DISCOURSES ON LIVY | Machiavelli's REAL Opinions
Summary
TLDRDr. Moore explores Machiavelli's 'Discourses on Livy,' offering a nuanced view of the political thinker. He challenges the common 'Machiavellian' stereotype, emphasizing Machiavelli's aim to benefit society through innovative political strategies rooted in ancient wisdom. The discussion delves into the Florentine's complex relationship with religion, his belief in the necessity of state religion, and his controversial views on the cyclical nature of political regimes, advocating for robust institutions over individual rulers to ensure stability and the common good.
Takeaways
- 📚 Machiavelli's work is often misunderstood, with 'The Prince' overshadowing his more comprehensive 'Discourses on Livy', which offers a nuanced view of his political philosophy.
- 🔍 Dr. Moore suggests that Machiavelli's intent was to help people by proposing political structures that could bring about common benefit, contrary to his reputation for advocating deceit and violence.
- 🕊️ Machiavelli believed in looking to ancient, pre-Christian models to innovate and move politics forward, breaking away from the Christian conventions of his time.
- 🌏 He emphasized the importance of understanding both contemporary and ancient politics, using an analysis of Livy's 'Histories of Rome' as a foundation for his political theories.
- 🧐 The script discusses the concept of 'Machiavellianism', which is often associated with unscrupulous tactics in politics, a notion derived primarily from 'The Prince'.
- 🕰️ It is suggested that Machiavelli's work took considerable time to write, with 'The Prince' and 'Discourses on Livy' possibly being worked on concurrently.
- 💭 The opening of 'Discourses on Livy' addresses human envy and the blame-oriented nature of mankind, which Machiavelli sees as a challenge to introducing new political orders.
- 🌐 Machiavelli's political philosophy is rooted in a deep skepticism about the relationship between politics and metaphysics, particularly questioning divine involvement in human affairs.
- 🏛️ He advocates for a republican form of government that combines elements of principality, aristocracy, and popular rule to create a balanced and stable political system.
- 🛡️ The script highlights Machiavelli's focus on institutions over individuals for the sake of political stability and longevity, recognizing the mortality and fallibility of individual rulers.
- ⛪️ Religion plays a significant role in Machiavelli's thought, with the belief that a state religion can instill virtue and maintain social order, although he criticizes Christianity as practiced in the 16th century.
- 🛑 Machiavelli's discourses also touch on the potential for decline in political systems and the need for extraordinary measures, including violence, to restore order when institutions fail.
Q & A
What is the primary misconception about Machiavelli based on his most famous work, 'The Prince'?
-The primary misconception is that Machiavelli is synonymous with deception, ambition, trickery, and violence, which is often referred to as 'Machiavellianism'. This idea comes from 'The Prince', but the script suggests that 'The Discourses' provides a more nuanced view of Machiavelli's thoughts.
Why does Machiavelli choose to write about politics through an interpretation of Livy's 'Histories of Rome'?
-Machiavelli uses Livy's 'Histories of Rome' as a way to go back to the ancient, pre-Christian world. This allows him to break out of the Christian conventions and premises of his time, enabling him to think about politics in new ways and innovate.
What is the significance of the opening paragraph of 'The Discourses' in relation to Machiavelli's approach to politics?
-The opening paragraph of 'The Discourses' introduces the idea of Machiavelli as an explorer charting a new course for politics. It suggests that he is driven by a desire to work for the common benefit of everyone, despite the potential for envy and blame from others.
How does Machiavelli's view on human nature influence his approach to lawmaking?
-Machiavelli believes that lawmakers should presuppose that all people are bad and will act on their malignity when given the opportunity. This view is based on the belief that people, when free to choose, often act in anti-social and self-interested ways, which should be considered when creating laws.
What is Machiavelli's perspective on the relationship between politics and metaphysics?
-Machiavelli seems to doubt the relationship between politics and metaphysics. He does not believe that God involves Himself in human politics, and that divine intervention does not necessarily reward just and prudent actions or punish the wicked and sinful in politics.
