Feb 14
Lessons from Machiavelli
Those of you who have known me over the years are aware that I’m no scholar. My schooling is slight, and my exposure to great works of history is small–but growing slowly. Over the last year in particular, my hunger for understanding history and ancient wisdom has been insatiable. Nothing is better than reading something that broadens my understand of life and living.
It was in this quest, that I picked up “The Prince” by Machiavelli a few weeks ago. What was it about this sixteenth century man that has caused an entire mentality to be named after him? What does it mean when someone is called “Machiavellian”, and is it a bad thing?
The first quote that grabbed me was actually Machiavelli quoting Dante: “Knowledge doth come of learning well retained, Unfruitful else.” To me that said that all the reading in the world is worthless, if you don’t take the time to ponder it and apply it to yourself. So what kind of wisdom did I get from “The Prince” that I wanted to retain?
Machiavelli on Self Reliance
- He who has relied least on fortune is established the strongest. In other words, make your own luck. My blog on Ludlum’s “Ambler Warning” talked a little about his discourse on probability. Thinking you’re “unlucky” is more a misunderstanding of how the laws of probability work than anything. Sure there are a few people who “get a lucky break”, but those who are truly successful became so through determination, and the force of their own will.
- David offered himself to Saul to fight with Goliath, the Philistine champion, and, to give him courage, Saul armed him with his own weapons; which David rejected as soon as he had them on his back, saying he could make no use of them, and that he wished to meet the enemy with his sling and knife. In conclusion, the arms of others either fall from your back, or they weigh you down, or the bind you fast. Each of us has been blessed by God with talents–mental weapons and armor–which make us uniquely able to deal with the life we’ve been given. To be truly successful as a person, and particularly as a leader of the people around you, it’s necessary to understand your own strengths and to use them to the best of your ability. Understand what makes you uniquely you, and become proficient in life’s weapons that you know. Relying on “the arms of others” will leave you defenseless, or will lock you into impossible situations with no way out.
- Further than this, how extraordinarily the ways of God have been manifested beyond example: the sea is divided, a cloud has led the way, the rock has poured forth water, it has rained manna, everything has contributed to your greatness; you ought to do the rest. God is not willing to do everything, and thus take away our free will and that share of glory which belongs to us. As a Christian myself, I have a strong faith in God. I do believe that “God will provide.” However, I also believe just as strongly what Machiavelli is saying here. Faith is no substitute for action. If we have the capability to do something for ourselves, I believe God requires us to do so. Anything less would leave us as weak infants, unable to deal with the stresses that comes with simply existing.
Machiavelli on Decision Making
- A wise man ought always to follow the paths beaten by great men, and to imitate those who have been supreme, so that if his ability does not equal theirs, at least it will savour of it. When trying to choose directions in your life or career, take the time to look at the successful people who did it before you. Study them, and if nothing else, imitate them. There’s a reason they were successful. By learning the choices they made, you may save yourself some of the pain they experienced at the onset of their journey.
- He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation. Be realistic in choosing your course. Idealism is a nice concept, but in life can be disastrous when not coupled with reality. That doesn’t mean you let life dictate your decisions for you, but it does mean you should give careful consideration as to whether what “ought to be done” in a situation actually makes sense. A political example could be communism, which in theory is a compassionate course, but in reality, when human ambition is introduced, becomes a collective dictatorship.
- It is found in ordinary affairs that one never seeks to avoid one trouble without running into another; but prudence consists in knowing how to distinguish the character of troubles, and for choice to take the lesser of evil. Be aware of hardships that may result from your decisions, but don’t be controlled by them. Making some choices may be painful, but always taking the easy route will eventually land you in more trouble than you started with.
Machiavelli on Liberalism
- Therefore, any one wishing to maintain among men the name of liberal is obliged to avoid no attribute of magnificence; so that a prince thus inclined will consume in such acts all his property, and will be compelled in the end, if he wish to maintain the name of liberal, to unduly weigh down his people, and tax them, and do everything he can to get money. I found it interesting that a philosopher from the 1500’s understood that liberal leadership, when followed to its ultimate result, will always end in higher taxes and oppression. In everyday life, a person without charity is heartless. There are always times through life, when someone needs a hand up. Where it goes awry is when a person is trying to establish an image of being liberal. When you give, check your motivation. If it’s to impress (as is often the case in government), it will be unsustainable.
