Arts & Photography
Audio CDs
Audiocassettes
Biographies & Memoirs
Business & Investing
Children's Books
Christianity
Comics & Graphic Novels
Computers & Internet
Cooking, Food & Wine
Entertainment
Gay & Lesbian
Health, Mind & Body
History
Home & Garden
Horror
Literature & Fiction
Mystery & Thrillers
Nonfiction
Outdoors & Nature
Parenting & Families
Professional & Technical
Reference
Religion & Spirituality
Romance
Science
Science Fiction & Fantasy
Sports
Teens
Travel
Women's Fiction
|
|
The Prince Cass |
List Price: $24.95
Your Price: $15.72 |
|
|
|
Product Info |
Reviews |
Rating: Summary: Machiavelli is Brilliant. Review: I will not go into a huge 9 page diatribe but will try to summerise this book into main points.
1- People are corrupt, this corruption means that power will always shift and that laws are needed to maintian social cohesion.
2- It is better to be loved & feared, it is better to be feared then loved, it is dangerous to be held in contempt or hatred. People always quote Machiavelli's observation that it is better to be feared then loved but many times they forget to mention the other two statements. You should want to be loved though your first want should be to be feared, but at all times you should aviod hatred and contempt. Machiavelli hooks on to a fact that many world leaders ignore(Like the current US president), hatred and contempt are irrational emotions, being thus they cause behavior that would make people more willing to sacrifice themself to destroy the one they hate. So it is good to be feared but in being hated you give the fearful a means of overcoming their fear.
3- The herditary progression of power is a weakness. When you pass somthing down to your proginy they do not respect it, when your proginy earns something they can maintain it.
4- Power is in the mob. If you wish to maintain power you must appease the mob, religion is a useful tool in this but also realize the mob has needs and wishes that must be addressed.
5- Since the mob is power always appease them over the minority. Yes the minority may hate you but the minority will never oppose you because of the fear of the mob(Shows how our Israelie policies are messed up).
6- The mob are not fools, yes religion and nationalism can dull their minds but eventually they will see through the lie. This is why really the 3 most important points in maintaining power are to appease the mob.
Oh and my favorite Machiavellian statement "Always give freely what is not yours." wealthy people do pray I never become the noble benifactor of the American people.
Rating: Summary: an avid reader Review: The Prince written by Machiavelli, in my opinion, is one of the most famous works on political power, and with good cause. He outlines the basic principles of how to properly govern a kingdom, from whether it is better to fight with native troops to whether it is better to be loved or feared. Despite the book's somewhat negative connotations, the author goes to great lengths to outline why he comes to the conclusions he does. In addition to understanding the book, one must consider the circumstances in which the book was written. Machiavelli's blueprint on monarchical government, while not necessarily applicable in today's world, nevertheless contains many valuable insights pertinent to modern leaders.
So why is Machiavelli's information necessary? After all, the book was written over 400 years ago, in the age of feudalism. Despite its age, Machiavelli's advice is very useful today. One of his best qualities is that he sees people for what they are, not what they should be. While other philosophers concern themselves with how men should act in an ideal situation, Machiavelli realizes that, in reality, men will not act as they should, and so his focus is on how men actually do act.
Of course, not all of Machiavelli's ideas are acceptable in this day and age. Machiavelli states that the people are "weak, stupid, and easily contented." And though he believes popular support to be extremely important, he believes so only because this condition adds to the power of the monarchy. In today's world of democracy, this doesn't really fit. And his admonitions that the prince should use hypocrisy and deceit whenever convenient is a bit hard to swallow. Still, if you really understand what he's trying to convey, it becomes clear that Machiavelli says such unlawful practices should be indulged only when it will benefit the state. In his eyes, the "end should justify the means."
