Week 3, Feb 1:
Machiavelli
Readings: “The Prince” in Morgan book. Read all of the
selections including the headnote. OR read the Bonadella
translation (on website too), which has fewer helpful footnotes
but is a much lovelier translation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9871527/Briton-finds-500-year-old-arrest-warrant-for-Machiavelli.html
Human Nature
Realism
Historicism or Historical reasoning. History-based thought.
State-craft.
Appearances—produce and manage these
Ends justify the means...
Chapts 15-18 + 25 >> most famous and important. But also: 2, 6, 9….. really all of it in that it all works together to argue for “statecraft.”
I. Introductory info: M’s context in Italy. Who he is writing to. Why.
Machiavelli still makes the news. Wanted in Italy in his own time, an arrest warrant recently turned up:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9871527/Briton-finds-500-year-old-arrest-warrant-for-Machiavelli.html
M. is of historical as well as literary import. The Prince is his most famous text but he was also a skilled playwright and wrote another classic text on history and political philosophy called The Discourses on Livy . Machiavelli was a master of rhetoric and prose, i.e. of writing, i.e. of figurative speech. He was the very embodiment of a “Renaissance man.” Widely learned without being super-specialized.
The church and the powers that be hated for feared him. Like much later thinkers/artists later in the 1800s and 1900s, he was also seen as an advocate of atheism and secular reason: a threat to the Church and morality. This made him dangerous and criminalized. As did the previous threat: that someone could actually have real, effective knowledge and could guide a ruler/”player” and therefore be powerful himself without having the right, ruling class pedigree.
Also: note that the prince here is an idealized type, despite M’s attempts to argue in terms of realism. In other words, the prince – the ideal one -- is a literary or figurative or imaginative creation, a character, in his own right. Almost an action hero.
1. Academically he is most famous, or infamous, as an advocate of “the ends justify the means” philosophy or view. And for being an early realist and historical philosopher of politics and republicanism.
Manual on how to live but first a manual on how to rule a principality or feudal/aristocratic regime….. How to acquire power but then most of the text is on how to keep it and how to maintain it, which is to say how to rule/govern.
Machiavelli sort of invents historical analysis and reasoning when it comes to political theory, or modern political theory. So many historical and contemporary examples he offers up[. He’s incredibly well informed in this way—it is all research and ‘proof.’
II. End of chapter 2: first reflections on human nature….. short memories III. Chapt 4-5 feels like HK China?
Machiavelli begins elaborating on the theme of ability versus
circumstances in determining a leader's success or failure. He implies
that the leader's talents are less important than the situation he finds
himself in. Machiavelli discusses this theme in detail throughout the
book, culminating in his statements about fortune and free will in
Chapter 25. The contrast between luck, specifically the favor of others,
and ability is further explained in Chapters 6 and 7.
V. 9—civil principality [more like a republic]
VI. Page 37—important. Concerned with common people. Shd read all of 9.
MORE NOTES HERE:
***************************************************
How to obtain and keep political power….>> the purpose of the book
SELECTIONS from THE PRINCE: some main themes. You don’t need to know or master all of these. The key points are: human nature; historical reasoning; ends justify the means. These are the three main things—other stuff below is less important for us right now.
1. Human Nature
As noted earlier, most thinkers assume a theory of human nature: humans are either naturally or essentially good or evil, for various natural-scientific or ‘God given’ reasons. They have certain inherent qualities or behaviors or dimensions. And we need to be aware of these and build our thinking around them (esp. if we are princes).
What are we like by nature, as humans? What would we be like if we existed in nature only, before society or history? Christianity and esp. Roman Catholicism: human nature is flawed and sinful. [the Adam and Eve story…]
The human nature question is important because it can be seen as the foundation for the rest of their work (art/thinking, and so on). It is logically and rhetorically crucial. Since ppl are like X for Machiavelli (see chapts 15 and 16), then you should rule and act like Y.
For example, if you think that people are by nature self-interested and greedy, then you probably want to have a strong state or government to protect you as an individual, from them. If you are the ruler of such human creatures, you should not trust them to do the right thing, or rather the non self-interested or selfish thing. For M: you should understand why he says it is better to be feared than loved (if you can’t be both). Love is just mutual obligations but fear is more
powerful. Why?
