Morals are for Sissies

In literature many books are forgotten soon after they are published- they either sit on a bookshelf in an anonymous bookstore collecting dust on their fading covers, or become furniture levelers or drink coasters. Other books may be popular during the author’s lifetime, or perhaps during a certain time period when his stories coincide with the political or social environment. A precious few are remembered for generations after their conception; and fewer still are remembered hundreds of years later. Those books become either famous or infamous depending on the text. They raise questions that are so important to humanity that their context and implications are debated long after the author’s death, perhaps even until the present day. Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince is one of these rare books. It was published in 1513, and nearly 500 years later the questions the book raises about human nature such as is morality valuable, and how are humans supposed to act that are still debated by scholars around the world.

The second question is the most important. It challenges the values people believe give meaning to their lives: morality, piety, generosity, honesty and God are all dismissed as taxing burdens to man’s true potential. One may condemn him for his thoughts, but we cannot ignore the obvious fact that almost 500 years later he and The Prince are still discussed because Machiavelli raises questions that threaten the most basic assumptions humans hold. He sees the world in terms of ends rather than means. This troubles us because we create rules to keep order. These rules dictate how we live our lives- generally if one follows the rules he will become an accepted member of society. But Machiavelli proposes the rules are meaningless. The results of one’s action are the only thing that matters, not what methodology is used to achieve it. This makes us uncomfortable because it means our actions don’t matter unless they’re successful. Perhaps the most uncomfortable thing about The Prince is its accuracy. We may not like what Machiavelli says, but it is too precise to be ignored; and in the 500 years since The Prince’s publication no one has disproved its theories. From here another question emerges: should Machiavelli be condemned for his lack of morality? He should be praised for it because morality is a costly burden in public service: it forces one to act in the interests of his beliefs, rather than adapt to individual circumstances; in other words morality hinders results. This allows more adaptive princes to take over the moral one, creating chaos in the populace. Machiavelli knew this well, and chose a life void of purpose and meaning in order to insure the continued prosperity of the people. The tyranny of a single ruler is a necessary sacrifice that should be overlooked because it creates a stable environment for the public. Machiavelli’s book was a product of the political strife in Italy rather than his actual views; his ideas about republican government are explained in depth in The Discourses. Viewed in this light Machiavelli is not evil at all: he embodies goodness and purity. His prince holds no ulterior motives other than his rule, and thus the well being of the public; and if evil is the best way to serve the people, then the prince must be willing to become it

I view his sacrifice as a noble one, and after reading his book and other literature about it; I view Machiavellism in a favorable light. It advocates the sacrifice of one man’s soul for the benefit of the public. One must not forget, however, that public and private morality is very different. One must not forget that public and private moralities are very different; that is, what benefits a politician is not what benefits a private citizen. Morality in particular is a virtue to a private citizen but a hindrance to a politician. It compels people to make decisions based on compassion rather than reason. In private life this virtue is extolled, because the doer is rewarded with the admiration of his peers. In public life, however, one is responsible not only for himself, but for the entire public. Generosity and liberality are vices in public life because in the end they burden citizens with excess taxes, effectively taking away their ability to spend their earnings. This differs from private life because one’s earnings are his own to spend, not subject to the scrutiny of the public; the added responsibility creates the need for parsimony. One must balance what he wants with what the public needs- Machiavelli stresses making decisions that benefit the public rather than the politician. This is the essence of Machiavelli’s writings- long-term parsimony versus short-term liberality. Parsimony may be less pleasurable than liberality, but it is more successful in creating political stability. Perhaps Machiavelli advocates politics without morality because like liberality, morality often causes poor decisions to be made concerning the stability of an entire city versus the sanctity of the politician’s soul. A politician must do whatever it takes to achieve the ends of the public because thousands, perhaps millions of lives depend on his decisions, whereas a public citizen is responsible only for his life. Machiavellism is not inherently evil, it should be practiced in its own sphere; in private life it is condemned, in public life it is a necessity.

Ideas such as this put the reader in a confusing place. How could there be two different correct moralities? Many believe the world is a monistic place, that is, there is one organizing principle, such as God in monotheism that organizes the world. For many it may be difficult to accept this because it means there is no definite way to live. People must constantly evaluate and reevaluate their actions to determine if what they are doing is in accordance with their beliefs. This means no one may rest, if the public is to remain safe; and therefore free and prosperous. It is an indictment of laziness and blind obedience. Both are dangerous to the public because they abandon responsibility for instant gratification. This inconvenient truth is one many would like to ignore, because it is so ironic. The well being of the public is best furthered by it brightest members, but what motivation do those few have for helping the many, if humans are hedonistic animals like Machiavelli describes them? Perhaps Machiavelli means humans must take responsibility for their actions if they are to be safe; and if this means reacting differently to each individual problem, so be it. This ambiguity is what makes people so uncomfortable: it, like fortune, is unpredictable.

The reader must realize the ambiguity of The Prince to fully understand it. It reveals the fundamental problem behind belief- that any gain by one group, no matter the reason results in an equal loss of another- but gives no solution; and perhaps that is the point: his ambiguity coincides with the ambiguity of the human condition. There are no definite answers to anything. This is what makes Machiavelli so uncomfortable. He believes there is so much out of human control actions are responsible for a small portion of success. This view is echoed in Chapter 25 of The Prince where he ends with a metaphor about the influence of luck on human affairs. He does this because there is no way to rationalize luck, just as there is no way to rationalize existence; humans are stuck on the Earth without a God, or other ethereal entity to tell them why things happen or why they exist. Sometimes the answer can be derived, but more often than not arbitrary actions of other people compound together in an unforeseeable consequence that affects a single person directly. How are people supposed to act knowing that at any time fortune can destroy everything they have built?

Machiavelli’s ideas raise more questions than answers. Just when it seems like one question will be answered, another question hinders its explanation. This pattern is reflected in the complex web of 500 years worth of literature written about his treatise. The more we try to solve Machiavelli, the more we realize how ignorant we really are. Perhaps his ideas hold the truth, but acknowledging their validity means invalidating the values hailed as truth since the conception of monism, and judging from the continued efforts in disprove Machiavelli’s theories, we can conclude people will continue to toil in this futility. The only way to disprove Machiavelli is to act in accordance with his theories then observe the results; and this is the one thing humans are least willing to do.  If there is one valid conclusion that can be made about The Prince, it is the questions it raises will remain unanswered.

Chapter XV: On the Reasons Why Men Are Praised Or Blamed- Especially Princes

Page 42

“For if you look at matters carefully, you will see that something resembling virtue, if you follow it, may be your ruin, while something resembling vice will lead, if you follow it, to your security and well being.”

One reason Machiavelli has been criticized in the last 500 years is his lack of a moral compass. His ideas not only contradict traditional Judeo-Christian morality, they threaten the fundamental doctrine of Western political thought; the idea that everything has a purpose prescribed to it by a single source- a political or supernatural entity- and by obeying that entity humans can ascend to a higher consciousness (Berlin 226). One entity Machiavelli indirectly criticizes is the Catholic Church. During his lifetime the Church told its followers by obeying the word of God relayed to them by it, they would gain entrance into Heaven. Morality plays a similar role. It tells people how to live, and by obeying the rules their life gains a greater meaning. Machiavelli rejects this idea. He believes it is not the way one lives that is important, it is what one accomplishes that defines him. This doctrine is more practical than that of religion or morality- it is based on scientific observations and measurements instead of abstract rhetoric. In Chapter XV of The Prince Machiavelli discusses this doctrine by comparing virtue to vice. He argues results are the only thing that matters- the means by which they are achieved is excusable, as long as they create political stability.

Herein lies the goal of Machiavelli’s treatise. His advice is intends to put the benefit of the group above that of the individual, and he uses scientific thought to best achieve this goal. That means anything ineffective must be eliminated from one’s actions including morality, religion and generosity. Conversely anything that proves to be effective, no matter how evil it is, should guide one’s actions including cruelty, extortion, bribery and murder. The last four terms are typically called vices, but they are very effective. Machiavelli argues a name is just a name- it means nothing more; actions should be judged by the benefits or detriments they impose upon the public, not by their good or bad connotations.

Perhaps this is where Machiavelli is misunderstood the most. He is not evil- he advocates politics as a way to achieve political stability for the public, rather than a factor of production for private interests. His conclusions give no pretense for use- they simply state an observed pattern. If any one adjective can be ascribed to Machiavelli’s writing, it is pure. Unlike a politician he doesn’t have a bias or stand to gain power; he just wants the public to be safe. A prince who refuses to use wickedness will be dominated by one that will. Therefore he must embrace the most malevolent form of politics in order to prevent others from challenging his power and creating chaos. The prince is forced to act wickedly in order to achieve a larger harmony. Machiavelli argues the use of such measures is excusable, as long as they result in long-term political stability. The long-term well being of the public outweighs short-term suffering. A refusal to do what is necessary to create stability is the only true vice.

Chapter VI: About New Princedoms Acquired with One’s Own Arms and Energy [Virtù]

Page 17

“And it is worth noting that nothing is harder to manage, more risky in the undertaking, or more doubtful of success, than to set up as the introducer of a new order. Such an innovator has as enemies all the people who were doing well under the old order, and only half-hearted defenders in those who hope to profit from the new. This half-heartedness derives partly from fear of opponents, who have the law on their side, and partly from human skepticism, since men don’t really believe in anything new until they have solid experience of it. The is why, whenever the enemies of a new state have occasion to attack it, they do so furiously, while its friends only languidly come to its defense, so that the venture and its supporters are likely to collapse together…it is the nature of people to be fickle; to persuade them of something is easy, but to make them stand fast in that conviction is hard. Hence things must be arranged so that when they no longer believe they can be compelled to believe by force.”

This analysis of human behavior is a typical Machiavellian idea: it is scientific, declarative and reveals the animalistic side of humanity. They tend to be quick to pledge their allegiance, but slow to give action to their thoughts. When taking over a new land, a prince must do his best to minimize the changes in the everyday lives of his new citizens, because people will be slow to support him. Change is difficult for people, and Machiavelli suggests minimizing suffering instead of compounding happiness, because it is most practical.