Many of the examples Machiavelli uses are from Roman or medieval times, but I found them still applicable to many situations in modern life. His disdain for mercenary troops boils down to, if you want something done right, do it yourself. He observed during his time, that mercenary troops talked tough in peace, but during actual battles, they often proved unreliable, so he advocated using one's own forces in battles. He also advocated that avoiding battles are bad if it weakens one's tactical position. If avoiding battles allows the enemy to strengthen himself, it is best to engage in war as soon as possible, so long as you are assured of winning. This minimizes your loses in the future. He is also smart enough to realize that it takes intelligence and foresight from the prince, to determine these scenarios, and ultimately the state is run only as effectively as the Prince is intelligent.
Overall, this is a must-read classic for anyone interested in history, business, or politics. It has inspired many of history's most powerful leaders, several of which, it has been said, slept with this book under their pillow, and with good reason. Despite it's age, Machiavelli's arguments and strategies can easily be adopted for use in today's world. Not to mention all the insight it provides for those who question history. My single complaint about the book is that it is sometimes too dense to read casually. While not classifiable as an "intense" read, it falls somewhere between a historical textbook and an instruction manual.
Rating: Summary: A timeless tutorial on the lust for power Review: The Prince has quite a bit of depth, but Machiavelli's advice could be summarized as "Honor your friends, exterminate your enemies." Pretty good advice in general. I recommend reading this book to everyone; let me tell you why.
Alot of Machiavelli's ideas are wonderful, but just as many are inadvisable. He would like to preach a gospel of gaining power at any cost--lying, cheating, stealing, murder--but the examples he cites do more to discredit this philosophy than to support it. It seems like every coniving prince he would like to succeed winds up meeting with disaster at the hands of other conspirators.
On the other hand, all the benevolent advice he gives, like keeping taxes low, encouraging business, and doing justice to the people, ring with truth. The problem is that these things don't build a kingdom for the aspiring emperor, but that is only a problem for aspiring emperors. The rest of us appreciate being thown a bone.
The purpose of the book is to give pragmatic advice to those who desire power. It is a realistic look at what not-so-nice guys can do to finish first. But like I said, take note of the fact that none of the examples in the book stayed on top for long since other not-so-nice guys displaced them the same way.
If you want to play the power game, this book has great insight. I have met many people who apparently consider Machiavelli their guiding light. I would not recommend trying to compete with them unless you understand The Prince. Of course, after reading this book, you may decide to retire from the field of battle. Even if you aren't a megalomaniac, you ought to know what the power-hungry are up to for your own defense. So everyone ought to read The Prince.
Rating: Summary: The book that started the term "Machiavellian" Review: It is an ingenious study of the art of practical politics. The unique thing about this is that it was written by a man who was nothing more than a minor clerk in the government of Florence. The book's success stems from the fact that he made fun of well-known political personages in Government. Then as now people love to hear gossip of well-known people. Because of his rapier wit, Machiavelli's reputation is rather unsavoury, and the term "Machiavellian" is not a complementary term. This book is worth a read though. It's a quick, short book, but Machiavelli covers a lot of territory in it. Now we know where politicians get their rather ambiguous reputation from, since it's apparent that even today people in positions of political power adhere to a lot of the things that Machiavelli wrote about.