Or conversely, if people are by nature good, or moral, or happy, or co-operative, then mass democracy or communism sounds like the right form of government [Rousseau, say, or later communists].
Machiavelli addresses this human nature question directly. But even when
>>> first paragraph of chapter 15. Lays out M’s thoughts on human nature.
2. Machiavelli’s REALISM:
M’s method and beliefs are said to be realistic: based on what actually happens. He insists he is a realist. He observes things closely, including in history, and then argues from there. “Things not as they should be but as they are….” The way things are in reality and not as we imagine them. This is on the surface quite simple. Do your thinking on the basis of what really happens and what is true in reality, not in ideal terms or doctrinal (religious/faith-based) or conventional terms.
This is an “IS versus OUGHT” distinction that he assumes/claims. But at the same time M’s text is highly artful and persuasive and literary—this is not some type of objective, social science [which is not really possible anyway]. So a para-dox here: an emphatic realist but also one who draws up an ideal type (The Prince). Realism is not scientific but it does make claims on what really or truly “is.” Machiavelli also grounds this realism in history—historical example or ‘proof.’
Chapt 15
3. Machiavelli’s HISTORICISM. [related to #2]
M wants us to think historically—on the basis of learning form history, which is the ultimate “laboratory” or “proof” of things. So: be historical, Prince. M uses a lot of historical examples or precedents. You make your decisions based on this and not on morality or abstract logic or religious teachings. Part of what makes M important is that he is one of the first modern/ secular Westerners to reason so explicitly on the basis of historical examples— like an academic. It is like he is saying what we already know: if you do not study history you are doomed to repeat it.
References or gestures to “reality.” the is/ought distinction
4. The Necessity of APPEARANCES: The art of politics is also this. Perception is reality— i.e. you can create reality in some sense by manipulating people and society. What we call SPIN today in the political and media worlds.
Managing Appearances: or producing them. We don’t just need to manage our appearances to other people-- we have to actively produce these appearances (work hard on them).
Machiavelli is famous, or infamous, for stressing the importance of appearances for politicians (and real people too…). It matters less what we really are than what people think and thus ‘know’ we are. What we should do is manage and produce our appearances and our perceptions by others. You should appear to be liberal and generous but should not always actually be so, for example. Why? He has very concrete justifications. For every bit of advice M offers about how you/we should appear and not just be, he offers a justification. You might or might not agree with him, but you can tell he is thinking pretty seriously about all of this stuff . It is a new discovery within intellectual history….
5. ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS. ENDS VS. MEANS: a much more complicated issue than we think. In politics, M says, the ends justify the means. This also became one of his more ‘personal’ self-help tips [his later reputation], but he didn’t mean it that way.
Here it is in brief: according to at least Judeo-Christian and certainly liberal/humanistic thinking, our means must be as pure or as good as our ends. You can’t use bad/immoral means to arrive at a good end. And actually the great Indian political and intellectual and Hindu religious leader, Mahatma Gandhi, said much the same thing. As did Martin Luther King, the great American civil rights leader. We can’t act unjustly or immorally, or a-morally, and get just ends as a result. I believe Buddhist theology says something very similar. Non-violence is a, if not the primary virtue.
>>>>>>>>>>>BUT Machiavelli says otherwise: it doesn’t matter if you are so virtuous if you don’t get your ends. The ends are the main thing. What good are “good” means if they do not work or do not secure a good end? Then they seem useless at best, or even bad because they failed. You can use immoral or unjust or a-moral means to obtain good ends. It is justifiable and ethical (in its own terms). And moreover – since we human beings are so awful by nature – if we always act virtuous we are doomed to fail individually. In fact this is the point of his whole work in some ways: the Prince can act unjustly or immorally if it leads to a good end. IN fact he or she has no choice. The ends do justify the means whether we like it or not.
stable and peaceful Italy (or Florence and Rome/papal territories anyway). It is kind of assumed this has to be a republic, to unite Florence with the rest….. PEACE AND UNITY: In itself this sounds like a good thing, does it not? So he does have an end in mind, and an ethical or moral one. Who does not want peace and unity? Safety from invasion and barbarians? Sounds very familiar to students of China, perhaps….
>>> wants Italy to be liberated from the barbarians (Spain/Swiss….)