This concept is one Machiavelli echoes throughout The Prince. All of his advice pertaining to how Princes should acquire new lands is based on minimizing pain placed on the citizens. This may seem like a noble goal at first, until one reads the last sentence of the passage. It is clear Machiavelli is not idealistic; in fact, many consider him the exact opposite. He is a realist; that is, he aims to do the best with what the world is, rather than try to change it to match his image of perfection. His message may be read as: “lie to the people to gain their trust, then use intimidation and fear to make them obey you”. Advice such as this is quite common The Prince- because people are indecisive, it is best for the public to trust (or obey by force) one man to make decisions for them, especially in times of war, when there is not time to thoroughly debate an issue and arrive at a majority opinion. Even in Machiavelli’s Discourses, where he lays out the foundation for Republican government, he knows in times of war one man must be appointed as temporary ruler. (Discourses II-15) The US Constitution, which outlines arguably the most democratic form of government in history, gives the President the power to carry out war. This is a safeguard against the fickleness of the populace. Appointing a prince, Machiavelli argues, is one way to solve the many problems that plague government; his decisions may not pleasant, but the alternative- not making decisions- is worse than making poor or cruel ones.

The passage transcends war- it outlines one of the foundations of Machiavelli’s logic. He sets up idealism against realism and asks: which one would you rather have as your government? According to the passage people will not believe in idealism until it has been proven practical, which is why establishing a new government is so dangerous. People say they believe in ideals until the time comes to prove their beliefs, then they are hesitant to support their opinions until one side has claimed victory. Only then will they pledge their allegiance, and only to the winning side. They naturally resist change, and more often than not rebellions fail; therefore it is more practical to pledge allegiance to the existing government until the insurrection has claimed victory. People do this because they need two things in government: repetition and stability. These are the two things a Prince should aim to create because they are the most practical. People use idealism to hide the realism they really believe in, and therefore a successful government must do so as well.

Please comment and give me honest feedback- don’t hold back your criticism, no matter how harsh it is.

Chapter XXV: The Influence of Luck on Human Affairs and the Ways to Counter It

Page 69

“I conclude then, that so long as Fortune varies and men stand still, they will prosper while they suit the times, and fail when they do not. But I do feel this: that it is better to be rash than timid, for Fortune is a woman, and the man who wants to hold her down must beat and bully her. We see that she yields more often to men of this stripe than to those who come coldly towards her. Like a woman, too, she is always a friend of the young, because they are less timid, more brutal, and take charge of her more recklessly.”

            Fortune is the only barrier in The Prince that Machiavelli’s logic cannot overcome. His analysis of Fortune is unique because he uses a metaphor to explain himself instead of reason. It is also the last idea Machiavelli explains before his exhortation to Lorenzo de Medici. It is a turning point, when Machiavelli’s reasonable tone transforms into a spirited, patriotic one that demands action to unite the city-states of the Italian peninsula against foreign invasion. Machiavelli is getting Lorenzo de Medici excited, so he will more readily accept Machiavelli’s exhortation- his purpose for writing The Prince.

            Just in this four sentence passage the reader can observe Machiavelli’s transformation. He starts with cold, discerning logic, then changes in the second sentence to a metaphor. He sees Fortune as a constant and the acts of men as a variable. They must make up for any discrepancies caused by the change in fortune. Here is another example of Machiavelli’s realistic approach to politics. No matter how hard men try, anomalies will always occur, forcing them to change their plans accordingly. When change is viewed as the only constant, men must be bold enough to adapt to the times, always adapting. Hesitation therefore, will never result in success; and boldness, even if it is not the best course of action, will at least give one a chance to succeed.

            Machiavelli explains logic in an illogical way. His comparison to fortune as a woman, is not unique for the time period. Other writers, such as John Milton also place women as the opposite of logic. The only thing men can do to minimize damage is to boldly control her. Not to insinuate women need to be controlled, or that Machiavelli’s view is his or prevalent of the times- like all of his other writings in The Prince, they are meant to get his point across as accurately and precisely as possible in the shortest amount of time. As the case is with Fortune, a comparison to a woman seems to fit. One may call him a misogynist, and judging on the text there is a strong basis to do so, but as with all of Machiavelli’s writings, the viewpoint he expresses serves to get his point across- it is not necessarily his thought.

            The concept of Virtù is also strongly evident in this passage, indicating even when Machiavelli is not using a logical argument to validate his thoughts, his writing remains focused and unified. Although Robert Adams, the translator of the Norton Critical Edition of The Prince describes virtù as many things, after reading many scholarly articles concerning Machiavelli and his ideas, I think it is best to define virtù as politics used to further the cause of a poltical system, used as fortune and necessity require. The second part of the definition is the most important part. It implies choosing one side and not faltering from it. This relates to Machiavelli’s comparison of politics to economics- the idea of power as a scarce resource, and in the public domain morality and niceness are non-existent; the only thing that matters is results. The well-being of the public is the larger harmony, and that well-being overshadows cruelty, or any other morally questionable means used to achieve it.

            A prince must always be politically active in order to adapt to the ebbs and flows of Fortune. This single idea is the basis for Machiavelli’s ideal republican government described in The Discourses and the foundation for his ambiguous advice in The Prince. It is necessary to constantly and consistently adapt to this “fickle whore” that brings trouble upon men and stable government. Machiavelli explains this most effectively at the end of his treatise because it is the basis, the foundation of government. Without active citizens a republic or principality will fall victim to decadence and laziness and be taken over by a neighboring one, whose sense of virtù is stronger. Fortune is the narrow balance beam on which republics stand or fall. Their citizens must always be active for their government to be balanced; any decadence of laziness will inevitably result in failure. In a principality the prince is responsible for the well-being of the public and therefore must use any means necessary to remain virtùous.

            As in taking control of a woman, there are risks involved. Here, Machiavelli’s metaphor greatly under represents the scope of power- a mistake in asking a girl on a date results only in rejection, a mistake in government affects the lives of not just the prince, but of all of his citizens. And we see this pattern, especially in Machiavelli’s allusions to past leaders who were killed or exiled because of their inability to adapt to changing times.

