Fun fact: This lecture was entirely improvised. The person who was supposed to give the lecture had an episode moments before going on stage and Dr. Sugrue filled in for him at the last second. He brought a blank piece of paper with him on stage to make the audience think he wasn't just making it up. This story was told on the Idea Store podcast Q&A part 3.
@@robinsarchiz Episode noun: episode; plural noun: episodes 1 - an event or a group of events occurring as part of a sequence; an incident or period considered in isolation. "the whole episode has been a major embarrassment" 2 - a finite period in which someone is affected by a specified illness. "acute psychotic episodes"
Michael, I started watching your lectures 3yrs ago… I’m 34 and entered college last spring. your lectures hatched something in my soul. Now I’m majoring in political science, and minoring in philosophy.
Dr. Michael Sugrue is Professor of History at Ave Maria University. A graduate of the Great Books Program, he earned his B.A. in History from the University of Chicago and his M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. in History from Columbia University. Prior to taking his position at Ave Maria University, Professor Sugrue taught at Princeton University, the City College of New York, Columbia University, Manhattan College, New York University, Hampton University, and Touro College. He served as the Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow at Johns Hopkins University from 1992 to 1994. Professor Sugrue was awarded the Chamberlain Fellowship, the President's Fellowship, the John Jay Fellowship, and the Meyer Padva Prize.
I am in awe of the detail, richness, context, clarity, urgency and relevance conveyed by this lecturer from his own memory apparently impromptu. An inspiring introductory lecture to Machiavelli. Regardless of his ultimate personal views, this professor really knows his subject matter.
I was waiting for him to say "Mr. Anderson" the whole time. Gave me matrix vibes. Absolutely loved this lecture/talk whatever you wanna call it. Pure awesomeness
I feel so blessed having been one of the first 5,000 subscribers of the late Dr Surgue. His teachings not only kept my interest in philosophy but at times in my alcoholic rock bottom many years ago but because of philosophy i am still able to remain in AA because of stoic values and principles ... Thank you Dr Surgue... 👍🌏🦘🇦🇺 Sydney Australia
Hands down the best form of articulation i have ever seen. Me who struggles to watch a 10min youtube video just watched this 40min video with full attention. Loved the way you just explained everything ❤
8:50 worked for medeci family 1:40 Attainment of political power 4:20 Justice is from coercion. 6:24 Donald Trump - Art of the Deal 7:00 Religious morality 7:50 Joseph Stalin's favourite book 9:30 10:20 Medici prince flattery 11:10 Love is nice but fear is predictable 13:20 Wolf 17:30 The Lion and the fox 18:50 Military head over town 29:00 Freud 33:00 Rulers and people like sheep herders and sheep 33:30 Odysseus 35:30 Plato's cave 36:45 Those who have not sinned cast first stone
The occasional sound of thunder in the background adds to the atmosphere of such a topic. As a somewhat bored office worker chained to my desk, these lectures are wonderful.
Strangely, it was the news of this mans passing that made me click on one of his lectures just out of curiosity and ive been non stop listening since. So a post-mortem thank you sir
I owe Machiavelli alot. I read the Prince when I was 19 and it woke me up to all the political corruption and manipulation of our modern world. It changed me from a leninist socialist to a free thinking human being
Just leave it at ''political corruption and manipulation.'' There nothing old or modern about it. watch enough geopolitical documentaries enough and the patterns emerge. its 3:13 am over here and i cant help but wonder what Machiavelli was doing 500yrs ago on this day.
I’m 20 and just read it! Yes I totally agree, idealism unfortunately can be easily corrupted by pragmatic and utilitarian people, after reading it I realized no ideology is immune from Machiavellian types. Unfortunately corruption will be a perpetual political problem and the importance doesn’t lie on a political spectrum but in taming corruption.
@@vaughncollins1386 another tip is that the Bible holds the true religion. While there is plenty of evidence, the 1260 year reign of the popes is one of the biggest pieces imo.
Nothing more badass than lecturing for 42 minutes 50 seconds on how to be a villain, calling it "Machiavelli" and dropping it on youtube without further comment.
re eee eeeeeeeee eeeeeee ee I eee eee ree eeeee ee eeerte I ereeee I ee I can r pd e e e eee r pd e e e ee eeerte eereeteee I eee reee e eeee er ee I ee eee ree rebeee I e e eg hatch and e ee eeerte I e s t eee eeer I e r ee eeeeeee eereeerre I can e ererreeee eeereeee eeeeeeee r eee reee the rreeee I e e eg r ee ge I ee eee e eg eee ree e eg reee g eeg er r ee I er proud ee e eg eeee eeeee the other e eeer e re e r r r pd rr e eg e rr the eeeeee to the e e r re r r erre❤ ere e e e e er rere re r pd rr r ee eeeeeee ee eeerte eereeteee rererr e ee I er e eg
This man makes Philosophy edible. Any time i sit to listen to his lectures, it's like mealtime. The appetite to eat the intellectual food he serves is so deep. Thanks for being a teacher.
Another new (old) one! Saved in my playlist. On Saturday morning I will take a coffee and sit in the garden to listen to Sugrue, looking forward, thank you!
The Prince must be one of the oldest books I've read. I read it for no other reason than because I'd heard the author mentioned a great deal and I thought it was worth looking at. It seemed like pretty straightforward and fairly accurate description of power and its consequences. I've come to think that many people think of it as some kind of instruction manual, and I guess it is in a way, whether it is descriptive or prescriptive is one's own choice. Knowledge will only accentuate your existing character. It is only dangerous to a dangerous person, either in their hands or in the hands of those who haven't caught on to them
Character is defined by one's own thoughts and habits. I believe you are referring to personality. Which still doesn't define one's destiny. You must not exclude the impact of personal choice.. for it shapes your destiny.