- If he is wise, he ought not to fear the reputation of being mean, for in time he will come to be more considered than if liberal, seeing that with his economy his revenues are enough, that he can defend himself against all attacks, and is able to engage in enterprises without burdening his people; thus it comes to pass that he exercises liberality towards all from whom he does not take, who are numberless, and meanness towards them to whom he does not give, who are few. In other words, sometimes you just need to say “no.” People may consider you to be a tight- wad or insensitive, but the only way to be able to sustain long-term charity, is to be sure you remain in a position to help.
- And there is nothing that wastes so rapidly as liberality, for even whilst you exercise it you lose the power to do so, and so become either poor or despised, or else, in avoiding poverty, rapacious and hated. Perhaps Washington, so intent on their image of compassion and liberality, should consider this. There’s a time for everything, but any thing without balance, no matter how good, will end in disaster.
I understand now, how “The Prince” has survived for over five hundred years. I didn’t agree with many of Machiavelli’s perspectives, but overall, I think there was a lot to learn from him, and I hope after reading this, that you will too.
What do you think? Your thoughts and comments are welcome.
17 responses so far Personal, Thoughts and Meanderings
I think I’d like to read that book, after your review. Thanks for sharing.
My buddy Bill left a comment on Facebook that I felt added an important context to this article. I wanted to add my response to him here.
Bill, I loved your first comment too, and agree with you. Machiavelli’s doctrine of “the end justifies the means” I have a large problem with. I do believe that truth is definitely absolute.
There were also problems I had with some of the conclusions that Ayn Rand came to with her philosophy, in particular her conclusion that there was no God.
What I’m enjoying about my “quest” right now is the finding of truths in the various branches of philosphy, and deciding where their logical conclusion takes ME. Not everything they say is correct, but I also don’t throw out the good with the bad.
A perfect example is that Ayn Rand rather than making me an athiest, actually solidified my belief in God that much stronger. Her argument of “how could you look at the engine of a locomotive and think that it wouldn’t exist without a creator” was the most compelling argument I’ve seen FOR the existence of God.
Ayn Rand says “There is no contradiction. When there is one, check your premise.” In that case she made me check my premise, and in doing so I came to a different conclusion than she did.
Many things that Machiavelli said were definitely dangerous and in my opinion dead wrong. But in looking at his work, I had to think where I stand myself, and in that, I think he was successful.
Going to add this comment onto the blog, because I think it’s pertinent. Thanks, bro!
My wife never liked “The Prince” very much, as she felt he talked around in circles (and was forced to follow along via schoolwork >< )
However, in reading your very capable and well-reasoned summary, I have to admit a very strong curiosity to be sated directly. Is he reasonable about liberality? I often find that those who speak in terms of over-arching labels tend to align themselves with the opposite label. Does he oppose a giving mindset at all lengths, or would he say there is a time and a place to be a bit liberal?
A professor of mine in college explained to me one day why he believed it was unreasonable to look for conservatives in an academic setting – he mentioned that the point of college from his eyes was to progress, something that couldn't be achieved by holding on to old ways. He said to be liberal was to progress, to give all you have…a nice-sounding sentiment, but I often wondered how he justified his cumulative "progress" if he wasn't allowed to keep the old along with the new.
At the same time, extreme conservation can be an inundation of fear, itself. I suppose this is why I disdain the use of such labels. I can see how they'd be necessary to keep a dialogue going for generations, but an unfortunate side-effect is the polarization of people. I wonder, sometimes, if that's more damage than it repairs in the way of misunderstanding.
Any road, I appreciate your analysis of this work. It looks like a definite bear to sort out, at times.
Thanks for the comment, Jon. I think your point about labels and extremes applies to any school of thought, really. In most cases, a healthy perspective takes portions from each viewpoint. There are times when not giving someone a hand would be heartless, so a little liberality is always in order. But taken to the extreme, liberalism becomes just as damaging to society as extreme conservatism in the end.
Where I would have do disagree with your professor, though, is that I don’t believe that liberalism is synonomous with progress. People tend to be more resourceful overall, I think, when they’re self reliant. How does the saying go, “Necessity is the mother of invention”?
