelli makes it clear that the persons that he attempts to dedicate the treatise to keep dying before he can get it done. Machiavelli had originally dedicated The Prince to Giuliano de Medici, one of Lorenzo the Magnificent’s sons, but Giuliano died. The Prince is finally dedicated to Lorenzo di Piero de’ Medici. The point of the dedication? The dedication is a plan to get into the good graces of the de Medici family, more specifically the de Medici in power who might bring him back into a position of government.
The dedication is a plan to get into the good graces of the de Medici family, more specifically the de Medici in power who might bring him back into a position of government.
As I understand it, patronage was the way of life back then.
Michelangelo’s greatest patron, Pope Julius II
Johann Sebastian Bach’s patron and friend, Prince Leopold
George Frideric Handel’s important patron, the Duke of Chandos
First, I would submit that Michelangelo’s greatest patron was instead Lorenzo de Medici.
Second, I wasn’t intending to depreciate Machiavelli. The Prince was in part intended to advise on stability. Machiavelli’s focus was the stability of government in Florence . It is often described (The Prince) as a cynical, inhumane treatise on civil society. But in fact this has been the approach of American foreign policy for over a century i.e., Egypt. It is better to have a strong stable tyrant than the Muslim brotherhood according to US politics. vis-à-vis Machiavelli’s Florence, It is better to have Lorenzo de Medici than another Savanorola. Lorenzo had died, and his replacements didn’t seem to grasp the importance of stability.
If I may grossly oversimplify, you’re saying that The Prince is basically Machiavelli sucking up to the people in power in an attempt to share in that power? That it is telling the Medici family what they want to hear?