spineless cynicism and Machiavelli.
a couple of weeks ago I mentioned Machiavelli in terms of ‘realist’ politics. the term ‘machiavellian’ is often used in the sense of ruthless/treacherous. twofaced.. but if you really check out what Machiavelli said, it is much more than that.
he is the author of two influential works.. the prince (1513)an essay on how the prince is to control human nature to his own advantage, and the discourses (1516) on how to control these forces to secure public harmony and security.
unlike the conservative politics of plato or even the dogmatic/reactionary ideology of Augustine of hippo, niccolo Machiavellis thought is underwritten by certain (extremely negative) assumptions about human nature. the political dimension is just an application or consequence of his view of human nature.
politics is for him all about getting and keeping power.
it goes like this….
we live in an unpredictable and incoherent world… of outrageous fortune. there is no connection between desert and reward. this is particularly evident in a political forum which is unpredictable and merciless…
this contrasts with the rigid fixed human temperament of self interest. virtue therefore consists in being able to maintain power in the face of uncaring fortune. one does this with force ---more or less violent as the case may require. (the prince should) let morality be no impediment.
according to him, human nature is fundamentally and unchangingly selfish and immoral. people are individualistic, competitive , ruthless and unscrupulous. it is the role of the prince, being totally no exception to this, to be able to manipulate the people in such a way as to maintain power. this is done primarily through force/fear.
people are totally dominated by fear, love, hatred, and contempt … or some combination of two. the kind of rational cooperation assumed by plato and aristotle to enable functionality is replaced by the assumption that humans are unable to cooperate freely and so must be forced to do so.
it is the prince who must act according to circumstances.
some commentators justify his view on the grounds that he is not advocating wickedness per se, though he would definitely justify it if the circumstances required, (he would almost certainly concede it to be regrettable.) its so reminiscent of glib neo-conservatism.
a coherent, opportunist ideology for the bastards by the bastards.
his dirty little ideas cheapen and debase humankind. there were spineless cynics before machiavelli yet he established this ideology in politics as respectable and it has since gained even wider currency.
human nature is essentially good and man is a microcosm of the (glorious) solar logos. justice and the law of karma is reality.. anything like Machiavelli should be firmly (yet briefly) discredited when encountered. quantum mechanics has us understand how convictions can turn men into beasts better than at any time in the past.
(I feel better having said that. eheheh)
in my opinion it was the torture that he suffered while in prison that distorted his mind causing him to lose faith in humanity. have you ever met a torture victim?
Posts