Why does Machiavelli argue that Christianity, as practiced in the 16th century, is politically problematic?
-Machiavelli believes that the version of Christianity practiced in the 16th century may not function well as a state religion due to its teachings and practices, which could be at odds with the political stability and success he envisions.
What does Machiavelli propose as the solution to prevent regimes from collapsing into their vicious forms?
-Machiavelli proposes republicanism as the solution. He suggests that a well-ordered republic combines elements of principality, aristocracy, and popular rule, with each serving as a check on the others, preventing any one group or office from dominating.
How does Machiavelli view the importance of institutions in maintaining political stability?
-Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of institutions over individuals because institutions provide stability that outlasts the mortality of any one person, especially a ruler. He believes that institutions, including state religion, are crucial for the longevity and stability of a regime.
What is Machiavelli's critique of Julius Caesar in the context of 'The Discourses'?
-Machiavelli criticizes Julius Caesar for attempting to overthrow the Roman Republic and install a dictatorship. He argues that Caesar's actions led to the decline of institutions and the rise of hereditary monarchy, which is subject to the whims of fortune and not conducive to long-term political stability.
How does Machiavelli address the issue of political decline and the potential need for extraordinary measures to restore order?
-Machiavelli acknowledges that political decline may require extraordinary measures, such as the actions of a strong leader or the refounding of a state. However, he also recognizes the violence and suffering that such measures entail and suggests that they are necessary to prevent further decline and collapse.
Outlines
📚 Machiavelli's Misunderstood Intentions
Dr. Moore introduces Niccolò Machiavelli, a figure often associated with deception and political cunning, yet argues that Machiavelli's true aim was to help people. The video focuses on 'Discourses on Livy,' a work that provides a more nuanced view of Machiavelli's political philosophy compared to his more infamous 'The Prince.' Moore suggests that Machiavelli sought to innovate politics by revisiting ancient, pre-Christian models, implying a move away from the Christian conventions of his time. The summary touches on the potential length of time Machiavelli spent writing the 'Discourses' and his initial discussion of envy as a fundamental human trait, setting the stage for his exploration of politics.
🤔 The Dilemma of Political and Moral Success
This paragraph delves into the complex relationship between political success and moral righteousness. Dr. Moore discusses Machiavelli's view that political outcomes can sometimes be at odds with morality, where wicked actions might lead to political prosperity. This paradox is central to the concept of 'the ends justify the means.' Moore also explores Machiavelli's thoughts on religion, particularly Christianity's role in state politics during the 16th century, suggesting that Machiavelli found it problematic for maintaining political stability. The summary emphasizes Machiavelli's belief in the need for a state religion and his conception of the good life, which includes freedom, security, peace, and prosperity, potentially achieved through extreme measures.
🏛 The Structure of Republics and Political Stability
Dr. Moore examines Machiavelli's analysis of different political regimes, including monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, and their corrupt counterparts. Machiavelli argues that good regimes can easily devolve into their corrupt forms due to human nature's inclination towards evil. To prevent this, he proposes a republican system that combines elements of the three good regimes, creating a system of checks and balances. The summary highlights Machiavelli's belief in the importance of institutions over individuals for achieving political stability and longevity, as well as his emphasis on the role of the consuls, senate, and tribunes in the Roman Republic as an example of this balance.
👑 The Dangers of Hereditary Monarchy and the Role of Religion
In this section, Dr. Moore discusses Machiavelli's critique of hereditary monarchy, particularly focusing on Julius Caesar's role in transitioning from a republic to a dictatorship. Machiavelli views this as a negative shift from institutions to individuals, exposing the state to the whims of fortune. The summary points out the importance Machiavelli places on religion and its role in fostering a culture of virtue and maintaining political stability over time. Moore also mentions Machiavelli's belief that a state's endurance is more likely when its people are habituated to virtue through good laws and orders.