@MaxwellJWhiteThis. People nowadays can't differentiate between an author and his works apparently. He was an experienced politician and a passionate reader of history books. He analyzed the situation in Italy at the time and wrote an instruction manual of sorts, meant for the young Medici. He recognized that Italy was divided in many little states, sometimes even city states, that had little armies or even employed mercenaries. He knew that they wouldn't stand a chance against France, the HRE or even the Ottomans, which were great nations with many resources and a state army. Diplomacy and morals are all nice and cute, but the wolves are at the gates waiting.
You are assuming that your ethics or morals have any objective validity. There is no evidence that supports that assumption. What he is trying to teach you is that there is no right or wrong. You either have power or you are in varying degrees of enslavement.
I really enjoyed this lecture. It is up my ally. I once woke up to Machiavelli at 4am in the morning staring right at me from the book the prince which I borrowed from the Library. Till this day it's imprinted in my memory and my intuition tells me he wanted to learn from a Queen thinking back. It's my first time coming across a lecture from Dr Michael Surge. I think he is extremely talented and makes me feel confident in his teachings by the way he speaks, the choices of words he uses, his pace and his deliverance was impeccable. Overall Machiavelli taught people how to be a practical good-bad man. And I leave with this quote "God is man, and man is beast so god is man within a beast" - Hellenic Republican Queen.
🤔............ haha! (telling myself my own inside jokes again that I normally do on YT that I don't always explain I'm doing like here that may not have anything to do with u haha).
really good! RIP professor, I love the way smart people tie their subject in with other writers, philosophers or historical figures. Here, Plato, Stalin, Alexander, and Roman heroes, Thrasymacus...Ignore Machiavelli at your peril says the professor!
While I disagree with some of the more general points made by the speaker this is a fine lecture with some very interesting perspectives and I'm glad it's here for me to watch and rewatch.
"Machiavelli was not really Machiavellian." Is the recurring pattern. He shortly wrote The prince after being released from where he underwent torture. That might explain his state of mind when he wrote that book. Its not that he was trying to suck up to the Medici while they were trying to avoid being seen as taking his advice but that the Florence court had already been practicing principles found in his book, whether conciously or unconsciously. Back then City states would create feeble alliances while at the same time plan on how to betray you six ways to Sunday. I see how his kind gesture to the Medici might have been seen as suspicious right after they came back to power.
Unfortunately, his depiction of Machiavelli’s character isn’t accurate at all. Supposedly, Machiavelli wasn’t this bloodthirsty, powerhungry “wolf”, as he is characterized by Sugrue. Good lecturer with a poor understanding of Machiavelli. But since it was improvised, I’d cut him some slack.
I read the Prince as a teenager, really cool as a mature man to hear this again. Human nature is like a bag of snakes , not all are poisonous most are!!
I think human nature is more like a magic box in which you never know what will come out when you open it. Sometimes poisonous snakes, sometimes apes in heat, sometimes parents arguing fervently and stubbornly, sometimes someone giving their life to save a complete stranger's, sometimes unnameable and alien yet closer and more familiar than home. Human nature is a kind of bestial magic. Once you think you have made sense of it, it will throw you for another loop.
I understand the magnitude of our predicament worldwide 2023. We will truly perish as a collective society unless we swiftly engage a dynamic counterintuitive, rather uncomfortable, and not exactly in keeping with everything we've ever known or been accustomed to. I believe the new inhabitants of the old world post mentality seek practical functionality, balance, semblance, making haste of the time at hand. Thank you for this lecture. I can visualize many Chiefs being generated from such a Prince of an idea.
I disagree with sugrue’s view on machiavelli here. The prince does not appear to promote iniquity. It simply addresses the fact that it is not always possible to do what is good as doing so can lead to your (and your states) downfall. Machiavelli doesn’t choose fear over love. He choses both. However he acknowledges that in a conflict of interest between the two then fear is a more reliable option. That doesn’t make it right or more preferable. All of these lessons in the prince are to be employed to increase the quality of life of the populous. Machiavelli was writing in a time when weak leadership resulted in Italy’s integrity, faith and culture being up for sale to the highest bidder. Italy had become somewhat of a concubine due to hedonisitic men in power. the prince outlines the way to overthrow these men at their own game. However this is just my opinion so perhaps i am a fool.
I think there is a deeper idea here to Sugrue. The big takeaway, Machiavelli is deriving actions, not from any kind of metaphysical direction (religion, spirituality) and was coomon for the day, rather the best action is the one that yields the biggest advance of power in the here and now. Yes, it is not always possible to do what is good, if that "good" does not advance your standing as much as fear could. Notice the way Machiavelli rationalizes decisions, and that is what Sugrue is getting at here. This is the shift away from actions being determined from metaphysical codes and instead toward systems of men/science.
The premise of The Prince is quite simply how to keep power when in power, and reading it in those terms will prove more fruitful than to read it as a system of ethics or a series of arbitrary value judgements. It’s a work of realism (how power actually operates) and not moralism (how power ought to operate)
@@user-hu3iy9gz5j I would argue that it is about acquiring and overthrowing power in an already corrupt system, but not keeping power. As it holds the abdication of categorical imperatives (morals and virtue) when necessary at its core. Doing so can lead to short term gains but weaken the state as a whole. I.e. the cloak and dagger of an ally may enable you to retain power but sets a precedent that betrayal is acceptable. Thus the whole system and state becomes machiavellian as those who are not are killed/ removed from positions of power. Thus if individuals cannot trust one another then cooperation is no longer possible and the state divides and crumbles. Division to pestilence to war to famine to death. The prince outlines how to play the game so that you can change the game. Cut throats on the way up then destroy rebuild and replace the existing system when ontop. Of course this will lead to sacrifice but thats what a sonum bonum is most Of the time. Again just my opinion.