Rating: Summary: How to attain and keep political power Review: This is the great groundbreaking handbook of politics. It is the scandalous turning-of- the-tables on Christian morality . It is the great ' realistic' reading of the way rulers attain and keep power. Its prescriptions come out of its accurate description of the way Machiavelli saw the rulers in the divided city- state Italy of his time act. Ruthlessness, cruelty putting the fear of the ruler in his subjects was one basic principle of this. Machiavelli told us that the end justifies the means and that a cruelty now might not simply save one's own skin but might prevent greater cruelty later on. All of this has had tremendous influence on Western political theory and action. One thinks of how even in the late twentieth century the political realism school of Hans Morgenthau had its roots in Machiavelli. One sees too how Neitzsche's revaluation of values, his overthrowing of Christian morality and his focusing on the will to power may be seen as having their source in Machiavelli. Nonetheless with all the desire in the world to understand that Machiavelli was only describing the reality that he saw it might make some sense to ask the question of whether his championing of a kind of immorality did not open and lead to evils he himself did not envisage. In other words once the end justifies the means, and once evil is sanctioned in no matter what the form one can move from a small city- state in Italy to a world- state which oppresses a good share of humanity. In other words it seems to me that it is necessary to ask whether the roots of the modern totalitarian terror state the state of Nazi Germany and of Stalin's Russia do not in some way stem from Machiavelli. If they do then there is a moral judgment to be made about this brilliant thinker. And there is something to be said for the idea that our prescriptions for transforming reality should not simply be based on our sense of how the worst have gained power. Here I wonder if a different kind of reading of reality, one which focused on democratic states and free peoples might lend somewhat different conclusions from those laid out in the Prince. The authors of the Federalist papers certainly had a sense of how man acts in his own self- interest, and yet they were interested in establishing a society in which there would be a maximum of freedom and justice and a minimum of tyranny. Perhaps they and the writers of the Constitution and Jefferson's Declaration of Independance constitute a different vision of how a society can be ruled.
Rating: Summary: An Intriguing View Of Politics... Review: Upon reading Machiavelli's "The Prince," I have came to realize that politics haven't changed much over the years. One can read the book and find that Bush's political career seems to be close to what Machiavelli had written.
Overall, it was quite an interesting read. I liked that it read sort of a manual to being a leader. But overall, I don't know if you could apply such tactics to real life. It is definately a classic and a must read in this day and age.
Rating: Summary: Incredible guide on so many levels. Review: For a book that was written nearly 500 years ago, The Prince still relates to modern conditions and situations, indirectly of course. Although The Prince is adivce on being a prince, it can be interpreted as how to be a powerful, effective and successful leader, administrator, politician, supervisor, or influential person over a group of people/ organization.
The strategies and tactics that Machivelli suggests are indispensable for any of the above mentioned types. I think that nearly everyone can benefit from the knowledge and messages that Machivelli conveys in The Prince.
I think that this book may be too much to absorb for most peopole the first read through. You really need to know your history to understand the many historical allusions that Machiavelli uses to demonstrate his opinions. Luckily for people like me, the author does a great job by assisting people who aren't very familiar with these topics by having a number of footnotes that explain certain events. After The Prince, there is also some excerpts from The Discourses, another piece of work by Machivelli.
I fully reccomend this book and am certain it will be engaging and useful to nearly anyone who reads it.
Rating: Summary: Essay: The Nature of Man as Viewed by Machiavelli and St. Aq Review: Editions Used:
The Prince, translated by Harvey C. Mansfield, University of Chicago Press; 2nd edition (September 1, 1998)
On Law, Morality, and Politics, translated by Richard J. Regan, Hackett Pub Co Inc; 1 edition (April 1, 1988)
The Nature of Man as Viewed by Machiavelli and St. Aquinas
The Prince by Machiavelli and the Summa Theologiae by Saint Thomas Aquinas ostensibly offered differing visions of the nature of men; Machiavelli believed men were naturally selfish and Aquinas believed men naturally strived for the common good. However, a deeper look would reveal that their ideas of personal and common interest match, and furthermore, the unnatural and "immoral" actions supported by Machiavelli resulted from necessities, and hence were allowed by Aquinas.
To Machiavelli, men in nature were "half beast, half man" (M69), and his theory developed specifically in regard to the nature of the prince, their subjects and rivals.
