Machiavelli.....should his teachings be taught in school?
Discussion
Someone once wrote that a wise and keen student of Machiavelli, upon reading his text, would immediately write a new book denouncing what he had learnt.
In the interests of the children, I have decided to raise my head above the parapet and declare my love for the mischievous Italian.
I can honestly say that The Prince changed my outlook on life in a rather meaningful way; it sparked a love of strategy (military and political) and Renaissance history, and marked the end of my hot headed, impestuous youth.
I am sure that young men, especially, would benefit enormously from learning how to make their way in the world with the aid of some time-honoured pointers. Ok, The Prince is not perfect, but in isolating the characteristics of history's greatest leaders, we learn how to become their contemporaries.
Nearly every young person it seems, these days, dreams of running their own business and of really making waves in the world. Business and strategy go hand in hand.
In every life situation we encounter politics of some varying degree.
Forearmed is forewarned.
What do you think?
In the interests of the children, I have decided to raise my head above the parapet and declare my love for the mischievous Italian.
I can honestly say that The Prince changed my outlook on life in a rather meaningful way; it sparked a love of strategy (military and political) and Renaissance history, and marked the end of my hot headed, impestuous youth.
I am sure that young men, especially, would benefit enormously from learning how to make their way in the world with the aid of some time-honoured pointers. Ok, The Prince is not perfect, but in isolating the characteristics of history's greatest leaders, we learn how to become their contemporaries.
Nearly every young person it seems, these days, dreams of running their own business and of really making waves in the world. Business and strategy go hand in hand.
In every life situation we encounter politics of some varying degree.
Forearmed is forewarned.
What do you think?
Martial Arts Man said:
daveco said:
It's good if you view life as a game instead of a journey.
A game in that there has to be a winner and a loser?Or a game, as in not very seriously?
I'm intruiged by what you mean.
daveco said:
As in a winner and loser. I read the book and then read the likes of Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Socrates. They had a much more mature, experienced perspective on things, it seems their mantra are generally the better one's to live by.
Aye. That Brazil team of 1970 were f
king st hot. 
daveco said:
Martial Arts Man said:
daveco said:
It's good if you view life as a game instead of a journey.
A game in that there has to be a winner and a loser?Or a game, as in not very seriously?
I'm intruiged by what you mean.
D. Brent said:
Life is just a series of peaks and troughs. And you don’t know whether you’re in a trough until you’re climbing out, or on a peak until you’re coming down. And that’s it you know, you never know what’s round the corner. But it’s all good. ‘If you want the rainbow, you’ve gotta put up with the rain.’ Do you know which philosopher said that? Dolly Parton. And people say she’s just a big pair of tits.
Get over yourselves 
I agree that if you view life as a game, with the sole intention of winning at the expense of others - then yes, it's a great read.
However.. Poker has many analogies to the game of life. The strong do indeed feed off the weak - but what they don't tell you is that the smart feed off both the strong and the weak.
Nice guys don't finish last, and modern game theory can prove it. Don't be a mug or a sucker, but co-operation is the most profitable life strategy.
The simplest example is the famous prisoner dilemma, which you'll all be familiar with. In the short term, in one off encounters against strangers - the "defect" (ie, shaft your partner in crime) is the optimal move. Life isn't about one-off encounters though. Two co-operators (good guys) will gain more than the bad guys. In a nutshell, the disadvantage of being a bad-guy is that you'll run into other bad-guys, with the negative results outweighing any positives you get from shafting the good guys. When the prisoner dilemma is played as a game of repeated encounters, the bad-guys lose in the long run.
However, if you're the only bad guy in a group of good guys that you'll never see/hear from/meet again - then yes, you're playing the optimal strategy, in terms of material gain - so long as you're not bothered by things like conscience, approval or popularity.
Interesting post anyway, OP!
However.. Poker has many analogies to the game of life. The strong do indeed feed off the weak - but what they don't tell you is that the smart feed off both the strong and the weak.
Nice guys don't finish last, and modern game theory can prove it. Don't be a mug or a sucker, but co-operation is the most profitable life strategy.
The simplest example is the famous prisoner dilemma, which you'll all be familiar with. In the short term, in one off encounters against strangers - the "defect" (ie, shaft your partner in crime) is the optimal move. Life isn't about one-off encounters though. Two co-operators (good guys) will gain more than the bad guys. In a nutshell, the disadvantage of being a bad-guy is that you'll run into other bad-guys, with the negative results outweighing any positives you get from shafting the good guys. When the prisoner dilemma is played as a game of repeated encounters, the bad-guys lose in the long run.
However, if you're the only bad guy in a group of good guys that you'll never see/hear from/meet again - then yes, you're playing the optimal strategy, in terms of material gain - so long as you're not bothered by things like conscience, approval or popularity.
Interesting post anyway, OP!
Personally I am of the view that "The Prince" should be taught not as an instruction manual, but as a means of getting people to think. An optimal situation would be one where younger people read several such books, discuss them, and form their own worldviews based on an amalgamation of the ideas which ring most truly for them as individuals.
A considered approach to life, which balances wise precepts from erudite treatises with personal preference and experience, strikes me as the Way Forward. I am always desperately suspicious of anyone who claims to live by the instructions of Sun Tzu, or indeed by the instructions of their MBA tutor. In my experience such a person tends to be a hidebound David-Brent-a-likes with greasy hands and no soul.
A considered approach to life, which balances wise precepts from erudite treatises with personal preference and experience, strikes me as the Way Forward. I am always desperately suspicious of anyone who claims to live by the instructions of Sun Tzu, or indeed by the instructions of their MBA tutor. In my experience such a person tends to be a hidebound David-Brent-a-likes with greasy hands and no soul.
Quaint said:
Personally I am of the view that "The Prince" should be taught not as an instruction manual, but as a means of getting people to think.
Spot on.That is what I was advocating really.
In my own case, The Prince merely sparked an interest. To use it as a hard and fast rule book would be folly.
If it were that simple.....
Martial Arts Man said:
Quaint said:
Personally I am of the view that "The Prince" should be taught not as an instruction manual, but as a means of getting people to think.
Spot on.That is what I was advocating really.
In my own case, The Prince merely sparked an interest. To use it as a hard and fast rule book would be folly.
If it were that simple.....
Simpo Two said:
erdnase said:
Martial Arts Man said:
To quote my favourite Gangsta rapper: "The strong rule the weak but the wise rule the strong".
I like As for Machiavelli, I'd say New Labour 1997-present knock him into a cocked hat.
Isn't that a truly terrifying thought......problem is that given their objectives, they mostly succeeded.
I haven't read the prince but I am aware of the jiist of his teachings. It seems to me that he advocates the use of manipulation to selfish ends i.e. how to make people do what you want. Based on my own paraphrasing it seems to me that teaching this on a mass scale would not be ideal. It's fine for people to read things like that I have read my fair share of similar books so i'm not going to be hypocritical.
There are two reasons I can see that teaching it may not be wise. The fact it seems inherentlly unhealthy to see every person you meet in terms of an asset value and their ability to move you towards goals. Secondly, and more importantly, if everyone was aware of consious manipulation and being used as a pawn it wouldn't work. You would need people to be able to be maniplutated to apply the philiosphy everyone knowing it renders it inert as they know their being played.
There are two reasons I can see that teaching it may not be wise. The fact it seems inherentlly unhealthy to see every person you meet in terms of an asset value and their ability to move you towards goals. Secondly, and more importantly, if everyone was aware of consious manipulation and being used as a pawn it wouldn't work. You would need people to be able to be maniplutated to apply the philiosphy everyone knowing it renders it inert as they know their being played.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff