Morals are for Sissies

I just finished Dorian Gray, and I found it to be well written and intellectually stimulating. Oscar Wilde is a fantastic author. I found myself highlighting passages because they were so precise. It amazed me that Wilde could use language, which is a very indefinite form of communication, to shape his ideas. After I read certain passages I said to myself: “yes, I know exactly what he is trying to say”. The book overall was quite depressing, but I value it more for its truth than how it made me feel. I also want to make a 365 day calendar, each day having a quote said by Lord Henry. I found them hilarious!

Interestingly I have found a connection between Dorian Gray and The Prince. Both of the books explore the dark side of human nature, the question of: what if there were no consequences? Machiavelli’s advice was closely followed by Dorian, but instead of political gains Gray made sensual ones. He achieved them by any means necessary and charmed anyone who condemned him for it. Dorian was unstoppable. His beauty and charm overshadowed any foul deed he committed. The two aforementioned attributes coupled with his portrait granted Dorian the power to indulge himself with out consequence. This is the equivalent of politics. The best politicians, usually politicos, can charm their way in and out of anything. In this light I view the novel as an answer to the question: what would humans do if there were no consequences to their actions? Wilde’s answer is frightening, but in my opinion very accurate. Dorian Gray represents “the dark side” in all of us (Star Wars might be juvenile but the metaphor fits). Dorian wants to know everything-the good and the bad. He already knows what being good feels like, and Lord Henry shows him how to indulge himself. Upon finding the knowledge of evil, he finds he cannot become good again (like Anakin Skywalker becoming Darth Vader). Someone once said: “when knowledge stretches one’s mind, it is impossible for it to return to its original size”. I find this statement is true concerning the knowledge of evil. Dorian’s journey into his dark side reveals to him the uselessness of being good and the tragedy of being bad- the former damns one to a long, boring life of anonymity and the latter grants one a brief life of exhilarating passion followed by a cataclysmic downfall.

Dorian’s life and the life of a politician (in Machiavelli’s time) are one in the same. Both are granted power over people with out any one to keep them in check. The politicians who chose to do horrible things to indulge their passion for more power were killed quickly, just as Dorian lived a relatively short life of indulgence. The trick, as both parties discovered, is to mask their hedonism with beauty and charm. This way, they could do whatever they wanted with out consequence. And given that opportunity, they always chose indulgence over temperance (this is very arguable).

With out checks like morality and God humans would do anything they desired. What’s stopping them? God and morals cannot be proved or scientifically studied, so for the sake of argument I must assume they are non-existent. The only thing keeping humans in check are themselves. They have an infinite potential for good or evil, and since evil is naturally selected for, it is the more commonly chosen path. The good (unselfish) always die. The bad always live on. And that, unlike morality and God, can be proven.

Look at the most successful people in history. A vast majority of them achieved their success through virtù, not virtue. I could go on and on with examples, but I think the best one is evolution. It naturally selects organisms that are the best at surviving, regardless of how they do it. Knowing this, I envy the mind of animals: they don’t know how to think, and are therefore freed from emotions like guilt and sorrow that inevitably result from the taking of resources from another to survive; emotions that deeply trouble human beings.

On Another Note:

I thought the Victorian Aristocracy was very much like the politics of the 16th Century. Everyone acts like they like everyone else, when really he or she is secretly plotting to advance his or her own position. The result is a world filled with treachery, where everyone wears a pleasant mask to cover up their hideous ambitions. To a person’s face lies are always told, but to their back, the truth is revealed. Also no one is technically above anyone else (save titles). The only thing they have to distinguish themselves is cunning (virtù). They are not really better than anyone else, so they must make it seem like they are.

This post seems scattered and unfocused- maybe I’ll fix it later.

I’m sorry Prince, I have found another obsession for the moment. His name is Dorian.

Just because I’m a soccer player does not make me homosexual. I was talking about the books!!! Geez. Get your mind out of the gutter.

I started Dorian Gray and it’s great. Hedonism fits into Machiavelli’s philosophy, and I find myself noticing the similarities then chuckling. haha (that’s a chuckle). When I finish Dorian Gray I will return to the Prince, and the painstaking research that will inevitably result in order for me to understand Machiavelli’s similes. At least it gives me something to do. I finished season three of House tonight, which leaves a huge hole in my daily routine. I usually come home and watch an episode or two, and now I can’t anymore   How else am I supposed to procrastinate??

Solution: read Dorian Gray. That way I can do two things at once. I can not do my project and still be productive at the same time. I found a loophole in my logic. Excellent.

Peace-

My soccer coach used to say, “soccer is a results oriented game”. It doesn’t matter how you score goals or how pretty they are, as long as you score more than your opponents (ask Diego Maradona about his “Hand of God”). And he was correct. I’ve seen Rees curve a free kick from the 18-yard box around a wall of five guys into the upper corner of the goal. I’ve also seen my own goalie accidentally (I hope) throw a soccer ball into our goal. Ironically both goals were worth the same amount of points.

Machiavelli has a similar view on politics. He argues that morals mean nothing- only the end result matters. Do whatever is necessary to achieve your goals, and crush everyone who stands in your way. Sounds like a cliche sports metaphor, and it kind of is. What I mean to say is virtù is the only thing that matters, not virtue. This idea can be applied to a myriad of topics, including soccer and that dazzling, elegant Governor of Alaska.

Sarah Palin was virtùous enough to adapt a pro life,pro abstinence, anti gay-marriage, pro NRA, pro capital punishment, anti embryonic stem cell research, pro oil exploration and pro Iraq war platform. Does this platform sound like the ultra-conservative stereotype that is becoming more and more common today? Interesting. If someone adapted it she could go far in a very conservative state like Alaska. Enter Sarah Palin. She uses this platform for virtùous purposes rather than the virtuous ones she would like to have America believe.

Her virtue came into question when the American public discovered her 18 year old unmarried daughter Bristol was pregnant. Overnight her “return to traditional American values” was questioned. How can someone who believes in abstinence be credible when she could not teach her own daughter the “virtuous” thing to do. This idea led me to some conjectures:

1. If Sarah Palin is twice as hot as a normal woman, and her daughter is 1/2 her age, does that mean Bristol is 1/2x=2, x=4 times as hot as the average female? Perhaps my math is wrong. But her prego eggo doesn’t lie.

2. In high school Sarah Palin was called “Sarah Barracuda” for her aggression on the basketball court. I wondered if she was also aggressive in other aspects of her life. Maybe she’s a nymphomaniac. And if she is maybe she passed on her nymphomania to her daughter, and since her daughter is 4 times as hot as the average female, it’s no surprise Bristol’s eggo was prego. Sarah Palin has five kids, four more than her daughter. Perhaps that relates to the hotness factor too. Her boyfriend (I would hope he was) was probably dating her to get to her mom anyway.

3. I wonder if Bristol is into role-playing? If she is I can dress up as the American public and she can be her mom. In the scene I will choose not to vote for her, and instead support someone with a more realistic view of the world. After all, politicians are like diapers: they’re full of crap and should be changed often. Our previous administration wasn’t changed fast enough, and that rash called Operation Iraqi Freedom developed on the butt cheeks of America.

My logic may be over-reaching, but numbers don’t lie; people do.

The point I’m trying to make is virtue is really a disguise for virtù. Palin (the mom) would like to say she believes in abstinence, but her family (and the new addition) tells a different story. Her political beliefs are just a ploy to advance in politics, not ones she truly believes in. The mother-daughter relationship between the two is a great way to explain hypocrisy. My logic is obviously over-reaching. It functions to reveal how illogical people can be, and how easily it is to manipulate reasoning to benefit oneself. This strategy is one people usually despise, yet ironically it is one that results in great success. Sadly the most efficient way to become successful is to abandon virtue for virtù. Consider the things Sarah Palin has said in the past year (remember how she couldn’t name two newspapers), then ask yourself how someone like that could govern a state.

The truth is this pattern applies to every human being. Evolution has naturally selected those who are the most successful, and that means hypocrisy, betrayal and virtù have been bred into each successive generation of human beings. Maybe Machiavelli was right after all- there are no such things as morals.

When reading a book published in a foreign language first there is always meaning lost in the translation process. Some words represent an idea, and therefore an appropriate English equivalent is difficult to find; especially when the word represents an idea that is uniquely integrated into a foreign country’s culture or history. In The Prince that is the case with the word virtù. I first read about it in Robert Adams’ Translator’s note. He wrote: “A last, long-standing problem in translating Machiavelli is posed by the word virtù, which can mean anything from ’strength’, ‘ability’, ‘courage’, ‘manliness’ or ‘ingenuity’ to ‘character’, ‘wisdom’ or even (last resort) ‘virtue’”.

