Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

If you had lived around Italy near the 14the century there would have a great Philospher called Machiavellian he is the one who made quates famours as

'



Would you support his ideas, or condemn them like the pope did?

I would've supported his philosophies. It was crucial in Italy to have unity, even if it meant absolutism. It would've been nice to have a more congenial form of government, but to protect Italy from foreign intervention, any form of a central government would have been good.

Of course I would! If it is for the sake and benefit of the State. I do agree with his book The Prince. What matters is the commonwealth of the people. If there is no commonwealth within the state, then there is no order. The state comes first. Is for the sake of civilazation.

I support some of his philosophy (the ends can justify the means). I'd like to see the last one (about being feared) in context, however--I am inclined to disagree with it. It is the duty of the state to protect the quality of life of its citizens, and I don't think having a ruler you fear does this.

yea I support some but not all

Actually, Macchiavelli said "the good end justifies the means..." there is a subtle difference... "good" to Macchiavelli was "That which benefits the greater number of people for the longest time," regardless of any other moral view on the matter, or religious limits... in other words, as Spock would have said, "The needs of the many far outweigh the needs of the few..." even to the extent that if the torture and murder of the minority led to a benefit to the majority, it was right and proper to torture and murder that minority...

But ... and I just know I'm about to sound preachy, but I can't help myself ... is a society that is so morally decayed that they would tollerate the torture and murder of others for their personal gain really "better off" than a society that does not gain the benefits that torture and murder may bring?

No.

I only read the Prince. It would be perfect if I wanna be a dictator but that is not my way of life

Just good for an unprincipled person or agovernor who wants to keep the power over his subdits. " The Prince" The most liked book of Benito Mussolini, it principles have been followed and teached by all the ones who seek power without principles.

As Machiavel wrote: A governor shall be corrupted and false, must lie to the people without moral and general benefits. The primary objectif is to keep the government no mather how. The support of the people should be searched to get the power, but when you got the power, them all the cruelties should be commited at once.

Nicolau Machiavell was a political genius, but amoral. The only majority he protects is itself.

I hope there is no thread to agree with the Borgia too. Should be the next step

"War should be the study of a Prince"
14th century italy was a very volitle situation... merchant kings... yet mach. influenced many tyrants who took his philosophy to heart.

Machiavelli talks pure power politics, not necessarily relevant to modern democracies.

About the love/fear thing. Machiavelli's point was this. If you rule, is it better to be loved or feared? Both help you rule, but on balance it is better to be feared, because people that fear you will do as you say, whereas people who love you will do things they THINK you want, but you may not. He didn't say being loved was bad, just that for control, fear was better. But that was the thing- he was talking of control, on the idea that only a totally controlled state is stable and therefore any good, and again that might not be relevant today.

But either is better than being hated, which will only lead to your overthrow.

It is all pure power without a humanisitc angle, which he was not interested in talking in. It is like his point about hurting people. He says try to avoid hurting people, but if you DO have to hurt someone, make sure you hurt them SO badly that they can never come back to oppose you again (including killing the person or annihilating the group, if necessary), because by hurting someone you create an enemy and you must never allow yourself powerful enemies.

Machiavelli therefore advocates the use of maximum (i.e. dearly) force when you are motivated to act to oppose someone. His logic is impeccable but it is all very harsh.

I agree with what you wrote, except this little part

Still is a nuclear issue on some actual politics studies and it has been applied currently

I remember to watch sometime ago on tv, where some politicians proudly were saying that "The Prince" still is their primary influence.
Ofc that "The Prince has good political principles too, but the issue were not the "good" principles, but the way to manipulate people and the media to help them to keep the power. Unhappyly still actual.

And one "good" - fictional - example was the tv serie "Yes Minister" and Sir Humphrey. The perfect example of a soft and likeable Machiavellic politician.

well ush as usual I have to agree wiv ya

As 'not necessarily' os not a definitve yes/no statement, Corlindel, it seems an odd thing to disagree with merely by example...

Well. I dont remember the names of the British "Tatcher" conservativ government who support what I wrote by their own words. But I remember very well what they said. And for me there are no doubts about the influences that have an actual neo-conservativ admnistration. Only remembering nations with democracy as intitution.

Actually I agree with most of what he has said, apart from one thing: I don't really think that the end justifies the means.

depending on the end it probably will justify the means

E.G. if There was a way to be absolutely certain that we would have world peace after we kill 100 million ppl, those 100 million ppl would pay the price if it was up to (JUST AN EXAMPLE DONT COME NAGGING ABOUT THIS PLZ)

I still think it's wrong Fire I don't think it's fair killing anyone for that, and also that is a fake dillema You should support your statement with facts or at least something feasible

I believe nukes did there job.... the fear that the pose caused them only to ever be used once.... no major world wars since..... only these pathetic excuses for wars 700+ casualties lol.... we use to get 1000+ a day during those conflicts... technology is no better compared to those days. So in the case of Power politics nuclear weapons are succesful... but Mach. advocated secret police and massive executions and total intoleration of freedom of speech... opposite of democracy as those prior to me have suggested.

I have got in trouble for endorsing this philosophy (though as a joke).
According to its criteria it would be ethical to massacre all those carrying HIV etc

i would never agree with machiavelli.

Thanks for bumping this thread clove - i'd missed it.

I'm amazed to see people saying they agree with the ideals and ideas of Machiavellian philosophy.

And then i'm amazed that i still get amazed at how other people think.

Machiavelli had a mean mother and a bad father

yes I would support machiavellian philosophy but only if all people would support it too. it is only way how to be machiavellist and not to hurt other people...

to be Machiavellian is to hurt people before they hurt you

I honestly admire the man. Have any of you read his book, The Prince?

I found the Prince a truly great book, and Machiavelli something of a social genius. He understood his time perfectly, and knew what was needed to maintain overall state power and security, the benefits of which usually have a knock on effect by benefiting society. That said, I would say that I do support his theories and philosophy in context. Certainly aspects are applicable in all societies, but others are more specific.

I heard a quote today from the 1500's on the History chnl., don't ask his name. He was Italian and it was a hard name, But he said "Is it better to be loved or feared? It would best to have both, but since they are not so close to each other, it is better to be feared."

Interesting.

Since theres not much posted in Philosophy forum, I thought I would throw something out there.

I think its like a spectrum.. you have love on one side... respect in the middle... and fear on the opposite side.. so you really cannot have both

Both would be great wouldn't it? I mean if I was a ruler. But to the right extend both are really useful and can serve the same purpose so I dunno.

Both love and fear would have the same effect on people. If you are feared people have to do what you want, if you are loved people will want to do what you want. You can never have both but you would never need both one is a s good as the other.

It was Niccolo Machiavelli.... the same man who said that "the good end justifies the means..." and that " the needs of the many far outweigh the needs of the few..."

Like on Doni Darko

I think you might be right!!

I argee with what you are saying.You have a choice for either one.It is really up to that person through.JM

tiz not.....it is all relevant to the one putting the question.

it is good to be loved by those you love
and it is goo to be feared by those you hate

i don't like machiavelli's philosophy
it is imo kind of evil

that's the point

It seems tyrants want both, but you can't. They eventually get so paranoid about everyone, which leaves only to be feared.

To be feared = to be greatly respected. Am I right?

Respect are only wanted by warriors-like characters,
and love are wanted by everyone, except those who dodge it...

Which is better? I say, I want love... I don't really care about reputations...

I agree with this Italian guy, to be feared it better to be loved, fear brings you power love give you nothing useful.

err...no

hm..i like that alot...whoa it's made my brain rattle alot and for that i thank you

But....wouldn't you be the loneliest person in the world...And become
QUITE MAD??????

Machiavelli was talking about the ideal way to govern, rather than the ideal way to live... he was pragmatic rather than evil.... in his philosophy, it was better for a ruler to be feared, as he was then less likely to trust those who feared him, and therefore less likely to betray his subjects by falling foul of treachery himself... stability was not a widespread thing in Machiavelli's Italy, and so he outlined ways to ensure some sort of stability... as he said, any ruler should govern for the good of the state and the people, even if the needs of the people were contrary to the desires of the ruler... in other words, the ruler should put personal happiness aside in order to wield power in the best possible way...

*Insert Donnie Darko's argument here*

I'm serious, that pretty much sums up my views on this.

To be loved is greater than to be feared, for fear will get you overthrown.

To be feared, is to be greatly respected...

Look at animals, I take lions for an example...

A lion snatches a meal from another lion.. The smaller size lion, backed away, because of the respect/fear towards the other lion...

I am already the most lonly person in the world, and i proberly have gon mad

Fear
A feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger.

A state or condition marked by this feeling: living in fear.

A feeling of disquiet or apprehension: a fear of looking foolish.

Extreme reverence or awe, as toward a supreme power.

A reason for dread or apprehension: Being alone is my greatest fear.

Respect

A feeling of appreciative, often deferential regard; esteem. See Synonyms at regard.

The state of being regarded with honor or esteem.

Willingness to show consideration or appreciation.

respects Polite expressions of consideration or deference: pay one's respects.

A particular aspect, feature, or detail: In many respects this is an important decision.
-------------------------------------
fear is the feeling of being concerned for ones mortality.. while respecting someone is sort of exhalting them.. placing them on a pedestol because 'you' think 'they' are great.. not that they force their greatness off on you ( like a 'supreme power' would do)

I know what you mean, but I mean to be feared, is to be greatly respected...

Fear
"Extreme reverence or awe, as toward a supreme power."
Respect
"The state of being regarded with honor or esteem."

When you honor something, you are holding back, because you feel that one should have the right of the position given... when you fear something, that is what you will react too... isn't it?

If you fear something, it's because of the supreme power...
If you respect something, it's also because of the supreme power...