I find it to be a very practical way to get noticed and to sell. It could have been Machiavelli's strategy for the public to buy his works. Machiavelli was a person who thought ahead of most people at his time. His strategy for marketing the works he wanted people to read would be this difference that he wanted people to know about.
But what I perceive through his writing in The Prince on a psychological basis was that Machiavelli was a man of little trust for acquaintances. He wrote about making alliances and he also wrote about how to stay on top of everybody else. I guess he believes in the achievements a self-made man can do.
This said I believe Machiavelli was a strong marketer of himself and that in order for a chance to achieve his dreams he had to set himself apart from everybody else.
Zacarias Daniel A. Baricuatro
I totally agree with what you said about Machiavelli having little trust. Machiavelli's ideas definitely had the feel of mistrusting people. For example, like you said, form an alliance; however, you cannot really trust them after a conflict because they will be a potential enemy. Another example, would be the fear vs. love idea. He says, ideally it would be better to be both; however, since that is pretty much impossible it is better to be feared. Make the people fear you so that they would be too afraid to revolt. Have power over the army so that they won't revolt. Interesting how Machiavelli describes such a relationship that seems quite "anti trust." If this is how it is, how can he expect the people to trust someone who does not trust them?
ReplyDeleteRegardless, Machiavelli still has the best ideas in my opinion. Have to fight for what you want and do what it takes to achieve.
:D
Actually, Daniel, if i recall correctly, Sir mentioned that Machiavelli actually liked making fun of himself. Although he might have written this only to flatter the prince, he, nevertheless wrote:
ReplyDelete"And although I may consider this work unworthy of your countenance, nevertheless I trust much to your benignity that it may be acceptable, seeing that it is not possible for me to make a
better gift than to offer you the opportunity of understanding in the shortest time all that I have learnt in so many years, and with so many troubles and dangers; "
Did you, perhaps, read the discourses or art of war and base your statements there?
About Machiavelli being an untrusting man, i think the simplest explanation is his belief that man is by nature bad and are, therefore, inclined to turn on you for their own good.
A lot of people praise themselves and some to a very extreme extent. These may be their ways of also selling themselves and asking for attention.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Machiavelli was a man of little trust. He was not much of a "we" person but more of an "I" person.
But he used this kind of personality of his to his advantage. Because of this attitude of his, he was able to think of ways to govern. And these ways and ideas were pretty good anyway.
I think Machiavelli's fondness of laughing at himself and making fun of himself was another way of his call for attention. But as Ticia said, he nevertheless was able to use this personality of his to his advantage. So, it was not such a bad thing that Machiavelli worked this way.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Machiavelli's situation was really that unfavorable that he became so mistrusting and skeptical about everyone. Others may say that he is over-reacting at things, but maybe those people just never experienced a situation as bad as that of Machiavelli's. Oftentimes, all the time actually, we suggest the most extreme ideas when driven by the most intolerable experiences.
ReplyDeleteAt least he still trusts his own self. (Well, I hope. Haha.)
We cannot really judge as to why Machiavelli acted that way since we were never in his position or seen and experienced the things he experienced. Perhaps as mentioned above, Machiavelli's situation was really unfavorable and drove him to very mistrusting.
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli's conception of human nature was probably heavily influenced by the lawlessness of the Italian society at his time. Massive vote-buying in the College of Cardinals and corrupt practices like blackmail and violence engaged by the different European powers (Florence, Milan, Venice, Naples, France, Spain, and the Holy Roman Empire) were possibly just some of the factors that made Machiavelli cynical and untrusting. At the end of the day, we can’t really blame Machiavelli for thinking this way. Unlike the eccentric Adam Smith, Machiavelli was really absorbed in the events and problems of his time.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, apart from being loud and cynical, I think Machiavelli was also very sneaky and clever. He planned to help Lorenzo de Medici rise to power as a prince with the ulterior motive of using him to pave the way for a republican state.
An example of Machiavelli’s cleverness is how he began The Prince with a short justification of why a normal citizen like him should know more than rulers about the art of ruling principalities. He used the metaphor of the mountain, which goes: a person standing on a mountain is best positioned to survey the landscape below, and a person standing below is best positioned to survey the mountain.
I find this hard to believe though. It may sound nice, but I don’t think that a third-person perspective is more reliable than the actual experience of a ruling prince. Furthermore, even if it is, I think an observer’s perspective would still amount to nothing without testing it using real-life experiences.
What about you guys? What do you think? :D
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY MACHIAVELLI BEING "LOUD"? I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. MY IDEA OF A LOUD PERSON DOES NOT FIT WHAT I KNOW OF MACHIAVELLI. "ULTERIOR" IMPLIES AN EVIL MOTIVE. FROM A DEMOCRATIC POINT OF VIEW, THE DE MEDICIS ARE EVIL AND PLOTTING TO REPLACE THEIR DYNASTY WITH A REPUBLIC IS A NOBLE AIM.
ReplyDeleteFN