This word defined the mentality of a Prince during Machiavelli’s time. Virtù, like my definition of a Prince, is broad on purpose. In context it means any strategy that yields positive results. This relates to Machiavelli’s idea of the ends justifying the means. Virtù is anything that brings success. The result is the only thing that matters, not the trait that virtù refers to. That’s why Adams attributes so many adjectives to the word. It represents an idea, something that is not definable by mere adjectives alone. It needs a well written analysis (like the one here in my blog) to fully explain its meaning.

First and foremost virtù is the driving force behind Machiavelli’s political treatise. During his life the Italian city-states had no definable advantages over one another. The only difference between each of them was political. The interactions between leaders defined the city-states. This created a politically charged atmosphere where alliances were created and broken constantly and consistently. There were many city-states and many alliances; and with those alliances came an enormous incentive to cheat. It was to a city-state’s advantage if they made friends, then betrayed them. It was a way to neutralize a threat and to focus one’s efforts on other enemies. It was in this world that Machiavelli become a foreign ambassador. He was on the front lines witnessing this attrition every day and from his experiences he concluded that virtue is not important. Virtù, or good politics, is the only thing that matters.

A good example of this idea is the title of Part VI of The Prince. Adams translated it as: “About new Princedoms acquired with ones’ own arms and energy [virtù]” (Adams tries to match adjectives to virtù, but since there is no English equivalent he leaves the original word in brackets for clarification purposes). Put into context, it might read: “About new Princedoms acquired by any means you choose”. The Prince sees no distinction between moral and immoral behavior, it only sees the results one’s behavior produces. This is why Adams’ definition of virtù is ambiguous. It means anything a Prince does to successfully gain political power.

Ironically virtù sounds and is spelled like the English word virtue. Virtue has a moral subtext, while the Italian word has none. Machiavelli argues that are no morals in politics and therefore virtue does not exist; only virtù matters because people measure politicians by what they do, not how they do it. Take President John F. Kennedy for example. He was married with children, but still found time in between his presidential duties and spending time with his family to have extramarital affairs. The public didn’t care back then, and doesn’t care now-he is still remembered as one of our greatest presidents. One of his accomplishments was his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Russians never backed down like many Americans may think. JFK made a deal with Khrushchev, promising to leave Cuba alone and withdrawing troops from various parts of the world for Khrushchev to remove missiles from Cuba. It may look like JFK was virtuous for standing up to the Communists, when really he was virtùous. What he did was use good politics to resolve an issue. His actions weren’t motivated by morality- if they he would have never made concessions with Khrushchev. He would have stood up for Democratic ideals no matter what. But we know the moral always perish first. And JFK didn’t rise to the presidency through morality. He was a great politician who would beg, borrow and deal to achieve his goals. Today we remember him for this ability; not for any morals he may have had.

The truth is morals and virtue have a subjective meaning-it depends if the factions benefits or suffers as a results of the virtuous action. So technically there is no one, true, universal virtuous action because a gain for one faction always results in a loss of another. In a strange way virtue and virtù can mean the same thing. They both describe an action but have an ambiguous meaning. They are good for those who benefit and bad for everyone else. The English counterpart attempts to give a positive subtext to the word in order to justify that trade off that any action ultimately creates. The Italian word doesn’t bother with morals. It, like Machiavelli’s book, is cruel, heartless and to the point. It doesn’t bother trying to embellish the idea. One could say the sack of Rome in 1527 was a very virtuous act, but the Romans would disagree. However, both factions , if unbiased, would agree the sacking was virtùous. It expanded Charles V’s empire while severely injuring a powerful enemy. Charles used good politics regardless if one agrees with his motives or not.

Perhaps the words do mean the same thing after all.

Last week I decided I should start reading my AP book. I mean, what better way is there to write about it than actually reading the book? I stated previously I own a Sparknotes version of The Prince, but to find it I had to clean my room, and that is a monumental task by itself. I felt it should stay lost for these reasons:

1. It only summarizes the book, which means important information, and thus meaning is lost.

2. People should draw conclusions from books- people should not draw conclusions from conclusions drawn from a summary.

3. IT IS NOT A REAL BOOK!

4. Most importantly, I didn’t want to clean my room

I prefer to read a book that gives me a story, then challenges me to analyze it, not one that gives me a diluted summary with an even more diluted analysis. Look how much I’ve written already written about the book in my blog- and I haven’t even started it yet. I don’t think a Sparknotes version could ever give me any genuine insight into Machiavelli’s text. It tells what one should think, rather than what he or she actually thinks. The historical introduction, translator’s note and footnotes help, but even those don’t give enough information to fully understand Machiavelli’s comparisons and examples.