A remarkable analysis 👏 of Machaivelli . For all the evil characteristics associated with him , one cannot deny the sheer brilliance with which he explained the connection between your Shadow and the collective political shadow coexisting together in the grander scheme of power and politics . Machiavelli is a necessary evil one which needs to be assessed and learned if one wants to escape tyranny or rise above it .
Michael, if you’re reading this I just want you to know that your presentation here and this video have impacted me so much and helped me grow out of a lot of bad habits that were instilled in me when I was young . You’ve been a great role model in my adult life and I think about your words, your invaluable insights and your lectures almost every day ❤ Thank you again
I normally enjoy Dr. Sugrue's lectures, but this one was clearly a surface-level examination of Machiavelli. While "The Prince" is everything Sugrue said it is, the author was anything BUT a "prince" as he depicted it. Machiavelli wrote poetry and screenplays. The height of his political career was a foreign emissary-type post that let Machiavelli travel across Italy and Europe. He also didn't retire; he was exiled after being tortured by the faction that ousted the Medici for a time. And most damning to the lecture's assertion is the fact that Machiavelli was a great fan of the republican form of government. Even in "The Prince", Machiavelli says that tyranny is only a stepping stone to a better system. And nowhere in "The Prince" does Machiavelli assert that EVERYONE should act like a tyrant.
From what I've learned the book wasn't even popular until after Machiavelli's death. Dr. Sugrue's analysis on this book does seem 101 for people who don't know anything about the book, nonetheless he's an excellent speaker!!
The surface level analysis of this subject is due to the fact the scheduled speaker had an episode of some sort and Dr. Sugrue filled in last minute. Still enjoyable.
If you're interested in Machiavelli, you need to read James Burnham's "The Machiavellians." Very interesting, more recent historical significance. Burnham spends the first half of the book on a history lesson of the time of Machiavelli here, Sugrue mentions a lot of it in passing, but it's more significant than he lets on. The Holy Roman Empire first and foremost, among other rivals like France and the Ottoman Empire, was growing very powerful. And while these rivals were organizing, Italy's city states were indeed frail and floundering, mostly making metaphysical and classical arguments for why the aristocracy should rule, and flattering each other, and going to wars over petty things, and their people generally growing to resent their aristocracy. The Prince was really written to these people to say, quit fucking around, one of you has to rise up and be serious, or else the we'll all be speaking German. Here's the brass tacks practical manual for collecting power, and defending Italy from her neighbors. The second half of Burnham's book explains that that is an accurate and useful manual in a world of monarchist governments. In the late 1800s, as democracies had become popular, and the Industrial Revolution was causing lots of upheaval in the way societies looked at the nature of work, labor, relations to capital and corporations, relations to government, and toying with the ideas of Marxism, there were four Italian political philosophers, who all tried to take Machiavelli's spirit, and apply it to democratic environments. They asked, what is necessary to gather power in a democratic environment? Not, how do you game your royal rivals, but, how do your game your populace writ large and convince them to vote for you? How do you maintain long term democratic power? These were the people who laid the groundwork for Mussolini to pick up and form fascism. They were read by the early Soviets to establish Communism in Russia. In the 1940s, Burnham was writing to an American audience to understand the roots of totalitarianism, and how it was achieved through democracy, specifically by the use of mass media messaging, control of information, and corruption of journalism. Burnham was sounding the alarm on fake news in the 1940s and his book is still very relevant today.
One of the more important points made in the book that was not commented on in the video lecture is the control of fortune. Fortune, meaning chance, is something known since the ancients as limiting on what the good citizen and the good regime are. By chance, you are either born in a time where you can be both a good citizen and a good person (by way of being born into the good regime), or not. For Machiavelli, he notes that by chance, he was not born into an opportunity where he could ascend to political power, nor would his ideas take root. Think of the messenger from Nietzsche's thought, who came preaching into the town square, only to be laughed at and realize that he had been sent by fortune too early. So Machiavelli instead proposes that fortune, as impactful as it is in politics, should be limited and controlled by man, beaten into submission. This way, every regime would be the "good" regime. This very notion was put into practice by Modernism, where the goal of establishing a utopia, a heaven on earth, and removing chance from the equation by lowering the basis of the regime away from metaphysics and the good, something high, became the project. For this reason, I would disagree ever so slightly with Dr. Sugrue about Machiavelli's view of nature. Regarding human nature, there is no disagreement; but nature writ large, Machiavelli wanted to control it. Thus, we have the Enlightenment, and science becomes the ultimate tool of controlling nature, and politics the satisfaction of the most basic of human desires
I would say Machiavelli is domain-specific. He wasn’t a philosopher of human nature writ large, but rather human behavior in the political, existential realm.
@@camorinbatchelder6514 I see what you mean, but back then, I don't think the two were differentiated. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau all used human nature as their baseline to make political assessments
@@andrewbowen2837 I haven’t read “Leviathan”, the “Treaties”, etc. that closely, so I can’t comment on them. Machiavelli wasn’t as philosophical as Sugrue makes him out to be. He simply looked at political behavior as it was, not how it should be.
