Machiavelli introduced and explored justifications for his driving political philosophy, which has dominated politics for the past 500 years. I have always been intrigued by the fact that much of our culture and historical determinacy was driven and authored by people not much older than you. When you consider life expectancy and the concept of hereditary rule, teenagers drove much of our collective history (and culture). And those were mostly boys. Let that sink in and scare you.
Machiavelli was an Italian political advisor who also happened to be a pretty popular satirist. It makes our understanding of his book, The Prince, a little more complex than simply reading and considering his theses. Was he being genuine? Was he applying for a job (basically advising NOT to trust advisers!)? Was he mocking the whole political system in Renaissance Italy? Whatever the truth is, we walk away with these guiding principles/arguments:
- A Prince must be cruel
- Cruelty to insure order
- Better to be feared
- Fear must NOT inspire hatred
- Leaders must be wise and use cruelty sparingly.
- It is a means to an end
- Keep People and Property safe and prosperous.
It kinda reads like a manual for the Dark Side of the Force.
The underlying takeaway will help us explore a topic to be explored in Q2/Q3: Is/was the motivation for US (military) intervention throughout the world beginning in 1898...economic interests, rather than political/national "security" from external threats?
No comments:
Post a Comment