My first question came before I read any of the above texts. The title of the book itself was a mystery. What is a Prince? Is he like Prine Charming? Or Prince Harry of England? Or does “Prince” mean something entirely different? It turned out my third conjecture was correct. A Prince is any ruler who has political power. The broad definition corresponds to the wide scope of Machiavelli’s advice. His book is a “how to” manual, but instead of explaining how to assemble a play structure, he explains how to gain political power- a skill very important in Machiavelli’s time. During his life many Princes struggled for power over the Italian Peninsula. The political factions included Florence (Machiavelli’s home), Milan, The Kingdom of Naples, The Romagna (papal states), Genoa, Modena, Venice, Mantua, Ferrara and Sienna. All of these Principalities-lands ruled by a Prince- struggled vainly against one another to gain control of all of Italy. This delicate balance of power was beneficial to the Italians for a while. It encouraged competition and commerce much like Capitalism does today. A problem arose when more centralized governments like France and Spain became greedy for power, and seeing Italy as weak and divided, seized the opportunity to extend their political power beyond their borders by invasion, or supporting local political allies.

Although they were political enemies of Machiavelli the Kings of France and Spain would be considered Princes. Both Principalities acheived varying levels of success in overtaking Italy. They both stood to gain power through the conquest of Italy and were not afraid to try. The rules of politics (or lack of them) applied equally to them as they did to the Italians. Vaulting ambition in the hands of the powerful know no rules. What rules do you place upon those who make the rules? Machiavelli reasoned there were no rules in politics, and all of his advice to Princes omitted moral assessment. Princes didn’t ride white horses or party in Windsor Castle like I thought- they are the dirty, ambitious, throat-cutting politicians who are hated, feared and respected by all. Modern examples include Adolf Hitler, Emperor Hirohito (Japanese emperor during WWII) and Muammar al-Gaddafi (dictator of Libya). I’m pretty sure Prince Harry and Prince Charming would not hold their own against the above three. They are the ones who followed Machiavelli’s advice to the letter. They gained control over new peoples and countries by any means necessary. Machiavelli uses the word Prince as a proxy for all of its many meanings.

It is a term recognized by virtually every political system, regardless if that system includes a monarchy. In this sense a Prince is responsible for continuing the King’s current responsibilities and spreading his Principality’s influence to foreign lands. This definition also fits with Machiavelli’s intended meaning. The duties of a traditionally prince match those of the one Machiavelli refers to. The modern examples I mentioned are obviously not princes in the traditional sense, but their position and goals are the same. They already have power, and know they must extend their empire. If they don’t another Prince will readily take over their lands.

These are the kind of people Machiavelli dealt with on a regular basis as a Florentine ambassador to foreign lands. These aggressive, zealous officials are all Princes. So is George Bush. So is Barack Obama. So is Ehud Olmert (prime minister of Israel). The definition includes all politicians who stand to gain or lose power. The important thing about the definition is its vastness; and upon reading Machiavelli’s advice, one must wonder how many people is he actually advising? The answer is all of them, which is a frightening thought considering how many politicians there are today. What would the world be like if all of them followed Machiavelli’s advice to the letter like the aforementioned dictators? Here’s a snippet:

“And the reason for this is another natural and ordinary necessity, which is that a new Prince must always harm those over whom he assumes authority, both with his soldiers and with a thousand other hardships that are entailed in a new conquest”

Keep in mind that is on page three. And yes, he is talking about using threats, violence and intimidation to retain control over people. Now back to the question: what would the world be like if all politicians followed Machiavelli’s advice? The answer is more frightening than the question.

Last year I spent two weeks in Europe during Spring Break. I went with Soccer International, a team coached by Franco Pertot, who every spring travels with a team of American high-school soccer players across Germany, Austria and Italy, playing local teams and learning about the culture. In this opportunity The Prince and I had a date with Destiny. That may sound homosexual…but then again I am a soccer player.