@@camorinbatchelder6514 Dr. Sugrue doesn't really get into the details of the book unfortunately. He pretty much claims that it is horrible and would have dire consequences if implemented. That being said, I think there is a good bit of both "is" and "ought" in politics being described. Machiavelli notes that Italy is in a bad place, and he thinks the most successful leader should model themselves after the actions of Cesare Borgia, and not like some of those who caved in to the church and moral sentiments. At the least he thought that Italy was in need of what he viewed to be a clever and unrelenting leader, with good examples from history (thus in some regard detailing how politics are/were), and he didn't think the younger Lorenzo Medici was capable
"Once we abolish the metaphysical realm, there is no law or ultimate standard by which to judge our actions, by which to judge good and evil. And that means there is only the satisfaction of desires down here." prescient
As someone who grew up under a man who was absolute tyrant in his trade. I slowly over the years grew to see how he conducted business, and how he abused men. I quickly came to the realization, the most trust worthy man is a broken man. A broken man can be built up, and with these means you can create many firm relationships. A man who looks as if he owns the world, or mankind belongs to him you stay far away. Goes far back to the gladiatorial uprising in Rome. Broken men are not to be casted aside, they should be built upon. I shake the hand of those who need it in their eyes, not the ones who believe they deserve it in their eyes.
This lecture is also what psychopathy is about. Thank you. Really excellent lecture I'm happy the algoDrithm sent me here on this Sunday morning. It makes me think of what's happening you know where. _________________ We are ran by junkies, “profit junkies” Which is why of ‘The Top Ten Jobs that Attract Psychopaths (article) CEO is number one. (read it) 'Our politicians are interchangeable figureheads on the pirate ships of the Corporatocracy Empire' (translated anonymous quote from French)
This is a somewhat cartoonish description of Machiavelli. Even on a lone reading of the Prince, Machiavelli comes off as a witty proto-utilitarian and moderate nationalist, not as an amoral political climber. I am not quite in the camp that interprets The Prince as entirely sarcastic, but Machiavelli definitely has a dry and occasionally hyperbolic sense of humor. I have read all of Machi’s Art of War, the Prince, and about a third of the Discourses on Livy, and he was more concerned with the common good even in The Prince than most give him credit for. Painting this caricature of him is a mild to moderate disservice to The Prince, and a major disservice Machiavelli himself.
The role of The Prince and the expanded Machiavellian worldview is in outlining a realist view of power and pragmatism in regards to political governance. The important insight is that the powerful are guardians of their own authority, and directly responsible in case of their downfall
It's amazing how blind polemicists get when they attempt to argue against Machiavelli. They talk as if they don't actually adhere to or at least condone the very principles Machiavelli outlined.
I would argue that The Prince was written as a special case, like Marx's baseline assumptions for each of his volumes of Capital, about how the struggle for political power applies for and to monarchy, and pursuers of absolute power. It's advice for dictators and would-be dictators. That isn't necessarily what Macchiavelli actually believed in or wanted to see being done. He was trying to get a job, advertising his gifts as a political strategist to the dictators in the Rennaissance Italy, after he had lost the job he had trained for and believed in, as a government minister in his home Republic, to which he remained loyal. He had steeled himself to writing this job application in the form of a treatise on political science by considering that a tyrant who used his advice well, might be able to unify Italy and bring about peace and independence for its peoples who were subject not only to endemic internecine warfare and extortion by mercenaries, but invasion and interference at will by the kingdoms of France and the Hapsburg rulers of Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. His job application failed because in characterising the ruthless cunning of the ultimate Virile tyrant, he had inadvertantly and completely insulted the real men he was trying to appeal to, who didn't like to think of themselves as apt to evil nor wanted to be thought of as apt to evil whenever necessity prompted. His philosophical category of Virtus was cribbed from the ancients, based on a systematic review of ancient history, and while it wasn't so clearly stated by the writers of ancient Greece and Rome, it is clearly their cosmology, not the Biblical cosmology, which it belongs to. The Virtus of the Vir, the strong man, seduces and bends the will of _the gods_ to support his interests. It is the boldness which the gods favour, that quote so often paraphrased down to Goethe's "be bold and _mighty forces_ will come to your aid". Goethe was wishing to hide the polytheistic origin of the claim in his pretensions to being a modern, secular thinker. Those before him needed to hide that polytheism from their fellow Christians. But Macchiavelli as a Catholic Humanist like Erasmus was so used to referring to those pagan sources that he lets the cat out of the bag. Virtus is a pre-Christian concept. He's detailing a Classical heresy, which he thinks has political relevance, but again isn't necessarily what he believes in as a dutiful Catholic of his times.
All roman empire church cathlocism is fake, only protestant is real christianity as jesus was protesting the roman empire slavery when they sentenced him to death for speaking against the emperor
This fella doesn't get Italy in the middle ages. Machiavelli cast a cold, detached eye on human nature. Everything he describes informs out reality today. Machiavelli isn't evil, he's unapologetically analytical and honest.
Yes. He speaks like politicians used to be good when they had their religion to dictate morals but he fails to acknowledge all of the horrible atrocities committed in the name of religion.
It is fair if you want to criticize Machiavelli on a moral basis for his lack of moral considerations, but since the Prince is ultimately about realistically maintaining power you must extend your analysis further than that
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Fun fact: This lecture was entirely improvised. The person who was supposed to give the lecture had an episode moments before going on stage and Dr. Sugrue filled in for him at the last second. He brought a blank piece of paper with him on stage to make the audience think he wasn't just making it up. This story was told on the Idea Store podcast Q&A part 3.
That’s amazing, good for all is listening 😮❤. I smile every time a new episode comes out.
Improvised*
An episode?
@@robinsarchiz
Episode
noun: episode; plural noun: episodes
1 - an event or a group of events occurring as part of a sequence; an incident or period considered in isolation.
"the whole episode has been a major embarrassment"
2 - a finite period in which someone is affected by a specified illness.