With no resistance, a muscle remains weak. In my opinion, leadership that creates dependency is self-serving and ends in a weak society unable to sustain itself.
I think Machiavelli’s point on liberalism was related to the leader’s reason for liberality, and is a call not for an absence of liberalism, but for a common sense approach in its application.
Great points you’ve made. I’d be interested what you think after you sate your curiosity
.
Have you read “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand?
I haven’t read it yet, no. My brother got it for school and I plan on stealing it from him at some point for a short while. When I was in school, I didn’t really read…I had a disdain, mostly arrogant, for the opinions of others, so I didn’t feel the need to read them.
I still don’t really take to jargonic conversation very easily, but I suppose I learned to change at a point when I realized that it would be rather hypocritical and foolish to expect others to read me if I couldn’t find it within myself to read them, as well.
I have, because of this post, done a little research about what it represents, and objectivism on the whole. It turns out that there is a supposed difference of emphasis between objectivism and atheism, but it seems to me as if objectivism is really only a portion of atheism. It’s not really interested in God as a subject; in fact, from what I’ve been able to glean, it doesn’t really concern itself with a before and after life circumstance at all.
This causes me to regard it rather derisively, as even within the bounds of existence in this world, there is no pattern of experience that simply has a begin and an end with no precursor or subsequent transition. Experience, rather, is devoid of an absolute beginning and an end, which makes it a rather poor measuring stick for predicating overall philosophy, especially in determining whether life is objective or subjective.
It seems to me, in my rudimentary knowledge of the subject, that logic cannot follow an argument which cuts off its own agency. If life is not subjective, then one is not allowed to have an opinion in the first place, as there is no link between the individual and life. If it is subjective, then anyone can say anything they like and justify it with experience. This sounds eerily like most of the garbage I had to sift through and deal with in my old philosophy and ethics classes, which makes it necessarily suspect.
Sorry for the essay – I have a tendency to trip among the rambles. ><
/hugs
The "Good" Doctor
My recommendation would be that if you are diving into objectivism in order to understand where they’re coming from, you really have to read Atlas Shrugged. Trying to understand the philosophy without it is like trying to understand Christianity without picking up the Bible. Other people’s perspectives on the topic may or may not match with it’s reality.
There is much in objectivism that to me is an absolutely logical conclusion. Once place where I drift from them, though, as I said before, is related to the conclusion that leads them to believe there is no God. To me that’s a contradiction in philosophy, and means that somewhere along the way they’re jumping a rail, if what they say is true and there is no contradiction in life.
One thing I *would* agree with them on, though, is that there are a whole lot of “mystics” (as Ayn Rand calls most spiritual leaders) out there that are making a comfortable living off the business of Christianity. That appalls me, but doesn’t mean that *all* Christian leaders are like that.
At any rate, great discussion, I’m very glad you found me.
Hey Steve!
As you know, I’m no scholar either. Besides a Philosophy 101 class, most of what I know about the subject came from reading, thinking, and discussing. I’m not a writer either, and hope you don’t find my abuse of the English language too much of a distraction. Writing is actually something that would compliment the reading, thinking, and discussing process.
Anyway, a critical study of philosophy should probably begin with Aristotle and Plato, since they asked almost all the basic questions in the simplest terms. From them you either go one way or the other. Also, be careful not to read philosophers based on what you think you already believe or know, or you may find burning flaws and contradictions in your logic when looked at on more simplified levels.
For instance, I will say that Objectivism and Christianity cannot be reconciled, because they are opposing views!! One is based on a system of ‘god as the Truth’, the other on ‘man as Truth’ (his best interest as an individual). Objectivism creates a new moral compass, outside the realm of God or religion, by which one can live their life, based on rational thinking. It makes sense, then, for A. Rand to have been an atheist – it’s part of the philosophic heritage she came from. Years after she died, I think Nathaniel Brandon was correct in determining that it is often a persons poor self-esteem that sabotages “doing what’s best for yourself”.