🛡 The Necessity of Extraordinary Measures in Political Renewal
The final paragraph explores Machiavelli's views on the decline of states and the potential for renewal through extraordinary measures. Dr. Moore notes that while institutions are the preferred means of maintaining stability, there are times when a state's decay may require a strong leader to restore order. However, this comes with the caveat that such a leader's impact may not be lasting, as their mortality poses a challenge to long-term stability. The summary reflects on the violent and disruptive nature of such political revolutions and the difficult choices that Machiavelli presents between decline and dictatorship, prompting viewers to consider the implications of these ideas for contemporary politics.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Machiavelli
💡Machiavellianism
💡Discourses on Livy
💡Renaissance
💡Envy
💡Republic
💡Institutions
💡Julius Caesar
💡Religion
💡Virtue
💡Decline
Highlights
Machiavelli's work is often misunderstood as promoting deception and violence, but the key to understanding him is recognizing his desire to help people.
Machiavelli's 'Discourses on Livy' offers a more nuanced view of his political philosophy compared to 'The Prince'.
Machiavelli's political thought diverges from Christian conventions, suggesting a pre-Christian world view for political innovation.
The 'Discourses' begins with a discussion on envy, reflecting Machiavelli's view of human psychology.
Machiavelli positions himself as a political explorer, seeking new ways in politics by revisiting ancient wisdom.
Machiavelli's approach to politics is rooted in a deep doubt about the relationship between politics and metaphysics.
He challenges the idea that divine intervention plays a role in human politics, suggesting politics is a human construct.
Machiavelli's political thought includes the controversial idea that the ends may justify the means, even if the means are morally questionable.
He advocates for a state religion, suggesting it plays a crucial role in maintaining political stability.
Machiavelli critiques Christianity as practiced in the 16th century, considering it politically problematic.
He emphasizes the importance of institutions over individuals for the longevity and stability of a political system.
Machiavelli's analysis of the six regimes suggests that virtuous forms can easily degrade into their vicious counterparts.
Republicanism is presented as a solution to prevent the collapse of regimes into their vicious forms, by combining elements of principality, aristocracy, and popular rule.
Machiavelli's discourses highlight the role of institutions in providing stability that outlasts the life of any individual ruler.
The critique of Julius Caesar illustrates Machiavelli's preference for institutions over individual rulers, regardless of their personal virtues.
Machiavelli discusses the importance of religion in establishing a culture of virtue and maintaining political order.
He acknowledges the potential for a single individual to restore political order but recognizes the limitations due to the individual's mortality.
Machiavelli's work raises questions about the necessity of extraordinary measures, including violence, for the establishment of a stable political order.
The discourses end with a reflection on the challenges of evaluating when a state is in decline and in need of political innovation or genius.
Transcripts
his name is synonymous with deception
ambition trickery violence but
machiavelli wants to help people and i
think this is this is key to
understanding his work my name is dr
moore i make videos about great books we
are going to talk about machiavelli's
discourses on libby
so we we know machiavelli mostly from
the prince right that's that's the most
famous work he wrote that's the one we
always study it's the one we assign in
classes it's the one we read
it's the one we remember it's from the
prince that we get this idea of
machiavellianism that's when we say
machiavellian we're talking about the
prince but i think in in the discourses
we get a a more robust more
comprehensive picture maybe a more
nuanced picture of machiavelli who he
was and what he thought so maggie veli
is writing about politics about
contemporary politics and ancient
politics
but
the way he's doing that is is by writing
this interpretation of libby this
analysis this reading
of titus libby's histories of rome and
part of the reason for that this is a
kind of classic renaissance maneuver
machiavelli is going back to the ancient
world
really a pre-christian world that i
think is the most important thing
uh he's going backward in order
to move forward
right he wants us to to begin thinking
about politics in new ways and that
means somehow uh breaking out of
the the christian
conventions and premises of his time and
in order to do that in order to innovate
machiavelli needs to go back to the
ancients it's a bit unclear
uh how long it took him to write the
discourses he was he was working on the
book in 1513 that's when he's also
writing the prince may have taken him as
long as 1519 to complete it the book
begins with envy
