This blog is for the blog prompt given in week 4: Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 15: "Let us leave to one side, then, all discussions of imaginary rules and talk about practical realities." The following passage is quite long, but all of it is important for a sense of context. I have underlined and italicized the particular phrase that I believe most relates back to the question: "Let us leave to one side, then, all discussion of imaginary rulers and talk about practical realities. I maintain that all men, when people talk about them, and especially rulers, because they hold positions of authority, are described in terms of qualities that are inextricably linked to censure or to praise. So one man is described as generous, another as a miser; one is called open-handed, another tight-fisted; one man is cruel, another gentle; one untrustworthy, another reliable; one effeminate and cowardly, another bold and violent; one sympathetic, another self-important; one promiscuous, another monogamous; one straightforward, another duplicitous; one tough, another easy-going; one serious, another cheerful; one religious, another atheistical; and so on. Now I know everyone will agree that if a ruler could have all the good qualities I have listed and none of the bad ones, then this would be an excellent state of affairs. But one cannot have all the good qualities, nor always act in a praiseworthy fashion, for we do not live in an ideal world. You have to be astute enough to avoid being thought to have those evil qualities that would make it impossible for you to retain power; as for those that are compatible with holding on to power, you should avoid them if you can; but if you cannot, then you should not worry too much if people say you have them. Above all, do not be upset if you are supposed to have those vices a ruler needs if he is going to stay securely in power, for, if you think about it, you will realize there are some ways of behaving that are supposed to be virtuous, but would lead to your downfall, and others that are supposed to be wicked, but will lead to your welfare and peace of mind. " (Niccolo Machiavelli) Going back to the question: To me, this could have several meanings. It seems like a "covert insult" to the Church, yet also an obvious one. If not directly aimed at the Church, it definitely was aimed at what the Church stands for: ethics and morals (based the desires of a supreme being or whatever else). Again looking at the passage, one main theme stands out above all others...Personal ethics should NEVER be the downfall of a political power. To Machiavelli, "practical realities" are the realities of the world that he lived in (and even in some cases, the world that we currently live in today). Having morals is a good thing (he does not disagree with this), but it is not always possible given the current state of politics. Therefore, it is better to "appear" to be virtuous and to play the game like a devil, then to play the game as a saint and to be devoured by true devils. In a cutthroat environment, one must cut throat, so to speak. Machiavelli does not even want to entertain the "but what ifs" of life. He is a pragmatic and stoic in his approach to politics and diplomatic relations. Overall, I would say no. I do not agree with him at all. Yet I also cannot ignore the ruthless ways in which some people choose to conduct politics and themselves. Perhaps I am denying the natural order of things, but I'd like to expect more of society. I found a blog that incorporates this argument and includes a more religious perspective to this question. You can read more about it here: https://findingtangle.com/2016/09/29/the-makings-of-a-prince-erasmus-machiavelli-and-idealism-vs-pragmatism-in-political-rule/
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorGlobal Scholar. Gullah Girl. Social Entrepreneur. Archives
December 2018
Categories |