6. FORTUNE.
In short: M is saying that Fortune – which he characterizes in sexist terms as a woman, to be sure -- accounts for 50% of human affairs. Think back to Crane—the guys in the boat talk about how nature or the universe is out to get them or is really unfair and arbitrary. How can they drown when they work so hard? Well Machiavelli is saying that yes Fortune/Fate is impossible to know or control ultimately. It accounts for about 50% of our lives—this much is out of our control and is not knowable. But we are in charge of the other 50%. Therefore, act on it! Be young and bold and daring. Be impetuous. You have nothing to lose and are still dead in the long run (M. is not a religious/Christian thinker). It is in this sense that Stanley Bing’s subtitle of his book – “The Ends Justify the Meanness” – has a point. Not that we should be mean but that we shouldn’t worry about that all the time. Morality is relative. It IS important but it is not absolute or objectively there, in reality. Relatedly, we – and the prince or rulers -- should strive to achieve our ends by any means necessary. But this end itself has to be more than merely greed or cruelty or power for its own sake. Perhaps the ultimate end is what the CCP calls “stability.” Or the self-preservation of one’s rule, or self, or one’s nation or empire. All of this is arguable and disputable. But it is not unreasonable or irrational.
***************************************************
How to obtain and keep political power….>> the purpose of the book
SELECTIONS from THE PRINCE: some main themes. You don’t need to know or master all of these. The key points are: human nature; historical reasoning; ends justify the means. These are the three main things—other stuff below is less important for us right now.
The headnote is very detailed. P. 2519 brings up an essential issue: his view of humanity or human nature in general. As noted with Rousseau, most thinkers assume a theory of human nature: humans are either naturally or essentially good or evil, for various natural-scientific or ‘God given’ reasons. They have certain inherent qualities or behaviors or dimensions. And we need to be aware of these and build our thinking around them (esp. if we are princes).
What are we like by nature, as humans? What would we be like if we existed in nature only, before society or history? Christianity and esp. Roman Catholicism: human nature is flawed and sinful. [the Adam and Eve story…]
The human nature question is important because it can be seen as the foundation for the rest of their work (art/thinking, and so on). It is logically and rhetorically crucial. Since ppl are like X for Machiavelli (see chapts 15 and 16), then you should rule and act like Y.
For example, if you think that people are by nature self-interested and greedy, then you probably want to have a strong state or government to protect you as an individual, from them. If you are the ruler of such human creatures, you should not trust them to do the right thing, or rather the non self-interested or selfish thing. For M: you should understand why he says it is better to be feared than loved (if you can’t be both). Love is just mutual obligations but fear is more
powerful. Why?
Or conversely, if people are by nature good, or moral, or happy, or co-operative, then mass democracy or communism sounds like the right form of government [Rousseau, say, or later communists].
Machiavelli addresses this human nature question directly. But even when
writers/artists/thinkers do not address it explicitly it is still a good question to ask of them.
What does this text say about the nature of human beings? Good or evil? How so? And why is this important or how does it get assumed in a text? Carver—pretty bleak. Wang Anyi? Zhao Shuli? Frost? Frost says we deceive ourselves all the time—in a way we are inherently dishonest even to ourselves. Rousseau says we are born free and naturally good, but often suffer due to society’s limitations. Zhao says we are naturally free too, but have to and can overthrow oppressive cultural and social conditions—esp. through a wise prince/Party/organization. Wang Anyi—also more like Zhao and Rousseau and etc.—marriage and patriarchal roles (gender roles) are the problem. Carver: ppl seem pretty messed up and unhappy in general! And often drunk as a result.
>>> first paragraph of chapter 15. Lays out M’s thoughts on human nature.
2. Machiavelli’s REALISM:
“Things not as they should be but as they are….” The way things are in reality and not as we imagine them. This is on the surface quite simple. Do your thinking on the basis of what really happens and what is true in reality, not in ideal terms or doctrinal (religious/faith-based) or conventional terms.
This is an “IS versus OUGHT” distinction that he assumes/claims. But at the same time M’s text is highly artful and persuasive and literary—this is not some type of objective, social science [which is not really possible anyway]. So a para-dox here: an emphatic realist but also one who draws up an ideal type (The Prince). Realism is not scientific but it does make claims on what really or truly “is.” Machiavelli also grounds this realism in history—historical example or ‘proof.’