"acute psychotic episodes"
@@tomasroque3338 sir, I encourage you to rethink your purpose.
Michael, I started watching your lectures 3yrs ago… I’m 34 and entered college last spring. your lectures hatched something in my soul. Now I’m majoring in political science, and minoring in philosophy.
How’s it going?
college at 34? wow
@@iwanttodie7199 ^imagine being this guy. It’s not his fault you gave up on yourself
@@-Magnetized we clear college at 18, unis at 22 so yeah nah bud.
@@iwanttodie7199 your YT profile name is “iwanttod!e”.
Like I said before, it’s not his fault your life sucks and you gave up on yourself.
Dr. Michael Sugrue is Professor of History at Ave Maria University. A graduate of the Great Books Program, he earned his B.A. in History from the University of Chicago and his M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. in History from Columbia University.
Prior to taking his position at Ave Maria University, Professor Sugrue taught at Princeton University, the City College of New York, Columbia University, Manhattan College, New York University, Hampton University, and Touro College. He served as the Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow at Johns Hopkins University from 1992 to 1994.
Professor Sugrue was awarded the Chamberlain Fellowship, the President's Fellowship, the John Jay Fellowship, and the Meyer Padva Prize.
Hope he knows the books based on pope sixtus...
Great lecture about 2Pac, thanks❤️
Lol
makaveli up this bitch ;D
No no, 2pac wanted to be him. 😋
😂
@@frankiegunnz8066 he just used his story( about faking death) as a concept creatively also with jesus, clever
He told the whole story in 40 minutes and 17 miles.
You mean 42 minutes and 50 miles
I think you both meant 40 minutes and 17 miles
Indeed as was originally said 😂
RIP Dr. Sugrue…. You provided us with hours upon hours of fascinating lectures & made our lives much more interesting…. A great man.
Sad to hear sad to hear sad to hear
I am in awe of the detail, richness, context, clarity, urgency and relevance conveyed by this lecturer from his own memory apparently impromptu. An inspiring introductory lecture to Machiavelli. Regardless of his ultimate personal views, this professor really knows his subject matter.
I was waiting for him to say "Mr. Anderson" the whole time. Gave me matrix vibes. Absolutely loved this lecture/talk whatever you wanna call it. Pure awesomeness
Good observation made me chuckle
Agent Smith would’ve been a huge fan of Machiavelli.
These lectures are honestly the best philosophy content on youtube.
"like anybody could even know that - Kip Dynamite
@@Bear-ow9gy You´ll come around.
I feel so blessed having been one of the first 5,000 subscribers of the late Dr Surgue. His teachings not only kept my interest in philosophy but at times in my alcoholic rock bottom many years ago but because of philosophy i am still able to remain in AA because of stoic values and principles ... Thank you Dr Surgue... 👍🌏🦘🇦🇺 Sydney Australia
Wooow, the most fascinating talk I’ve ever heard. This guy is absolutely brilliant to give this off the top of his head
0:47 to understand American mentality
@@iceswallow7717That's people in any country
Hands down the best philosophy content on whole RUclips.
Rick Roderick too
Yes fr
Check the lectures of Dr. Arthur Holmes
@@huzi46 not really philosophy, he talks about MMA a lot and also he's against homosexuals.
@@Ybby999 you Clearly haven’t watched most of his content lmao, and no he doesn’t hate on Homosexuals. Only says to leave the kids out of it.
I have learned so much from several of his talks, but this one is the one that just makes me giggle whenever I think of it. Evil genius.
Teaching is an art. What a brilliant teacher. 👏
This man's handle on the English language is intimidating. He speaks so effortlessly, it's aaaaaaaMAZING
Easier to listen to and grasp than even Alan Watts 👂 ❤
Hands down the best form of articulation i have ever seen. Me who struggles to watch a 10min youtube video just watched this 40min video with full attention.
Loved the way you just explained everything ❤
كمية كبيرة من المعلومات حصلت عليها بعد إنتهائي من مشاهدة هذه المحاضرة شكرا أستاذ 👏👏
👎 Now you're 📚 ready to 🚶♂️ 🚶♂️ go.
8:50 worked for medeci family
1:40 Attainment of political power
4:20 Justice is from coercion.
6:24 Donald Trump - Art of the Deal
7:00 Religious morality
7:50 Joseph Stalin's favourite book
9:30
10:20 Medici prince flattery
11:10 Love is nice but fear is predictable
13:20 Wolf
17:30 The Lion and the fox
18:50 Military head over town
29:00 Freud
33:00 Rulers and people like sheep herders and sheep
33:30 Odysseus
35:30 Plato's cave
36:45 Those who have not sinned cast first stone
Thank you 👍
these retro lectures are better than anything on the internet today
The occasional sound of thunder in the background adds to the atmosphere of such a topic. As a somewhat bored office worker chained to my desk, these lectures are wonderful.
Strangely, it was the news of this mans passing that made me click on one of his lectures just out of curiosity and ive been non stop listening since. So a post-mortem thank you sir
Great teacher..he explains the philosophy with so much interest and in simple terms that it is never boring...really a genius.
Just follow me for education purpose
@@SwitzerlandEducation4471 learn to write properly first.
@@Bear-ow9gy sorry how you teach me?
@@SwitzerlandEducation4471 you high my guy? 😂
@grandmasterkhaan5661 me learn good Brain go big
I owe Machiavelli alot. I read the Prince when I was 19 and it woke me up to all the political corruption and manipulation of our modern world. It changed me from a leninist socialist to a free thinking human being
Just leave it at ''political corruption and manipulation.'' There nothing old or modern about it. watch enough geopolitical documentaries enough and the patterns emerge. its 3:13 am over here and i cant help but wonder what Machiavelli was doing 500yrs ago on this day.