The plane ride from Detroit Metro Airport to Amsterdam (the airport where we would meet our transfer flight to Munich) was 8 hours long. I figured I should have plenty of books to keep me sane during the trip. I mean, looking at the Atlantic Ocean is only exciting for so long. I went into Barnes and Noble with $20 about a week before my departure. I bought Frankenstein by Mary Shelley because I had just seen the play put on by the Avondale Theatre company. I liked it so much I bought the book. I also bought a book about Venice and with only $5 left I stumbled upon the rack of blue Sparknotes books. I was taking AP Government at the time, and I found politics very interesting. I had heard of The Prince previously and decided I would give it a shot. Regrettably I bought the Sparknotes version- at that time I was unfamiliar with Barnes and Noble and consequently didn’t know they had regular copies of the book. Although I planned to read it on the plane ride, my curiosity wouldn’t let me wait. Two days later I finished the book (and I use the word book very loosely when referring to those horrid Sparknote summaries).

I loved the Sparknotes version (even though it is not really a book), but with a looming AP test I placed it on the back burner to attend to more imminent matters. When Kreinbring told us about the AP English Project The Prince was the first thing that popped into my mind. I mean, merging my two favorite classes (AP Government and AP English) sounded like a great idea.

Almost immediately after compulsively deciding, I had second thoughts. I wanted to read something new, and not so heartless as The Prince. (read the Overview section of my blog, its to your upper left)  I thought of The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, All Quiet on the Western Front By: Erich Remarque and The Art of War by: Sun-Tzu. I didn’t want to read 800+pages of The Fountainhead, and there wasn’t enough criticism of All Quiet on the Western Front. I also couldn’t keep Joe Jiang on call to help me read translations of The Art of War. I knew that he would choose Bridget over translating Chinese for me (She makes really good muffins). Then I noticed something: The Prince and The Art of War are practically the same book. I was going in circles. The truth was I really did want to do my project on The Prince, I was running away from it is because it is cold and heartless.

In the end I decided Morals are for Sissies and bought the book. It scares me that I like and agree with Machiavelli’s logic, but my curiosity got the better of me. I wanted to know the truth- even if it was grim. To me truth is more important than happiness. I would rather live a truthful misery than a happy lie. Is it just me or does that sound like House?

Is that me?- cold, heartless, logical, calculating. Maybe it’s not. But I know by thoroughly reading and researching this masterpiece I will be able to test my hypothesis. Even if I discover my truth is a miserable one, I will accept it. You cannot change who you are, and if this is me, then I will have my answer.

“The Prince” by Nicolo Machiavelli: $10

Bowl of Chicken Noodle Soup from Panera Bread: $5

Sitting down, reading the first page, then realizing extensive knowledge of European history is required to understand all of Machiavelli’s metaphors: Priceless

I guess that’s what I get for picking a book that is only 74 pages long. I thought it was a good idea, until Machiavelli started comparing Italian politics to Ludovico Sfoco’s conflict with Spain. I had no idea who Sfoco was, let alone his conflict with Spain. Did I fail to mention this was on the first page? I skimmed through the rest of the book, realizing Sfoco was one of the easier allusions to understand.

An obvious task reared its ugly head: I must learn at least 75 years of European history (1450-1525). AND in the introduction another of Machiavelli’s books- Discourses-was mentioned. Apparently it contains Machiavelli’s views on government, including who should lead, how they should lead, and what kind of government should be formed. The Prince was an exaggeration of his actual thought, written bluntly on purpose to get his point across. Politics is heartless-I get it. I also get that I will have to read another book, which is considerably longer than 74 pages. I saw it at Barnes and Noble when I was looking for The Prince. It looked to be around 200-300 pages.

So now I have to be well versed in 75 years of European history and read another book; not that I mind reading. The mass of work concerns me, not the content. Personnally I look forward to learning about European political structures. This probably makes me the biggest AP Gov nerd ever (Carolyn would be proud of me).

A lesson for my fellow AP Englishers out there: the content of your book is only the beginning.

Maybe I’m technologically impaired, maybe my six year old computer doesn’t work very well; or maybe-in spite of Kreinbring’s opinion, edublogs is NOT user friendly. I spent two days trying to create a blog, and 10 minutes ago, by process of elimination I clicked on the link that said “create a blog” and bam, there’s my blog.  Who would have thought you actually have to create one to post entries?? Not me…that’s for sure.

Odds are I’m the problem, in spite of my ranting. I’m just relieved I finally created my blog, so I can start writing!!! But right now it’s 9:54 and almost past my bedtime. So I’ll write more tomorrow.

To Do List:

1. Buy “The Prince” By: Nicolo Machiavelli (that’s my AP book btw)

2. Read book

That’s a good start for now. Peace.