(List Examples)

The risks for a prince are monumental- he bets his life and the lives of his people on his ability to be the most ruthless, cruel, callous politician; because by doing so he most effectively ensures the longevity of his people.

            Machiavelli’s last metaphor sums up his entire treatise. Men need virtù to overcome the anomalies that inevitably result from the activities, both known and most often unknown, of his surroundings. The question becomes not what you are that matters, but what you can become. The most ambiguous leader becomes the best, because he can take control of Fortune through any means necessary. He is not tied to a set of rules and therefore is best qualified to control that chaotic woman called Fortune.

Please comment and give me honest feedback

Chapter XV: On the Reasons Why Men Are Praised Or Blamed- Especially Princes

Page 42

“For if you look at matters carefully, you will see that something resembling virtue, if you follow it, may be your ruin, while something resembling vice will lead, if you follow it, to your security and well being.”

One reason Machiavelli has been criticized in the last 500 years is his lack of a moral compass. His ideas not only contradict traditional Judeo-Christian morality, they threaten the fundamental doctrine of Western political thought; the idea that everything has a purpose prescribed to it by a single source- a political or supernatural entity- and by obeying that entity humans can ascend to a higher consciousness. One entity Machiavelli indirectly criticizes is the Catholic Church. During his lifetime the Church told its followers by obeying the word of God relayed to them by it, they would gain entrance into Heaven. Morality plays a similar role. It tells people how to live, and by obeying the rules their life gains a greater meaning. Machiavelli rejects this idea. He believes it is not the way one lives that is important, it is what one accomplishes that defines him. This doctrine is more practical than that of religion or morality- it is based on scientific observations and measurements instead of abstract rhetoric. In Chapter XV of The Prince Machiavelli discusses this doctrine by comparing virtue to vice. He argues results are the only thing that matters- the means by which they are achieved is excusable, as long as they create political stability.

Herein lies the goal of Machiavelli’s treatise. His advice is geared towards the benefit of the group rather than that of the individual, and he uses scientific thought to best achieve this goal. That means anything that cannot be proven effective must be eliminated from one’s thoughts including morality, religion and generosity. Conversely anything that process effective, no matter how evil it is should be included in one’s thoughts including cruelty, extortion, bribery and murder. The last four terms are typically called vices, but they are very effective. Machiavelli argues a name is just a name- it means nothing more; actions should be judged by the benefits or detriments they impose upon the public, not by their good or bad connotations.

This scientific attitude is the basis for Machiavelli’s analyses and conclusions. He sees the world as it is, not as he wants it to be. He divorces idealism, morality and God for the sole purpose of creating stable government for the public. His goal is a lofty one, and requires extremes that, even today, are considered reprehensible; but also very effective. He advocates the use of idealism only as a means to not be hated, rather than to create a better world. Machiavelli rejects the idea that humans can change the world- he thinks they can only minimize the suffering in it through the use of scientific principles to analyze effective and ineffective behavior. What is ideal is oftentimes not what is effective, and if our goal is to make a less painful or better world, why should we cling to unproven and ineffective means? This logic is evident throughout The Prince, and although Machiavelli uses many examples to prove his points, I will focus on two that demonstrate how virtuous action, though seeming good, really creates more suffering than wicked action.

Two of Machiavelli’s examples shine as the best way to prove this seemingly irrational idea. The first is generosity versus parsimony. Parsimony is perceived as a vice, but upon further examination it allows a prince to keep more money in his treasury, which allows him to help his citizens and advance his empire; conversely a generous prince will be forced to burden his citizens with taxes to feed his generosity, his people will feel they are giving their earned money away and consequently hate the prince. Either the public or another prince will overthrow him resulting in chaos, disorder and suffering. Another example is the use of cruelty. Machiavelli argues cruelty exists, and therefore must be managed responsibly by a prince to avoid inflicting unnecessary suffering upon his citizens. He writes:

“We may add this note that when a prince takes a new state, he should calculate the sum of all the injuries he will have to do, and do them all at once, so as not to have to do new ones every day; simply by not repeating them, he will be able to reassure people, and win them over to his side with benefits…benefits should be distributed very gradually, so the taste will last longer” (VIII).

A prince who refuses to use wickedness will be dominated by one that will. Therefore he must embrace the most malevolent forms of political maneuvers in order to prevent others from challenging his power and creating chaos. In both examples a prince is forced to act wickedly in order to achieve a larger harmony. Machiavelli argues the use of such measures is excusable, as long as they result in long-term political stability. The long-term well being of the public outweighs short-term suffering. A refusal to do what is necessary to create stability is the only true vice.

The reader may observe Machiavelli aims not to create a better world, but to minimize the suffering in it. He reasons one person (or entity) must have power in order for society to progress technologically and economically; someone must have the final word. That person must do whatever the situation requires to keep his seat of power and the public, stable. Economically this makes sense- many groups compete for a set amount of scarce resources, and this competition creates chaos. A prince who is willing to do whatever it takes to secure resources will secure the future for his citizens (one entity must win and one must lose, the battle is what creates suffering; and if the most malevolent techniques shorten this battle, they should be praised, not condemned). The means by which he does this can be morally questionable, as long as the long-term stability of the public is safe. In Machiavelli’s eyes the physical well being of hundred, or perhaps thousands or millions of individuals is more important than the spiritual well being of their leader.

To observe this, look no further than the American presidency. A comparison between Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter reveals that a politician must be willing to do anything for his country, no matter the personal costs. Nixon was a mass of contradictions: in his first inaugural address he said “the greatest honor history can bestow is the title of peacemaker”, yet he ordered more bombs dropped than any other president in US history. He was a staunch anti-communist, yet opened relations with the two most powerful communist countries in the world. He escalated the Vietnam War to its height, and then pulled out US troops. He was a republican, but created economic and social reform, such as the EPA, OSHA and the Clean Air Act of 1970, comparable only to the New Deal Era. He was elected to his second term by a landslide, but resigned from office before his term expired. Jimmy Carter was the opposite- he was a man of faith and conviction and refused to compromise his beliefs. His stubbornness prevented him from creating any lasting legislation. In fact, his beliefs caused him to make decisions detrimental to the US, such as ceding the Panama Canal to Panama. Morally this is the right choice, but politically it couldn’t be more wrong. Nixon was the opposite of Carter- he found no wrongdoing in hypocrisy. He practiced Machiavellian politics and in accordance with them sacrificed the sanctity of his soul for the benefit of his country, whereas Carter preferred a life of idealism, and even though he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, his presidency is considered rather insignificant in terms of lasting change created. Although Carter is considered a moral person, Nixon’s ambiguities lead to beneficial change, both economically and socially, and many of his programs are still intact today, whereas Carter’s are not. The divorce of politics with morals is evident. The well being of the public cannot be hindered by beliefs, whether an act is called virtue or vice is not important; it is the affect on the well being of the public that matters.

So who is virtuous and who is malicious? Is it Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter? The answer to this question cannot be answered because two different things are being compared. Nixon acted in the interest of the public and Carter acted in the interest of his ideals. If Machiavelli proves one thing through this passage, it is that private virtue must be abandoned when one enters politics. He is not advocating a private citizen to follow his doctrines- his treatise is dedicated to a prince or politician. That group of people is the one Machiavelli is advising. Jimmy Carter is a model private citizen and a poor politician; Richard Nixon is a poor private citizen and a model politician. The two are different people and consequently excel in their own spheres.

Machiavelli advocates a different kind of morality in politics. He sets the common good as the highest honor attainable and his zeal for it is so strong; he is willing to sacrifice everything, including morality and religion for it. For this we may condemn him for his methods, but we cannot condemn him for the results he achieves. If it wasn’t for Machiavellism (for a lack of a better name) today’s society could never have progressed to where it is today. His ideas permeate into our government and economy, and whether we like it or not, the well being of our country, and all other countries for that matter, depend on them.

Please comment and give me honest feedback- don’t hold back your criticism, no matter how harsh it is.

Chapter VI: About New Princedoms Acquired with One’s Own Arms and Energy [Virtù]

Page 17

“And it is worth noting that nothing is harder to manage, more risky in the undertaking, or more doubtful of success, than to set up as the introducer of a new order. Such an innovator has as enemies all the people who were doing well under the old order, and only half-hearted defenders in those who hope to profit from the new. This half-heartedness derives partly from fear of opponents, who have the law on their side, and partly from human skepticism, since men don’t really believe in anything new until they have solid experience of it. The is why, whenever the enemies of a new state have occasion to attack it, they do so furiously, while its friends only languidly come to its defense, so that the venture and its supporters are likely to collapse together…it is the nature of people to be fickle; to persuade them of something is easy, but to make them stand fast in that conviction is hard. Hence things must be arranged so that when they no longer believe they can be compelled to believe by force.”

            In The Prince Machiavelli makes conjectures about general rules governing the behavior of people. He characterizes them as selfish and animalistic; motivated only by pleasure and pain. Upon these conclusions, like the above passage, Machiavelli has often been criticized- especially when The Prince was published. In the 16^th century the Catholic Church told humans to be selfless, charitable and obedient to God. This view was in stark opposition to Machiavelli’s treatise. Interestingly the power of the Church has waned through the centuries, but Machiavelli’s ideas have flourished. His assumptions, like the one above, are eerily accurate.

            This analysis of human behavior focuses on change- a topic very important to a prince or politician. As power is transferred from one faction to another the complications that follow need to be minimized to ensure the transfer is a smooth one. In other words the new leader must be able to maintain political stability. This accomplishment is very difficult for the reasons Machiavelli describes. Change itself is something that people resist. It is often difficult because new people must adapt to new roles, and those who stand to gain power will be skeptical, slowly easing into their new role, while those who stand to lose power will fiercely defend their status. From this conjecture the reader can conclude people take greater measures to avoid pain than to achieve pleasure. They can deal with almost any situation as long as they know what to expect so they can plan accordingly. What people don’t like, according to Machiavelli, is change. Its outcome can never be exactly predicted.

            This concept is one Machiavelli echoes throughout The Prince. All of his advice pertaining to how Princes should acquire new lands is all based on minimizing pain placed on the citizens. One example Machiavelli cites is in chapter II, where he notes taking over a hereditary principality is easy, as long as the new prince does not upset established customs or change the lives of the citizens. Another is in chapter VIII, where Machiavelli advises prince who obtained power through the use of crime. He alludes to Agotholes of Syracuse who became military governor by murdering the city’s senate and wealthiest citizens. This may seem like a monumental change, but consider what Agothocles did afterward: he successfully defended Syracuse from the Carthaginians, launched a successful invasion of North Africa and after that committed no atrocious acts; in fact after he committed the murders he governed Syracuse well until his death in 289 B.C. No one rebelled against him because he created change only once. After that he allowed his citizens to live how they wished. By limiting the political change created by his rise to power, Agothocles successfully kept his power and Syracuse stable.

            People are so mistrusting of change (they fear they will end up worse than what they already are) that they will subject themselves to the rule of a man like Agothocles. In fact they will allow almost anyone to rule over them as long as that person creates a stable environment in which they can be safe in knowing what to expect. In history, as well as modern times people have rallied behind leaders not because of their virtuous characters, but because of their ability to create a stable environment. Take Adolf Hitler- very few would seriously argue he possessed good character, but at the time he created steady jobs and therefore a stable environment for thousands of Germans. He rescued a faltering German economy faced with inflation and recession. Those are the things the German’s valued in Hitler- he created order and stability where chaos and poverty had once been.

            Machiavelli reasoning goes even further than this. He reasoned people’ fear of loss made them reluctant to support a regime change because they don’t know whether the new regime will place them in a better or worse position than they were before. Logically his conclusion makes sense: why would a person support a new regime if it were destined to fail? The safe choice is always supporting the already established one; even if it is oppressive, the citizen will at least know what to expect. Idealists would disagree with this conclusion because it discredits new regimes that successfully take over the old ones. Machiavelli however takes a very practical stance: because the majority of rebellions fail, it is a safer for a citizen to side with the established government than risk injuring it, and consequently being convicted of treason.

            If one wants to overthrow a government Machiavelli advises invoking idealism to take over the old regime, then when the idealists discover the new regime will be no better than the old, make laws that force those idealists to comply with the new regime. This again is a great example of Machiavelli’s practicality. His advice is far from idealistic, but a thousand times more practical; and because of its practicality, it can- if followed- achieve the desired results.

            This passage is just one of many that set up sound logic against idealism. In this battle Machiavelli will argue that practicality always wins. People naturally resist change, so why should they support it? It causes trouble more often than not. What they do like is repetition and stability. They are the two things a Prince should aim to create because they are the most practical when governing.  Machiavelli’s advice in this passage reflects the practicality he champions throughout The Prince.

Instead of reading The Discourses after I read the introduction to it I chose to read “The Backgrounds” section of The Prince, which entailed 140 pages of scholarly articles and at the end, two pages of epigrams (Yay Lord Henry!). One would imagine the articles would help me obtain insight into Machiavelli’s writings, and they did; but only to a limited extent. Most of the writing compared Machiavelli to a countless number of other writers and philosophers whom I had never heard of, and don’t plan to read about. I would if I had the time, but I only have until May to finish this project, which seems like a lot of time, but when one takes into account the amount of work regular classes require, there really isn’t that much time to do this project. I have resolved to make the best use of my time, which doesn’t include hunting down books by obscure authors.

I feel 99.99% of people-including myself- couldn’t understand the analyses that I read. One would have to be a philosophy major, which makes my wonder why the articles were even added to the The Prince. I skimmed through about half of the total pages, highlighting the passages that actually had a point to them. The authors of the articles were all post-doctorate professors; and ironically their writing wasn’t as clear as I thought it would be. Like Crick’s introduction, it was weighed down by so many independent clauses that I often became lost in the rhetoric. After about 20 pages of being frustrated, I just stopped rereading and skimmed over any name that I didn’t know. Perhaps this is a crude way to read, but to my credit, I found the points the author was trying to make with his or her examples and highlighted them. Knowing the conclusion is the important part, and like I mentioned before: I don’t have the time to research 40+ philosophical references, let alone incorporate a significant number of them into my project.

Crick’s introduction was considerably longer than any single article in the Backgrounds section, but the writing as all his own. He made sparse references to other works of literature, which made his writing more precise than the other articles I read. The other writers just compared Machiavelli to other writers and philosophers; and unless the reader has extensive knowledge of them, he or she will not understand the comparison. I remember one article: “Big Words, Exact Meanings” By: J.H. Whitefield, started off well, but then managed to ramble on, referencing seemingly every writer from 1500-1900. There was a point where I skimmed until I ceased to see names that I was unfamiliar with. I wondered how this guy could have a PhD and not be able to explain his own ideas with out the help of other writers.

But to Whitefield and the other Background author’s credit, they did make many important points.  And although their jargon equaled or exceeded their clarity I am happy I read their analyses. Their thoughts laid the foundation for my own. I will take a week off reading to write them in this blog, then I will start The Discourses.

And some advice to my fellow readers: take your time reading through scholarly articles, they give great ideas for blog entries and pieces for the final project. They can be more useful than the book itself.

Peace-

I went to Barnes and Noble and bought Machiavelli’s Discourses about a week ago. I’ve been reading it consistently over the past seven days and I have finally finished the introduction.  This may sound diminutive, but it was 50 pages long. I guess it suits the length of Machiavelli’s book, which is 500 pages long.

The introduction was a great start to my project, and I feel I will be quoting its author Bernard Crick extensively in my final project. I found his style of writing to be very complex, and often convoluted. He burdens his sentences with so many independent clauses I often had to reread paragraphs because I became lost in his rhetoric. I feel his style of writing mirrors that of Machiavelli, who also wrote in long, serpentine sentences that connects many independent clauses with commas, colons and semicolons. It will prepare me for the large volume of information I will have to decipher in the near future.