Chapt 15
3. Machiavelli’s HISTORICISM. [related to #2]
M wants us to think historically—on the basis of learning form history, which is the ultimate “laboratory” or “proof” of things. So: be historical, Prince. M uses a lot of historical examples or precedents. You make your decisions based on this and not on morality or abstract logic or religious teachings. Part of what makes M important is that he is one of the first modern/ secular Westerners to reason so explicitly on the basis of historical examples— like an academic. It is like he is saying what we already know: if you do not study history you are doomed to repeat it.
References or gestures to “reality.” 2524. KEY PASSAGE: 2524, the is/ought distinction
What is the is/ought distinction? M says we should talk about the world the way it really is, and not the way it ought to be. Now what do you make of this? It suggests we should break all of our illusions and ideals about the way things OUGHT to be (about love, virtue, godliness, etc.). We should pay the most attention to what people actually do, not what they say they do or think they are doing. This will come up later in the Marx lecture/readings.
4. The Necessity of APPEARANCES: The art of politics is also this. Perception is reality— i.e. you can create reality in some sense by manipulating people and society. What we call SPIN today in the political and media worlds.
Managing Appearances: or producing them. We don’t just need to manage our appearances to other people-- we have to actively produce these appearances (work hard on them).
‘know’ we are. What we should do is manage and produce our appearances and our perceptions by others. You should appear to be liberal and generous but should not always actually be so, for example. Why? He has very concrete justifications. For every bit of advice M offers about how you/we should appear and not just be, he offers a justification. You might or might not agree with him, but you can tell he is thinking pretty seriously about all of this stuff . It is a new discovery within intellectual history….
5. ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS. ENDS VS. MEANS: a much more complicated issue than we think. In politics, M says, the ends justify the means. This also became one of his more ‘personal’ self-help tips [his later reputation], but he didn’t mean it that way.
Here it is in brief: according to at least Judeo-Christian and certainly liberal/humanistic thinking, our means must be as pure or as good as our ends. You can’t use bad/immoral means to arrive at a good end. And actually the great Indian political and intellectual and Hindu religious leader, Mahatma Gandhi, said much the same thing. As did Martin Luther King, the great American civil rights leader. We can’t act unjustly or immorally, or a-morally, and get just ends as a result. I believe Buddhist theology says something very similar. Non-violence is a, if not the primary virtue.
>>>>>>>>>>>BUT Machiavelli says otherwise: it doesn’t matter if you are so virtuous if you don’t get your ends. The ends are the main thing. What good are “good” means if they do not work or do not secure a good end? Then they seem useless at best, or even bad because they failed. You can use immoral or unjust or a-moral means to obtain good ends. It is justifiable and ethical (in its own terms). And moreover – since we human beings are so awful by nature – if we always act virtuous we are doomed to fail individually. In fact this is the point of his whole work in some ways: the Prince can act unjustly or immorally if it leads to a good end. IN fact he or she has no choice. The ends do justify the means whether we like it or not.
I. Note this too: This is in itself arguably a moral or ethical position for Machiavelli. The “ends” are the highest good or value. The Prince must achieve them to be good…… SO WHAT ARE M’s “ends” in mind: as you can tell form the final section: a unified and safe and stable and peaceful Italy (or Florence and Rome/papal territories anyway). It is kind of assumed this has to be a republic, to unite Florence with the rest….. PEACE AND UNITY: In itself this sounds like a good thing, does it not? So he does have an end in mind, and an ethical or moral one. Who does not want peace and unity? Safety from invasion and barbarians? Sounds very familiar to students of China, perhaps….
>>> wants Italy to be liberated from the barbarians (Spain/Swiss….)
++++++++++++++
A brief run through the chapters and chapter titles… [can begin here in class/section]
Liberality vs. parsimony/stingy. : chap 16. don’t care if ppl call you stingy. Use other ppl. It is better to be stingy or un-generous than to be liberal/generous. IN fact you don’t want to appear to be generous—your money will run out, ppl will be ungrateful, and soon. Again, manage or produce your appearance and perception: persuade or manipulate other people.
Chap 17: hated or loved? It is ideal to be both loved and feared (paradoxical!). But if you have to choose, it is better to be feared. Why? It is more secure. Why? Because of human nature—people are fearful and self-interested.