Machiavelli was concerned with the nature of the prince the most. From Oliverroto to the Romans, Machiavelli described the prince as a hungry political animal who advanced his interests in jungles of beasts. He gave approval to the prince's desires for enlargements, writing, "it is a very natural and ordinary thing to desire to acquire, and always, when men do it who can, they will be praised or not blamed." (M14)
To Machiavelli, the prince was also justified in employing harsh and cunning methods against the others who became fearful of him. Among Machiavelli's paragons for rulers was Oliverotto of Fermo, who killed his uncle and "the first men of Fermo" in a backroom (M36), and the Roman emperor Severus, who suppressed his people for the benefits of his soldiers (M78), and also Cesare Borgia, who fooled his people into blaming his minister Remirro for the injustices inflicted on them and then "cut into two pieces" the minister to appease them. Concerning the consequences of these actions, Machiavelli wrote, "So let a prince win and maintain his state: the means will always be judged honorable, and will be praised by everyone." (M71)
Since a prince must know his subjects in order to dominate them, Machiavelli also spent much time discussing the nature of the people in relations to the prince. To Machiavelli, the people were like tall grasses on a windy plateau: they had no ambitions, only wanting "not to be oppressed" (M39); their nature was "variable" (M24), and could be blown from one prince to another "when they find good in the present" (M96); the simple common people were also "taken in by appearance" (M58) and so could be easily fooled (Mchapter 18); however, despite the weakness of each person, the people were powerful as a whole, and a prince must rely on them to achieve glory, because "a prince who founds on the people...will never find himself deceived by them." (M41)
The prince must also consider the nature of his rivals, including other princes, mercenary troops and the lords surrounding him. His rivals were "wicked and do not observe faith with you (him)" (M69), and since they also desired "to command and oppress the people." (M39), the prince must be both "the fox and the lion" (M69) in his battles against them. He must cunningly trap his enemies, and must also be skilled in the art of war (M58), since only "armed prophets conquered". (M24)
To Aquinas, however, human were not animals because "irrationals creatures, however, do not partake thereof (reason) in a rational manner" (T20). Men should be ashamed when they were "compared to senseless beasts and made like to them", because that meant they had refused the grace of heaven and "turned his (their) back on God". (T28)
To Aquinas, the higher goals in life must never be glory or honor. Just like Plato and Aristotle before him, Aquinas said, "perfection of virtue consists chiefly in withdrawing man from undue pleasures, to which, above all, man is inclined." (T57). To Aquinas, since God "is the creator of all things" (T34), and since "man is ordained to an end of eternal happiness which is inproportionate to man's natural faculty" (T23), the ultimate goal of life should be to get invited "to the kingdom of heaven" (T25).
St. Thomas put forth his version of human nature as he treated the question of "Natural Law". To him, central to human nature was reason; he wrote, reason "is the first principle of human acts" (T12). As Aristotle pointed out before, reason was what differentiated men from other animals, and Aquinas believed that from reason arose men's natural striving toward common interest. Aquinas wrote,
"The first principle in practical matters, which are the object of the practical reason, is the last end, and the last end of human life is bliss or happiness, as stated above. Consequently, the law must needs regard principally the relationship to happiness. Moreover, since every part is ordained to the whole as imperfect to perfect, and since a single man is a part of the perfect community, the law must needs regard properly the relationship to universal happiness." (T14)
Aquinas's sanguine outlook that men were brothers with a common happiness to share stood in stark contrast to the bitter picture that Machiavelli drew. Furthermore, not only would Aquinas have rejected the ends of the prince as unnatural, since the prince's methods were not virtuous and unjust, the methods were also unnatural (T146). Inheriting the principles of Aristotle, Aquinas wrote, "justice is a habit whereby a man renders to each one his due by constant and perpetual will" (T145). This principle demanded that one must naturally not take more than he had given, and also that men should never be unfaithful or lie, because by lying one took away from others the information that rightly belonged to others. Machiavelli's shrewd political advices for the prince to "appear all mercy, all faith, all honesty" (M70) was therefore unnatural and detrimental to natural happiness.
Be natural was important, because to Aquinas, although natural reason itself was not salvation, but this road of justice and common good lead men to the divine law, which was "about men in relation to God either in this life or in the life to come". (T87) The "intellectual virtues" gained from reason was the basis for the "moral virtues" (T87) which through the "the revelation of grace" (T25) saved men from "original sin".