Interestingly, according to Crick’s introduction Machiavelli predicts many of the components of the US political system. Here are some examples:

1. “The basic point is that he [Machiavelli], as it were, a three rank scale for his general analysis of political systems- upper (as aristocratic), middle (bourgeois?) and lower, but advocates ‘looping off’ the top when it comes to ensuring stability in a republic, and thereafter uses a two-rank scale. Hence he either uses ‘Grandi’ (which can mean nobility even) very loosely when discussing a republic, or is flattering ‘the cits’, or is using it to mean something like ‘ruling class’ irrespective of which social group is in the saddle.”

Machiavelli seems to predict the two-party system (Democrats vs. Republicans).

2. “nor do they realize that in every republic there are two different dispositions, that of the populace and that of the upper class and that all legislation favorable to liberty is brought about by the clash between them”

Sounds like the House of Representatives and the Senate.

3. “since they[prudent legislatures] thought that such a government would be stronger and more stable, for if in one and same state there was principality, aristocracy and democracy, each would keep watch over another”

Sounds like the three branches of government: principality=executive, democracy=legislative and aristocracy=judicial

4. “the art of war is an extension of the whole social condition of a society. In other words, much of what he[Machiavelli] has to say about military technology and its relationship to politics can be boldly and roughly, but helpfully, translated into modern terms of industrial technology. He even assumes for military factors (as Marx did for economic) that decline and eventual collapse must follow failure to expand: one can never stand still, expansion and production have mastered us.”

It sounds like Machiavelli predicts the power economics grants a political system. In fact economics was the main reason the North won the Civil War and the Allies won WWII.

I think the writers of the constitution definitely borrowed many of Machiavelli’s ideas. I find his ideas to be very applicable to today’s world. It amazes me that someone could predict the above four things 250 years before the US Constitution was ratified and nearly 400 years before the industrial revolution.

Today I finally finished The Prince- all 72 pages of it. It’s quite an accomplishment, so feel free to applaud; but please no flash photography. Although it may not seem like much of an accomplishment, it was long 72 pages; I guestimate it took me  4-5 hours round trip. Here are a few reasons why:

1. Because the book was written in 16th Century Italy, Machiavelli didn’t know much English. He wrote the book in ancient Italian, so the translator must first change it into modern Italian to even hope changing it into English. For an accurate comparison, try changing Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night’s Dream into modern English, then translating into Italian. The result would be nothing like what Shakespeare originally wrote; but depending on the translator it could be readable. I have to give a shout out to Robert Adam’s here- he did a wonderful job translating Machiavelli’s ideas into English.

2. Machiavelli wrote in long, serpentine sentences. Think Emerson and Thoreau. It would be quite difficult to translate the two philosophers’ work because of the complexity of their sentences. Many subjects and verbs are placed next to each other, and sorting them out can be a monumental task on its own, let alone translating the whole sentence into another language.

3. Languages commonly have unique constructions and words that cannot be translated directly- the translator must choose the best phrasing he can find even if it doesn’t come close to the meaning of the foreign word (like virtù).

4. Translations like these put me to sleep. Think back to the Iliad and Odyssey. Depending on which translation one had, reading just a few sentences forced your eyelids closed (my Iliad was like this, my Odyssey was better- I finished the whole book!! The Iliad however is a work in progress…). The point is translations are oftentimes unlike the constructions that we have grown used to reading. For a comparison I finished The Picture of Dorian Gray in about the same amount of time as The Prince, and Dorian Gray is three times longer.

5. The footnotes were overwhelming. Machiavelli references seemingly every battle and military leader from the birth of Christ to his lifetime. Granted there were footnotes explaining most of the allusions, but I ended up with a list of 24 historical figures/events that I need to research in order to gain a complete understanding of Machiavelli’s logic. OU library…here I come!

I know, I’m a pretty good complainer. In all honestly I did enjoy the book- It was interesting to read the ideas of a man philosophers have called “the Anti-Christ” and “Lucifer”. And after finishing the book, I can’t say I blame them. Strangely, I have a fascination with Machiavelli’s ideas. True, they are cold and heartless. True, he endorses a world with out rules. But still, I cannot help but agree with him. All of the assumptions he makes about human nature make sense- that is they can, and have been, observed and tested.

Now I have 210 more pages to read in my book. I’ll explain. I bought a Norton Critical Edition, which means there is other material that helps the reader understand Machiavelli, and some awesome footnotes, as I have mentioned before. And after that I have about 500 more pages of The Discourses, which are Machiavelli’s actual thoughts on government. It turns out The Prince was a “Sparknotes version” of his actual thoughts- it was purposely written in a harsh, logical tone to get his point across. The Discourses take plenty of time (more than 500 pages of time) to explain his thoughts in detail. I think it will be interesting to compare how his ideas are presented in The Prince to how they are presented in The Discourses. Sounds like something that will go in my final project!

Anywho, I think I formalized my membership to the Nerd Herd for that last paragraph. This project feels like quicksand- the more I struggle to finish, the more work I create for myself. I guess that’s just how things work. Now I’m really glad I started this project ridiculously early, so I will have time to read and digest all of the information necessary for its completion.

Bill out- mom just brought home Chinese food!!!

Today I witnessed something that some people only see a few times, and others see too many times.