I’m not filling in all the blanks here, so hope it makes sense. I did enjoy your observations on Machiavelli; keep it up! Writing should really help in hashing out the ideas in your own mind. As a programmer and thinker, you should have no trouble getting your head around the basic ideas of philosophy. It’s too bad that it asks questions a lot better then it answers them..
peace
bill
Steve, you said;
“What I’m enjoying about my “quest” right now is the finding of truths in the various branches of philosphy, and deciding where their logical conclusion takes ME. Not everything they say is correct, but I also don’t throw out the good with the bad.”
That’s great! An honest quest for truth is noblest thing a person can do.
In my expeirience, most people don’t really give a shit.
It’s part of my problem with fiction, especially in the fantasy department.
That is not an attack btw, I know I can sometimes be closed minded like everyone else.
On the subject of Absolute vs Relative. What I see you really saying in the above quote is that truth isn’t absolute, but is what YOU determine it to be.
So fire away hehe
Sorry, I’ve been out of it for the last week, ended up sick.
I enjoyed your comments a lot, they made me think even more, which is the whole point, right?
So if there are absolute truths in the world, but the only way to realize them is through each individual’s perception, does that mean that they’re no longer absolute?
Another large question comes to mind when mulling over all of this. Is it not fact that something that is true today may not be true tomorrow? For example, it is true that today is March 1st. Tomorrow that will be a lie. In that case, then, while there are truths in life that are absolute, there also must be truths that truly are relative.
So all of that is to say, yes. I do believe that there are absolutes in the world. But I also believe that there are relatives in the world. What it comes down to is trying to live honestly, and to continually adjust course keeping the things you know are absolute in your sights, while keeping yourself in line with the things that are not.
Wow, confusing, I hope I answered that coherently?
I’m in the process of reading “The Fountainhead” right now. I have a feeling when I’m done with that one that this discussion will become even more pertinent. I look forward to all of your perspectives on that when I get to it.
What is truth (absolute) and how can we know the truth? Can we know it?
Truth must be things that are true for everyone, otherwise it wouldn’t be the truth. An absolute must be universal.
I know we are taking a step back, but I think it will be helpful to start at a basic question which removes a lot of the complication and opinion (at least for me).
“So if there are absolute truths in the world, but the only way to realize them is through each individual’s perception, does that mean that they’re no longer absolute?
Another large question comes to mind when mulling over all of this. Is it not fact that something that is true today may not be true tomorrow? For example, it is true that today is March 1st. Tomorrow that will be a lie. In that case, then, while there are truths in life that are absolute, there also must be truths that truly are relative.
”
Objective truth, for me, would be neither of these.
Certainly if each individual comes up with thier own theory of truth (which they do) there is no way to determine what’s truth and what’s not. That’s about as subjective as it gets.
As far as March 1st, this is only a concept, it’s not real, but exists only in the mind (ie, you can’t sense March 1st) so this also is subjective. it might be March 1st on our calander, and some other thing on a foreign calendar.
But there is objective truth i belive, just not in these examples.
So, that’s a pretty big clue as to where I stand on the question “what is truth?”
“So all of that is to say, yes. I do believe that there are absolutes in the world. But I also believe that there are relatives in the world. What it comes down to is trying to live honestly, and to continually adjust course keeping the things you know are absolute in your sights, while keeping yourself in line with the things that are not.”
You have the cart before the horse!
i really wish there was the option to edit posts here!
in the first part of my last message all I am saying is that I agree the examples you gave are both subjective.
“So if there are absolute truths in the world, but the only way to realize them is through each individual’s perception, does that mean that they’re no longer absolute?”
if each individuals perception of something is different, even opposite, how can it be absolute? It would be a contradiction.
I had an Ethics course in college, which contained a number of particularly heated arguments between my professor and I about absolute and relative truth. His very favored phrase toward the end of most of these was “reasonable people would disagree.”
Basically, that is a statement suggesting that, no matter what your views are, someone else can find a reason not to believe that way, which is definitely a valid point. However, I would re-qualify its validity through the motives of such a statement, for it is not quite as noble and clever as that particular man would have liked to think.
One such argument involved the characteristics of existence pertaining to a physical wall. He offered the argument that I could declare that wall to be “white” only up until the point where someone turned out the lights in the room. Then, that wall would be “black,” if perceivable at all.