Shaking the house of men with ostensibly different concepts about good and bad, God and glory, Machiavelli and Aquinas ostensibly pointed the world in opposing directions. One in a Machiavellian world might expect constant World Wars, while one in Aquinas' world might expect living peacefully and working with others for "common good" as they reserved the energies for eternal happiness in heaven. Nevertheless, despite their differences, Machiavelli and Aquinas had great similarities.
Most importantly, in reality, private interest and common interest bear little differences. To succeed, the prince must give benefits to the people, and for the prince to always succeed, he must always give benefits to the people. The preservation of the regime, which was Machiavelli's central goal, necessarily resulted in the prince's interest matching with the people's. Machiavelli gave the prince his formula for success with the following,
"He should inspire his citizens to follow their pursuits quietly...So that one person does not fear to adorn his possessions for fear that they be taken away from him, and another to open up a trade for fear of taxes. But he should prepare rewards for whoever wants to do these things, and for anyone who thinks up any way of expanding his city or his state." (M91)
From this, Machiavelli clearly believed that it was vital for a successful prince to not just care about his private good, but the interest of every individual, which together made up the common interest of the city. Aquinas supported the same view that the prince had the same interest as the people when he wrote, "common good belongs either to the whole people or to someone who is the vicegerent of the whole people." (T15) Clearly, the ruler or vicegerent could carry out the "common interest" of the people.
Against the above point, one could argue that the people never made the prince their "vicegerent", but according to Aquinas, the people were not to choose their prince, for he said, "the Lord did not leave the choice of a king to the people but reserved this to Himself." (T117) One could still argue that God did not choose Machiavelli's princes either, but according to Saint Augustine, all earthly events happened under God's divine foreknowledge; that meant men like Hiero of Syracuse and Agathocles, who strived to be princes, were princes that God planned for. Machiavelli wrote, "God does not want to do everything, so as not to take free will from us" (M103), but still, free will itself was a gift from God, and so God was always choosing princes.
In the same vein of thought, from Aquinas's arguments, it was also obvious that common interest was only valuable because each person would be benefited as a member of the common pool. He wrote,
"it is necessary for man to live in society with his fellows, because by himself he could not secure those things necessary for life if he would remain in a solitary existence....In a city, however, (which is a complete community), there is as much as suffices for all the necessities of life, yet still much more in a province because of the need for defense and of the mutual aid of allies against the public enemy." (T266)
From the above, one could without doubt see that although Aquinas did not allow for "honor or glory" to be the ends of life, selfishness in itself should not be dismissed as unchristian and unnatural. In fact, Christianity could only be valuable in that it can save one who believed in it, but not anyone else.
Despite common interest, many people might still consider the faithlessness and suppression of prince antithetical to Aquinas's teachings of human nature. But in Aquinas's description of the natural law, he stated that although "certain proper conclusions" of the natural law could not be changed, but "it may be changed in some particular cases of rare occurrence." (T53) Men were naturally reasonable, and reason commanded man to be flexible according to situations. Aquinas gave the example that although normally the gate of a city must be closed, it should be opened for "certain citizens who are defenders of the city" at times of war. (T75) Therefore, it would be wrong to condemn Machiavelli without "consideration of the various circumstances" (T85).
The violence that Machiavelli supported arose from necessity, thus making them "various circumstances". Machiavelli wrote, the prince should "not depart from good, when possible, but know how to enter into evil, when forced by necessity." (M70)
Machiavelli's most appalling example of proper violence regarded the Romans; Machiavelli said the emperors should "escape the hatred of the most powerful class" (M62) and therefore must support the soldiers even at the cost of suppressing the people. However, the emperors did not do this out of their will, but Rome's giant standing army forced them to choose. The alternative of supporting the army was internal war, which was worse for the people.