Haha, I believe I was 20 when my eyes awaken as well 🤞🏽 (how does it feel to join the grey side)
Capitalist corruption and manipulation lol... socialist parties have no power in the west
I’m 20 and just read it! Yes I totally agree, idealism unfortunately can be easily corrupted by pragmatic and utilitarian people, after reading it I realized no ideology is immune from Machiavellian types. Unfortunately corruption will be a perpetual political problem and the importance doesn’t lie on a political spectrum but in taming corruption.
@@vaughncollins1386 another tip is that the Bible holds the true religion. While there is plenty of evidence, the 1260 year reign of the popes is one of the biggest pieces imo.
Nothing more badass than lecturing for 42 minutes 50 seconds on how to be a villain, calling it "Machiavelli" and dropping it on youtube without further comment.
You know this is like 40 years old right
@@Supermoneygang12 it’s an old video. Good observation
Can’t be a villain if you wield power
Tell that to the cosmic spectrum 🎚 @@user-hu3iy9gz5j
re eee eeeeeeeee eeeeeee ee I eee eee ree eeeee ee eeerte I ereeee I ee I can r pd e e e eee r pd e e e ee eeerte eereeteee I eee reee e eeee er ee I ee eee ree rebeee I e e eg hatch and e ee eeerte I e s t eee eeer I e r ee eeeeeee eereeerre I can e ererreeee eeereeee eeeeeeee r eee reee the rreeee I e e eg r ee ge I ee eee e eg eee ree e eg reee g eeg er r ee I er proud ee e eg eeee eeeee the other e eeer e re e r r r pd rr e eg e rr the eeeeee to the e e r re r r erre❤ ere e e e e er rere re r pd rr r ee eeeeeee ee eeerte eereeteee rererr e ee I er e eg
Just from the title and thumbnail alone I can already tell that this is going to be the lecture of all lectures
Ugh. These lectures are changing my life. Can’t thank you enough for sharing your knowledge with the world.
This man makes Philosophy edible. Any time i sit to listen to his lectures, it's like mealtime. The appetite to eat the intellectual food he serves is so deep. Thanks for being a teacher.
Had really wanted a lecture on Machiavelli for so long. Thank you for this!
I've been salivating waiting for this lecture.
LMAO !
Thank you so much for these videos Professor. You enrich our lives.
Dr. Sugrue is spoiling us
have always been curious about Machiavelli's work, this was an incredible dive into these ideas
Another new (old) one! Saved in my playlist. On Saturday morning I will take a coffee and sit in the garden to listen to Sugrue, looking forward, thank you!
I loved reading The Prince at university. Much better than anything else on the reading list.
The Prince must be one of the oldest books I've read. I read it for no other reason than because I'd heard the author mentioned a great deal and I thought it was worth looking at. It seemed like pretty straightforward and fairly accurate description of power and its consequences. I've come to think that many people think of it as some kind of instruction manual, and I guess it is in a way, whether it is descriptive or prescriptive is one's own choice.
Knowledge will only accentuate your existing character. It is only dangerous to a dangerous person, either in their hands or in the hands of those who haven't caught on to them
Boring!
Character is defined by one's own thoughts and habits. I believe you are referring to personality. Which still doesn't define one's destiny. You must not exclude the impact of personal choice.. for it shapes your destiny.
This bozo is a liberal idiot.
@MaxwellJWhiteThis. People nowadays can't differentiate between an author and his works apparently. He was an experienced politician and a passionate reader of history books. He analyzed the situation in Italy at the time and wrote an instruction manual of sorts, meant for the young Medici. He recognized that Italy was divided in many little states, sometimes even city states, that had little armies or even employed mercenaries. He knew that they wouldn't stand a chance against France, the HRE or even the Ottomans, which were great nations with many resources and a state army. Diplomacy and morals are all nice and cute, but the wolves are at the gates waiting.
You are assuming that your ethics or morals have any objective validity. There is no evidence that supports that assumption. What he is trying to teach you is that there is no right or wrong. You either have power or you are in varying degrees of enslavement.
Your dearly missed Michael Sugrue. I will always appreciate the value you brought to my life and character. Rest in peace.
I really enjoyed this lecture. It is up my ally. I once woke up to Machiavelli at 4am in the morning staring right at me from the book the prince which I borrowed from the Library. Till this day it's imprinted in my memory and my intuition tells me he wanted to learn from a Queen thinking back.
It's my first time coming across a lecture from Dr Michael Surge. I think he is extremely talented and makes me feel confident in his teachings by the way he speaks, the choices of words he uses, his pace and his deliverance was impeccable. Overall Machiavelli taught people how to be a practical good-bad man. And I leave with this quote "God is man, and man is beast so god is man within a beast" - Hellenic Republican Queen.
RIP DR.
Torn by this news . Thank you for your beautiful contributions . May you rest in paradise.
When you thought there were no more lectures
🤔............ haha! (telling myself my own inside jokes again that I normally do on YT that I don't always explain I'm doing like here that may not have anything to do with u haha).
really good! RIP professor, I love the way smart people tie their subject in with other writers, philosophers or historical figures. Here, Plato, Stalin, Alexander, and Roman heroes, Thrasymacus...Ignore Machiavelli at your peril says the professor!
Absolutely precise and easy to understand!
This lecture has given much more wider perspective to my study.
Thanks for the wonderful lecture🎉♥️
Thank you , seriously he teaches so well.
