In the 25th chapter of The Prince, he is writing about his observation of how human nature helps or ruins rulers, depending on the circumstances of its times.
IN THE PRINCE MACHIAVELLI ADVISES RULERS TO FREE
Nevertheless, I believe a big problem arises for this whole idea of free will, once we take a more detailed look at what Machiavelli wrote about human nature, specifically the earlier mentioned section on how human nature is unchangeable.
As can be seen in the quote above, he limits it to only half or possibly even less of human actions while the other half stays in the realm of fortune. However, at the same Machiavelli gives free will very limited scope of influence. It also makes a logical sense, while if he would claim that there is no such thing, his work would be useless, while everything would be governed by something beyond human beings and therefore the book would not have any actual impact by itself because nobody would be able to decide to act accordingly to its teaching.
This statement of his implies that Machiavelli believed or was at least ready to accept the idea that human beings have something which can be called free will. Regarding this topic, Machiavelli writes that “Nonetheless, that our free will not be eliminated, I judge that it might be true that fortune is the arbiter of half our actions, but also that she leaves the other half or close to it, for us to govern” (p.98). So now, after having explained the main concepts which Machiavelli (1998) uses in regards to human beings all over the book, we can finally turn to the question of free will. Specifically, I will be showing how Machiavelli’s conception of fortune and human nature in The Prince logically completely destroys his own ideas of free will and virtue. And I will be showing how much problematic. However, if one follows his logic concerning this concept in relation to other crucial concepts in his work such as fortune, human nature, and virtue, things start to appear problematic. In this highly practical book, Machiavelli, of course, attempts to present his understanding of a highly unpractical concept of free will and whether we, human beings, have it. Niccolo Machiavelli, sixteenth-century political scientist and to some extent a Philosopher, in his most famous piece of writing, The Prince, which can be summarized as a practical guide for at the time current and future rulers (possibly even for ours) based on Machiavelli’s empirical observations of his time in Italy, and his extensive studies of history. Moreover, it overcomes the difficulties of previous republican interpretations, and provides new insight into the strategic perspective and Renaissance artistry Machiavelli employed as a theoretician.Free will, as a concept, haunts philosophers, and surely some other people who actually care about these kinds of things for a good amount of time now (let’s say ever since we became conscious of our own existence?). Understanding The Prince as an act of political deception continues a tradition of reading Machiavelli as a radical republican. Evidence external to The Prince, including Machiavelli's other writings and his own political biography, confirms his anti-Medicean sentiments, his republican convictions, and his proclivity for deception.
IN THE PRINCE MACHIAVELLI ADVISES RULERS TO HOW TO
It considers Machiavelli's advice to Lorenzo on where to reside, how to behave, and whom to arm in light of the political reality of sixteenth-century Florence. This interpretation returns The Prince to its specific historical context. I argue that Machiavelli's intention was a republican one: to undo Lorenzo de Medici by giving him advice that would jeopardize his power, hasten his overthrow, and allow for the resurgence of the Florentine republic. Machiavelli's most famous political work, The Prince, was a masterful act of political deception.
0 kommentar(er)