and v i think that's a notable
uh thing right that that envy seems to
be part of his
uh his founding sort of image of human
psychology right although the envious
nature of men has always made it no less
dangerous to find new modes and orders
than to seek unknown waters and lands
because men are more ready to blame than
to praise the actions of others
nonetheless driven by that natural
desire that has always been in me to
work without any respect
for those things i believe will bring
common benefit to everyone
i have decided to take a path as yet
untrodden by anyone
and if it brings me trouble and
difficulty
it could also bring me reward through
those who consider humanely the end of
these labors of mine so
many interesting things in in this
opening paragraph this is the preface to
the first book the first volume of the
discourses
um
first he begins with envy and then he
also represents himself as an explorer
right so this goes back to the idea of
you know machiavelli as an innovator
he's uh he's charting a new course for
politics something that has not been
done before he says
but his method for doing this thing that
hasn't been done before is going to be
to go all the way back danger problem
right to the ancients
something very old in order to achieve
something very new what i'm going to be
doing here
i think today is is offering the
charitable interpretation of machiavelli
i think that's what i want to do i want
to read his work humanely and i want to
take him at his word dangerous with
machiavelli but i want to take him at
his word that he means to bring
common benefit to everyone
machiavelli wants to help us
machiavelli wants to help people that's
what he wants
that's what he really cares about maybe
surprising to you
his name is synonymous with
with deception with uh ambition
trickery
violence but machiavelli wants to help
people and i think this is this is key
to understanding his work his work in
the discourses machiavelli to sort of
understand what he's trying to
accomplish we need to we need to think a
bit about his project i think the
problem
that machiavelli confronts
is kind of deep
doubt
about
the relationship between politics and
metaphysics
let's put it that way previous political
thinkers other kinds of political
thinkers aristotle plato christian
thinkers like aquinas they understood
politics
and law
to
be rooted in some sense
in the universal
right in in in the divine machiavelli
doesn't seem to subscribe to that view
there's some debate about
whether he's a christian or not um you
may even find that laughable to even
think that but what does seem to be
beyond debate is that machiavelli
doesn't seem to believe
that
god
involves himself in human politics so
that it does not seem to be the case
that god
rewards
people who are just and prudent
and punishes those
who are wicked and sinful politically
speaking it might be the case
that those who who do wicked things
sinful things
even evil things
succeed politically and here i think is
is
the real problem it might be the case
that a political leader can do
a wicked thing an evil thing and not
only will it bring the ruler success the
leader success but
it may result
in benefits
for
most other people
the state
may flourish because of the wickedness
of the ruler because of the wickedness
of the ruler this i think is is what
machiavelli perceives in the world this
is kind of the root of the idea that the
the ends justify the means right this
this notion that maybe doing the
underhanded doing the deceitful doing
the wicked or the sinful thing
will result in a good end machiavelli
will say lots of interesting things in
this book about about religion um
he believes very strongly that there
should be a state religion he will say
that at one point
he will
claim that christianity
at least as it as it is practiced in the
16th century
is politically problematic
it's not clear whether he he means by
that that
you know you cannot have that
christianity will not function as a
state religion i don't know if he thinks
that or if he thinks there's a version
of christianity or an interpretation of
christianity that may actually function
as a state religion i think that's an
open question for him although i don't
know maybe it's not but certainly as
readers i i think there's different ways
to interpret what he's saying about
about christianity but certainly he
believes that christianity as it exists
uh in the 16th century
uh is a political problem but overall
machiavelli doesn't seem to think that
you know appeals to divinity or
living a pious life
leads to political success prayer does
not seem to be good political policy for
machiavelli but machiavelli does have a
pretty clear conception of
the good
of what a good human life looks like
and he does seem to
desire a kind of politics that promotes
that kind of life that is conducive to
freedom to security to peace even
uh maybe that was a little little
trickier but but certainly to freedom
certainly to security certainly to
prosperity
uh and maybe even piety so he has this
conception of the good life that looks a
lot like the good life that we might
imagine or you know any kind of pious