He walks around too much
Thank you for your work and contributions
If this was anyone else, the quality would be an issue. Sugrue… grabbing my popcorn.
i've been waiting for this!!!!!!!! I'm so excited!!!
When those violins hit you better be ready to kneel. Sugrue on Machiavelli! This one is going to be glorious
Thank you for posting these gems 💎. I appreciate your interpretations and analysis of the great thinkers!
This lecturer is so bright and so thorough. 😮
While I disagree with some of the more general points made by the speaker this is a fine lecture with some very interesting perspectives and I'm glad it's here for me to watch and rewatch.
Discovered Dr Michael Sugrue's content way too late.
Incredible.
My algorithm is top notch. Needs a raise tbh. Fantastic. Lol
The algorithm has been delivering absolute bangers lately
I’ve been waiting for this one! These lectures are always appreciated
RIP Michael, such a great engaging human professor
"Machiavelli was not really Machiavellian." Is the recurring pattern. He shortly wrote The prince after being released from where he underwent torture. That might explain his state of mind when he wrote that book. Its not that he was trying to suck up to the Medici while they were trying to avoid being seen as taking his advice but that the Florence court had already been practicing principles found in his book, whether conciously or unconsciously. Back then City states would create feeble alliances while at the same time plan on how to betray you six ways to Sunday. I see how his kind gesture to the Medici might have been seen as suspicious right after they came back to power.
Thanks!
Michael Sugrue is a top top lecturer - knows the material without referring to notes. Top class! Chapeau!
Unfortunately, his depiction of Machiavelli’s character isn’t accurate at all. Supposedly, Machiavelli wasn’t this bloodthirsty, powerhungry “wolf”, as he is characterized by Sugrue. Good lecturer with a poor understanding of Machiavelli. But since it was improvised, I’d cut him some slack.
He talks exactly how fast i need a speaker to talk 😅
I read the Prince as a teenager, really cool as a mature man to hear this again.
Human nature is like a bag of snakes , not all are poisonous most are!!
This is a great quote ima use “human nature is like a bag of snakes not all are poisonous most are “
I think human nature is more like a magic box in which you never know what will come out when you open it. Sometimes poisonous snakes, sometimes apes in heat, sometimes parents arguing fervently and stubbornly, sometimes someone giving their life to save a complete stranger's, sometimes unnameable and alien yet closer and more familiar than home. Human nature is a kind of bestial magic. Once you think you have made sense of it, it will throw you for another loop.
@@SamServ-ht4re this is a great quote I'ma use "this is a great quote I'ma use human nature is like a bag"
It's really No such thing as Human nature, everything is learned behavior.
@@erikdegby4652 betrayal, hate, abandonment human nature.
Love , and love again no matter what ...human.
I understand the magnitude of our predicament worldwide 2023. We will truly perish as a collective society unless we swiftly engage a dynamic counterintuitive, rather uncomfortable, and not exactly in keeping with everything we've ever known or been accustomed to. I believe the new inhabitants of the old world post mentality seek practical functionality, balance, semblance, making haste of the time at hand. Thank you for this lecture. I can visualize many Chiefs being generated from such a Prince of an idea.
I disagree with sugrue’s view on machiavelli here. The prince does not appear to promote iniquity. It simply addresses the fact that it is not always possible to do what is good as doing so can lead to your (and your states) downfall. Machiavelli doesn’t choose fear over love. He choses both. However he acknowledges that in a conflict of interest between the two then fear is a more reliable option. That doesn’t make it right or more preferable. All of these lessons in the prince are to be employed to increase the quality of life of the populous. Machiavelli was writing in a time when weak leadership resulted in Italy’s integrity, faith and culture being up for sale to the highest bidder. Italy had become somewhat of a concubine due to hedonisitic men in power. the prince outlines the way to overthrow these men at their own game. However this is just my opinion so perhaps i am a fool.
You are many things I’m sure, but a fool is not one of them
I think there is a deeper idea here to Sugrue. The big takeaway, Machiavelli is deriving actions, not from any kind of metaphysical direction (religion, spirituality) and was coomon for the day, rather the best action is the one that yields the biggest advance of power in the here and now. Yes, it is not always possible to do what is good, if that "good" does not advance your standing as much as fear could. Notice the way Machiavelli rationalizes decisions, and that is what Sugrue is getting at here. This is the shift away from actions being determined from metaphysical codes and instead toward systems of men/science.
The premise of The Prince is quite simply how to keep power when in power, and reading it in those terms will prove more fruitful than to read it as a system of ethics or a series of arbitrary value judgements. It’s a work of realism (how power actually operates) and not moralism (how power ought to operate)
@@user-hu3iy9gz5j I would argue that it is about acquiring and overthrowing power in an already corrupt system, but not keeping power. As it holds the abdication of categorical imperatives (morals and virtue) when necessary at its core. Doing so can lead to short term gains but weaken the state as a whole. I.e. the cloak and dagger of an ally may enable you to retain power but sets a precedent that betrayal is acceptable. Thus the whole system and state becomes machiavellian as those who are not are killed/ removed from positions of power. Thus if individuals cannot trust one another then cooperation is no longer possible and the state divides and crumbles. Division to pestilence to war to famine to death. The prince outlines how to play the game so that you can change the game. Cut throats on the way up then destroy rebuild and replace the existing system when ontop. Of course this will lead to sacrifice but thats what a sonum bonum is most Of the time. Again just my opinion.
A remarkable analysis 👏 of Machaivelli . For all the evil characteristics associated with him , one cannot deny the sheer brilliance with which he explained the connection between your Shadow and the collective political shadow coexisting together in the grander scheme of power and politics . Machiavelli is a necessary evil one which needs to be assessed and learned if one wants to escape tyranny or rise above it .