I rebutted by noting that his argument was solely based upon the perception of the room through a static point of view. Thus, the wall may be “black” or “white” based upon differing variables; however, I assured him that, if he were to walk 20 feet in any direction, he would nevertheless smash into the wall. The current properties of its color would do nothing to ease his subsequent pain.
Ergo, I suggested that he worried far too much about situations he could not change (the wall), and too little about that which he could (the consequences of his own actions). At this point, he armed his choice “fire-and-forget” phrase, and I left.
Argument based on the pretense of uncertainty is akin to wielding a sheathed sword. Doing so not only makes no point, but also relies solely on a defensive stance for lack of keenness in form. If one doesn’t have an answer that may be applied to our world, he/she has no weight with which to change it.
Even to those who rely upon contradiction to represent their wit, changing the world is their idealistic goal. They will simply watch it change, however. Standing in one spot, the lights will go on and off, day in and day out. They will be awfully proud of what they see, and they will never move an inch, living within the bounds of an object; smaller than life, they put it together as a jigsaw puzzle from pieces of their unreconciled past.
Jon, There is much wisdom in that last comment, and I think an eloquent end to a fantastic discussion. I really look forward to the next one.
“I had an Ethics course in college, which contained a number of particularly heated arguments between my professor and I about absolute and relative truth. His very favored phrase toward the end of most of these was “reasonable people would disagree.”
Basically, that is a statement suggesting that, no matter what your views are, someone else can find a reason not to believe that way, which is definitely a valid point. However, I would re-qualify its validity through the motives of such a statement, for it is not quite as noble and clever as that particular man would have liked to think.
One such argument involved the characteristics of existence pertaining to a physical wall. He offered the argument that I could declare that wall to be “white” only up until the point where someone turned out the lights in the room. Then, that wall would be “black,” if perceivable at all.
I rebutted by noting that his argument was solely based upon the perception of the room through a static point of view. Thus, the wall may be “black” or “white” based upon differing variables; however, I assured him that, if he were to walk 20 feet in any direction, he would nevertheless smash into the wall. The current properties of its color would do nothing to ease his subsequent pain.
Ergo, I suggested that he worried far too much about situations he could not change (the wall), and too little about that which he could (the consequences of his own actions). At this point, he armed his choice “fire-and-forget” phrase, and I left.”
>> So your an empiricist, me too.
“Argument based on the pretense of uncertainty is akin to wielding a sheathed sword. Doing so not only makes no point, but also relies solely on a defensive stance for lack of keenness in form. If one doesn’t have an answer that may be applied to our world, he/she has no weight with which to change it. ”
>> Argument based on the pretense of uncertainty is the philisopical tradition, which began with Sorcratic method. Your statement that it “relies solely on a defensive stance for lack of keeness in form” is to miss the point. Of course I have answers that apply to the real world, just because it begins in the abstract does not mean it has no exetential value.
“Even to those who rely upon contradiction to represent their wit, changing the world is their idealistic goal. They will simply watch it change, however. Standing in one spot, the lights will go on and off, day in and day out. They will be awfully proud of what they see, and they will never move an inch, living within the bounds of an object; smaller than life, they put it together as a jigsaw puzzle from pieces of their unreconciled past.”
>> The contradiction i used was to stimulate thought. Your flowery reaction to it speaks volumes.
So to demonstrate i’m not relying upon contradiction to represent my wit, I will expoiund on the following “contradiction” i used.
“if each individuals perception of something is different, even opposite, how can it be absolute? It would be a contradiction”
Ok, so in reality, we know that individuals perception of things is indeed different, even oppisite. So does that mean something that is that is absolute is now subjective, because everyone has a differing opinion on it? No – the object is still the object, and is independant of anyones view of it. We also know that individuals perception of things are often distorted from what we know is true (the earth looks flat, but we know it is round). So I think most would agree that the mind and our thoughts are subject to error.
The question then becomes “If the mind has the capacity for error, how can we know error from truth? – or – “What is truth?”
I hope this sheds some light on where I am coming from. Over the years I have thought about these things, and come up with my own ideas. But for me to just keep going through my thinking process like I did above would be a waste of time for anyone who wanted to think for themselves. So Steve, if you still have the will, we can try this.
If the mind has the capacity for error, how can we know error from truth?