religious person might imagine the
question is really how do we achieve
that good life
and machiavelli
seems to think
it may require
extreme measures we may need to take
extreme measures
to achieve that kind of a life so as an
early indication of this i just want to
look at at the beginning of chapter 3 in
volume one machiavelli says this as all
those demonstrate who reason on a civil
way of life and as every history is full
of examples
it is necessary to whoever disposes a
republic and orders laws in it to
presuppose that all men are bad and that
they always have to use the malignity of
their spirit whenever they have free
opportunity for it this is quite a
fascinating claim i think and we need to
be we need to be pretty precise about
what he's saying here because
on the one hand he seems to be saying
all men are bad all people are bad but i
think he's saying something a bit more
specific that if you look at history or
if you meditate upon or think about a
civil way of life you will recognize
that a lawmaker
needs to presuppose
that all people are bad which is a
little different than saying all people
are bad it's to say that good public
policy good good legislation
begins from the premise that people are
bad and what he's arguing there you know
there's there's something out of uh
proto-hobbsian in this in this view
right that if people are are free to
choose
at liberty to do what they will
they will often will bad things right
anti-social things uh greedy things
self-interested things things that that
are contrary to to justice and community
you may disagree with that but but
there's a lot of evidence such as that
people are inclined that way lots of
people are inclined that way and
uh it makes a certain degree of sense
that we would begin from the premise
right if we're trying to set up a a
secure free prosperous community that we
have that in mind right that this this
sort of drive this this psychological
reality that that people are likely to
do bad things if given the choice that
we may need to begin when law making
from that premise and so here i think we
can see a certain extremity in in
machiavelli's political premises begin
from the premise that all people are bad
all right
like
you know it's uh oh but his view seems
to be that starting
from that place gets us
to a good place and we begin to see that
as he begins talking about republics
right the prince is his book about
principalities he also talks about
principalities in the discourses but
this is really his book about republics
so particularly when machiavelli is
talking about republics the way
republics are structured
we can see the way that his his
understanding of human evil might
lead
towards a politics that produces good
ends he talks about the six regimes he's
engaging here with with plato and
aristotle what machiavelli says about
the six regimes right six regimes
monarchy aristocracy uh maybe like a
polity and then you've got tyranny
oligarchy and democracy machiavelli says
okay uh you know traditionally we
understand
there to be three virtuous forms and
three vicious forms
but what he says about the six regimes
is quite remarkable it's again kind of
proto-hobbsian he says
those that are good are the three
written above those that are bad or the
three others depend on these three he
says each one of them is similar to the
one next to it so that they easily leap
from one to the other for the
principality easily becomes tyrannical
the aristocrats with ease become a state
of the few the popular is without
difficulty converted into the licentious
so he says you know the the difference
between a monarchy and a tyranny is not
very great machiavelli might be thinking
in particular in terms of time that any
monarchy you have in a short span of
time will become a tyrant any
aristocracy you have in a short span of
time will become an oligarchy and
this leads him to say right again like
because human beings are bad or you know
because most human beings are bad or
because we have bad inclinations
whatever the result is
you can't count on a monarchy staying
good or an aristocracy staying good
those regimes will over time collapse
into their vicious forms so
this then leads machiavelli to think
through how do we prevent that how do we
we prevent the collapse of regimes into
these vicious forms and
his solution
which he takes from livy from from
studying the roman model is
republicanism i say thus that all the
said modes are pastiferous because of
the brevity of life in the three good
ones and because the malignity in the
three bad so those who prudently order
laws having recognized this defect
avoiding each of these modes by itself
chose one that shared in all
judging it firmer and more stable for
the one guards the other since in one in
the same city
there are the principality the
aristocrats and the popular government
so what machiavelli says about the
republic is that it's three regimes in
one you have in the republic
properly constituted
a principality an aristocracy and some
form of popular rule and for machiavelli
this is uh this is evident in the the
position of the consuls
who are like kings