Aquinas gave full approval to this kinds of actions when he wrote, "if, indeed, there is not an excess of tyranny, it is more profitable to put up with a milder tyranny for the time being than, by opposing the tyrant, to run into many dangers more grievous than the tyranny itself." (T267) And certainly, Machiavelli criticized those Roman emperors, such as Commodus and Antoninus, who went beyond the boundary of necessary and milder tyranny and exercised their "rapacity on the people". (M80) Since these emperors did not comply with common interest, they "fell victim to conspiracy" (M80).
The necessity to act against nature did not last for ever, and Machiavelli wrote that evil should be "done at a stroke, out of the necessity to secure oneself" (M37); When the necessity for severe suppression did not exist, Machiavelli warned that the prince must always "abstain from the property of his citizens and his subjects, and from their women; and if he also needs to proceed against someone's life, he must do it when there is suitable justification and manifest cause for it." (M67)
Machiavelli's support for future happiness at the cost of
one time evil was also supported by Aquinas. The Saint wrote, "it may happen, however, that even a good king, without being tyrant, may take away the sons and make them tribunes and centurions and may take many things from his subjects in order to secure the common weal." (T119) He also wrote "the purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly but gradually" (T68). Aquinas' words were right, any goals took time to achieve, and sometimes, the path toward good might even lead in the direction of evil in order to avoid the greater danger of crossing a deep river or snow-peaked mountains.
When necessities did not exist, the political systems that Machiavelli supported were just and good, and hence natural. In one example that Machiavelli mentioned, after his initial acts, Cesare Borgia "set up a civil court in the middle of the province, with a most excellent president, where each city had its advocate" (M30). Thus, although Cesare Borgia found Romagna "full of robberies, quarrels, and every other kind of insolence" (M29), after his initial harsh measures have been put in place, the citizens "had begun to taste well-being". (M29) In another case, Machiavelli praised the French king for his establishment of a parliament for the interest of the noble and "a third judge" to protect the interest of the people. (M75) Machiavelli also said that in regard to his ministers, the prince must also "become upset when he learns that anyone has any hesitation to speak it (truth) to him." (M95). Aquinas wrote that "rule of one man ought to be what we above all choose", but only feared that the prince might "easily stoop to tyranny" (T267). Here, Machiavelli's ideal monarchies aimed at avoiding tyranny.
After the naturalness of the means and ends of the Machiavellian prince has been discussed, some might still worry that by allowing people to pursue their desires, Machiavelli's world would be filled with constant warfare. However, they should note that Machiavellians' methods would only be useful when existing nations were not benefiting their people and were not armed. Machiavelli mentioned the German principalities that "fear neither him [their emperor] nor any neighboring power, because they are fortified" and because there was "provision for the common people" for a year. (Mchapter 9) He concluded by saying, "thus a prince who has a strong city and does not make himself hated cannot be attacked." (M44) And internally, as long as the prince was not "rapacious and not a usurper of the property and the women of his subjects" (M72), he needed to have little fears of conspiracies. Therefore, Machiavellian wars only rose when there existed deep problems in states, problems the Machiavellian princes must resolve with necessary actions.
As said before, there exist fundamental differences between Aquinas' and Machiavelli's ideas: despite the similarity between selfishness and common interest, Machiavelli's prince's selfish interest lay in the glory he searched, while Aquinas's men's selfish interest lay in the salvation they gained. To Christian, men's salvation through the eternal grace of God was far more important than any practical happenings on earth; but to Machiavelli, it seemed that the salvation of life lay not in heaven but in the glorification of one's deed in the eternal eyes of posterity. However, the God-talk was a part of the divine law, and if one merely compared Aquinas's of human and natural law which supported the common good and allowed for necessities to Machiavelli's support for necessary evils and private interest, it should be clear that both the means and temporal ends of the Machiavellian prince were within Aquinas' boundaries of human nature; they were simply looking at the same human world from different angles.
|
|
|
|