I arrived at the high school at 9 am to train with the girls’ soccer team in the field house. After we ran through an obstacle course we moved downstairs per Kara’s direction to shuffle over cones. This morning felt the same as any other conditioning. You get up. You work. You go home. Nothing happens in between. Today was different though. As our small group was shuffling over the orange cones when the wrestlers upstairs yelled for Kara. Someone had collapsed along the indoor track and Kara immediately ran to address the issue. Our group advanced cautiously behind her to see what was happening. The wrestlers were nervously running around when Kara yelled to call 911. A group of them, myself included, rushed into the hallway by Kara’s training room to find a phone. One was located and 911 was dialed.

Upon coming out of the purple double doors I was startled by the labored breath of Zach Johnston. He was so still and quiet I hadn’t noticed him there, only ten feet away from me. The mechanical quality of the breath made me flinch. Perhaps it scared me because it sounded weird, or because subconsciously I knew humans couldn’t breathe like that voluntarily. The sound will always stay with me. It was air passing through a human body, not breathing. The two may sound the same in words, but today I learned there is huge difference. It was at that point I realized Kara was the only thing pumping his blood through his veins, keeping him alive.

She called for her AED, and a student ran to her office to get it. As the student returned the group of soccer players including myself were ushered into the hall by a school secretary. We could see Kara and a group of wrestlers standing over Zach’s body, waiting for an ambulance to arrive. First two police cars arrived. Then an ambulance. Then another ambulance. Then another two police cars. Then more paramedics. As help arrived the wrestlers were sent away from Zach so the EMTs could work uninterrupted.

As they worked to save Zach’s life, more EMTs arrived, and our group pointed them in Zach’s direction. It seemed like an endless stream of them flowed into the field house. My sense of time melted away. The only thing I could think of was what had just happened. How does one make sense of the situation? A perfectly healthy high school athlete was lying on the gym floor unresponsive. Just a few minutes ago I had been most concerned with the pain in my quads and now the only thing that occupied my mind was a dieing classmate. I had a feeling many of my friends were thinking the same thing because no one talked. Every few minutes one of us shook his or her head, but other than that we didn’t know how to deal with the situation.

I have been to many funerals of aged family members, but I never actually saw a person die. When my grandpa was having health problems he moved into our family’s house so we could take care of him. For a summer I prepared breakfast and lunch for him everyday. He was a WWII veteran who had spent his life taking care of his family. And now I was taking care of him. He died shortly after the summer ended. I didn’t know what to think. Everyday I cooked him food and asked him if there was anything I could do for him, and everyday he said he said he was ok. I never had a personal relationship with him, but after he died I wished I could go back to making him breakfast and lunch every day. I wondered what life had been like for him during his last summer, when the only letters he received in the mail were healthcare bills and invitations to funerals and the only human contact he received was nurses trying to fix his failing body and our family, including myself.

At his funeral an American flag was folded into a triangle, put into a wooded box with a glass cover and given to our family for his service in WWII. I pass by it every day when I arrive home from school, and for a brief moment I think about that summer; how the simplest sights, sounds and experiences mean so much more when the person you experience them with is gone.

I could make some sense of my grandpa’s death because he was old and his body was failing. That was the reason he died. As I walked past the flag everyday I always knew why. Zach was different though. There was no reason he died. He was a perfectly healthy teenager. How does one justify that? How does one place this experience with all of his or her others? It made no sense. Teenage boys don’t die for no reason. Yet here I was, standing out in the hallway, with proof that they did.

Zach was in my German V class. Everyday (most days) I would arrive at room B11 (probably late) and see Zach. His head was usually on his desk, his body fast asleep. Speaking English is hard enough at 7:25 am and speaking German seemed impossible. Everyday I could look straight ahead, and in the middle of Adam’s protein cookies, Creech’s Monster Energy Drinks and Frau’s ridiculous chicken hat I saw Zach. Now that he is gone I feel that daily experience, that one small thread that bound our lives together, even though it seemed so trivial then, would seem like an enormous tear now.

I never knew Zach personally, but just like my grandpa my consciousness brushed past his every day, and I had become so accustomed to it. Now that Zach is gone I feel I will still look at his desk expecting him to open the door, give Frau a pink tardy slip and sit in his desk. But I know that will never happen. He is gone. Such a small detail of my life now seemed so significant. He was just another student, but now that he is gone, I know I will always stare at his desk and wonder who he was.

I imagine all of my friends in the hallway were thinking of how they passed Zach in their lives. Had he been in any of their classes? Had he passed them in the hallway? It seemed like we were all searching our memories, like a computer searches its hard drive, for any remnants of Zach that could help us evaluate our place in what had occurred just 20 minutes ago. We were silent until a secretary told us to go home. I said my goodbyes and left. Just like that. There was no dramatic reason for what had just occurred. It just happened. And now all of us had just left that hallway, an area we will remember for the rest of our lives as the place we experienced our first real brush with death. We felt its chill force our feelings inward, and at the same time prevent us from using words to express them. We were sent home before any of us could answer the question: what does this all mean? Zach will live on in our memories and in those of everyone who knew him, no matter how personal it was.

Perhaps this is my way of dealing with what happened. I encourage everyone who knew him, and those like me who didn’t, to not shy away from memories of him, no matter how trivial they are. I think all of us see a little of ourselves in him, and by evaluating his life and recent death, we can gain a greater understanding and appreciation of our place in this confusing world that we live in.

Rest in Peace and Condolences to his friends and family.

For another perspective here are Ken’s thoughts:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=53734678103