the senate which is the rule of the few
and then the many who are given
political authority
especially through the tribunes so you
have the popular will the will of the
wealthy or the virtuous and
you know the the prudence or expertise
of
of singular rulers all kind of working
in a way together
but also against each other because
machiavelli again he's counting
on envy right he's counting on on
ambition on envy on self-interest but
the way he's sort of what he sees in
rome and what he advises for all of us
is to design a regime in such a way that
these these various competing
self-interests
function as a check on each other and
it's through that kind of model
machiavelli thinks that we will achieve
political stability and that no one
group or one office will be able to
tyrannize
over everyone else and this i think is
one of the striking things about about
machiavelli's discourses is there's an
emphasis throughout
on institutions
i think machiavelli you know if you read
the discourses carefully what you find
is this trajectory
away from individuals
towards institutions and the reason uh
the reason we get this emphasis on
institutions is because institutions
provide for stability and it's a kind of
stability in particular that will
outlast
the the individual life the mortality of
any one person and especially any one
ruler because even if you have a great
ruler a virtuous ruler some kind of
genius machiavellian ruler that guy will
die
eventually that person will die and once
that person dies
all bets are off and this this is
communicated i think maybe like most
effectively most remarkably in the 10th
chapter of volume 1 where machiavelli
talks about julius caesar now you know
at first you might think that julius
caesar is exactly the kind of person
that machiavelli would admire if you've
read the prince you might think well
julius caesar ambitious
calculating warlike great general
brilliant strategist that is that is a
machiavellian ruler if ever there was
one incorrect maggie belly hates julius
caesar hates him and when you when you
think about why he hates julius caesar
what what his critique is specifically
you start to get a sense of
machiavelli's whole project in the
discourses on libby and maybe
you see his life's work in a different
light because what machiavelli says in
chapter 10 he says okay he talks about
various types of people who are
universally admired and he says founders
of religions founders of states great
generals artists these are the types of
people that that we admire
that we glorify
and he says the contrary is that we
vilify and denounce
and and revile
people who destroy those things and one
such person is julius caesar because
julius caesar according to machiavelli
and you know i think he's right
is
a person
who attempted to
overthrow a republic and install a
dictatorship and and partly succeeded
caesar machiavelli says is responsible
for all these terrible things not
necessarily and this is him so important
not necessarily because caesar himself
was a bad ruler
but because he overturned the republic
and thus instead of moving from
individuals to institutions we move from
institutions to individuals
and what happens when we move to
individuals
what happens we move to a hereditary
form of monarchy and a hereditary
monarchy machiavelli says
is is basically putting yourself in the
power of fortune
luck chance you don't know what's gonna
happen the emperor's child who becomes
the next emperor could be great
more likely they won't be right will not
be as good and could be absolutely
terrible you have no controls for that
and the political consequences are dire
that is precisely the kind of problem
that
republican institutions are designed to
protect against it's notable too in this
section of the discourses machiavelli
moves from here to a long discussion of
religion and the importance of religion
and he even says that numa who who
brought religion to rome is more
important than romulus who founded rome
and that you know suggests something
about how the
high priority that machiavelli places on
religion state religion remarkable the
reason the reason he does that
is because he understands that through
religion right you're you're installing
a kind of culture a system of virtue an
account of the good life ceremonies
rituals these kinds of things
that will allow regimes
to persist across time and that that is
always what machiavelli is thinking
about maggie belly cares about people
and he is trying to find a way to secure
regimes against decay politics decays
states decay states rise and they fall
machiavelli says there's no point in in
pretending that states don't fall states
fall
how do you protect how do you prevent
collapse he doesn't seem to believe you
can do it forever so you're really just
trying to do it for as long as you can
and so institutions religion become
important parts of that and then you can
you can sustain things for as long as
possible and you can prevent political
decline you can put it off as long as
possible and in that section of the
discourses he says you know when you've
got a
population of people who has been
habituated to virtue in the kind of
machiavellian sense by good orders and
good laws
then they're more likely to maintain
themselves free and disruptions tumult
scandals that's not going to to spell
doom but
if people have become corrupt
uh if if the institutions have decayed
if uh if you know the state religion
has declined and the people have become
corrupt then then it's going to be easy
for the state to collapse and he says
there is still as in the prince this
emphasis on on great individuals
because he seems to point when things go
wrong and this is you know if we're
democrats this is this is a
an unsettling idea but you know a
characteristically machiavellian idea
that you know one great person
can
restore
order right or or can bring about a kind
of political revolution again you know
because of our understanding of history
that's a potentially disturbing idea but
he seems to believe strongly in this now
the limitation of course he says is the
lifetime
of that of that great leader that
dictator so he says that if you've got a
disordered regime
you might have this this one guy who who
shows up and restores order who who
revitalizes the state but then if that
person dies
then it falls back into decline right
and he says the cause is that there
cannot be one man of such long life as
to have enough time to nur to good a
city that has been inured to bad for a
long time if one individual a very long
life or two virtuous ones continued in
succession do not arrange it when they
are lacking as was said above it is
ruined unless indeed he makes it be
reborn with many dangers and much blood
so you know here we get both you know
the good and bad of machiavelli or the
dark side of machiavelli reemerges but
what do we do if we don't you know if we
don't have the institutions in place or
if our institutions are in decline
machiavelli's answer is a little
disturbing again here we get this
emphasis on mortality right so
we can't count on individuals
individuals have to give way to
institutions as quickly as possible but
there's also for him always this sense
that
you know when institutions have failed
when they've declined when when whole
cultures are corrupt
it's only through these these great
people who are going to
uh restore or renew or innovate in a way
that you know leads to the common good
but
that act of of restoration of refounding
or founding new regimes
you know machiavelli's clear-eyed about
this it's it's always violent and it's
always terrible and it and it requires
extraordinary measures he says right so
these moments of history
are
bloody and bad
we don't want to live in them
machiavelli
seems to think
such periods are necessary because the
alternative is just collapse
which which he thinks is is also also
leads
to
uh suffering widespread suffering and
violence and hardship and poverty right
so
for him
the comparison is not between like a
peaceful well-ordered regime and one run
by
you know a dictator for him
the choices between
the the dictatorial spirit the
you know the armed prophet maybe who's
gonna come along and and set things
right or
a declining state that's probably gonna
be conquered right that's gonna be
invaded enslaved
destroyed whatever now our criticism i
think our question for accumulate could
be is this a false binary right is this
a false choice isn't there maybe
peace you know as a third option maybe
we don't have to choose between decline
and dictator and the other thing you
know i think we we need to think
seriously about you know another thing
might be is there some other form of
renewal of institutional renewal or
cultural renewal that would not require
extraordinary measures that would not
require
violence and suffering that's i think a
good question i think the thing we'd
really want to be watchful of right is
this idea that okay the state is in
decline and now is the time when we need
the strong-armed uh visionary to come in
and set things all right well how do we
know that that now is the time
strong-armed you know visionaries with
with violent tendencies they are always
around and they are always incentivized
to to overthrow existing orders and
establish new orders and uh they're not
always good sometimes sometimes they're
julius caesar right and they're
overthrowing a stable regime
to satisfy their own ambition so one of
the real problems i think we're left
with is is when
uh how to evaluate when we are in a
state of decline
and maybe in need
of some innovative political genius
and
when
the innovative political genius is
actually a real threat to the common
good that's a real problem as i said my
name is dr moore i teach great books at
st thomas university if you found this
video useful you might want to check out
one of these over here thanks very much
i will talk to you soon
Ver Más Videos Relacionados
The Philosophy Of Niccolo Machiavelli
How Good People Lose Power | Machiavelli's The Prince
Machiavelli.The Prince. 1/5
Machiavelli - The Art of Power in The Modern World
Dangerously Honest Advice from History’s Most Controversial Philosopher
11 Restauração Cultural YouTube e mais 5 páginas Pessoal — Microsoft Edge 2024 07 30 10 07 01
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)