I would have loved school if there was a teacher lke this. Captivating start to finish.
Thank you, sir. always
I've been looking forward to this. Thanks Dr Sugrue.
Michael, if you’re reading this I just want you to know that your presentation here and this video have impacted me so much and helped me grow out of a lot of bad habits that were instilled in me when I was young . You’ve been a great role model in my adult life and I think about your words, your invaluable insights and your lectures almost every day ❤ Thank you again
RIP Legendary lecturer
Thanks
Ive been waiting for this one
Machiavellian philosophy and 70's slacks are the making of a genius play. Thank you.
I normally enjoy Dr. Sugrue's lectures, but this one was clearly a surface-level examination of Machiavelli. While "The Prince" is everything Sugrue said it is, the author was anything BUT a "prince" as he depicted it. Machiavelli wrote poetry and screenplays. The height of his political career was a foreign emissary-type post that let Machiavelli travel across Italy and Europe. He also didn't retire; he was exiled after being tortured by the faction that ousted the Medici for a time. And most damning to the lecture's assertion is the fact that Machiavelli was a great fan of the republican form of government. Even in "The Prince", Machiavelli says that tyranny is only a stepping stone to a better system.
And nowhere in "The Prince" does Machiavelli assert that EVERYONE should act like a tyrant.
Exile is forced retirement, no?
From what I've learned the book wasn't even popular until after Machiavelli's death. Dr. Sugrue's analysis on this book does seem 101 for people who don't know anything about the book, nonetheless he's an excellent speaker!!
@@OmnomnomPancake machiavelli continued to write and create after his exile tho
I am pretty sure that Machiavelli was tortured by the Medicis not the Florentines.
The surface level analysis of this subject is due to the fact the scheduled speaker had an episode of some sort and Dr. Sugrue filled in last minute. Still enjoyable.
If you're interested in Machiavelli, you need to read James Burnham's "The Machiavellians." Very interesting, more recent historical significance. Burnham spends the first half of the book on a history lesson of the time of Machiavelli here, Sugrue mentions a lot of it in passing, but it's more significant than he lets on. The Holy Roman Empire first and foremost, among other rivals like France and the Ottoman Empire, was growing very powerful. And while these rivals were organizing, Italy's city states were indeed frail and floundering, mostly making metaphysical and classical arguments for why the aristocracy should rule, and flattering each other, and going to wars over petty things, and their people generally growing to resent their aristocracy. The Prince was really written to these people to say, quit fucking around, one of you has to rise up and be serious, or else the we'll all be speaking German. Here's the brass tacks practical manual for collecting power, and defending Italy from her neighbors.
The second half of Burnham's book explains that that is an accurate and useful manual in a world of monarchist governments. In the late 1800s, as democracies had become popular, and the Industrial Revolution was causing lots of upheaval in the way societies looked at the nature of work, labor, relations to capital and corporations, relations to government, and toying with the ideas of Marxism, there were four Italian political philosophers, who all tried to take Machiavelli's spirit, and apply it to democratic environments. They asked, what is necessary to gather power in a democratic environment? Not, how do you game your royal rivals, but, how do your game your populace writ large and convince them to vote for you? How do you maintain long term democratic power? These were the people who laid the groundwork for Mussolini to pick up and form fascism. They were read by the early Soviets to establish Communism in Russia. In the 1940s, Burnham was writing to an American audience to understand the roots of totalitarianism, and how it was achieved through democracy, specifically by the use of mass media messaging, control of information, and corruption of journalism.
Burnham was sounding the alarm on fake news in the 1940s and his book is still very relevant today.
Thank you for your informative comment. 👍
Great book.
One of the more important points made in the book that was not commented on in the video lecture is the control of fortune. Fortune, meaning chance, is something known since the ancients as limiting on what the good citizen and the good regime are. By chance, you are either born in a time where you can be both a good citizen and a good person (by way of being born into the good regime), or not. For Machiavelli, he notes that by chance, he was not born into an opportunity where he could ascend to political power, nor would his ideas take root. Think of the messenger from Nietzsche's thought, who came preaching into the town square, only to be laughed at and realize that he had been sent by fortune too early. So Machiavelli instead proposes that fortune, as impactful as it is in politics, should be limited and controlled by man, beaten into submission. This way, every regime would be the "good" regime. This very notion was put into practice by Modernism, where the goal of establishing a utopia, a heaven on earth, and removing chance from the equation by lowering the basis of the regime away from metaphysics and the good, something high, became the project.
For this reason, I would disagree ever so slightly with Dr. Sugrue about Machiavelli's view of nature. Regarding human nature, there is no disagreement; but nature writ large, Machiavelli wanted to control it. Thus, we have the Enlightenment, and science becomes the ultimate tool of controlling nature, and politics the satisfaction of the most basic of human desires
I would say Machiavelli is domain-specific. He wasn’t a philosopher of human nature writ large, but rather human behavior in the political, existential realm.
@@camorinbatchelder6514 I see what you mean, but back then, I don't think the two were differentiated. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau all used human nature as their baseline to make political assessments
@@andrewbowen2837 I haven’t read “Leviathan”, the “Treaties”, etc. that closely, so I can’t comment on them. Machiavelli wasn’t as philosophical as Sugrue makes him out to be. He simply looked at political behavior as it was, not how it should be.
@@camorinbatchelder6514 Dr. Sugrue doesn't really get into the details of the book unfortunately. He pretty much claims that it is horrible and would have dire consequences if implemented. That being said, I think there is a good bit of both "is" and "ought" in politics being described. Machiavelli notes that Italy is in a bad place, and he thinks the most successful leader should model themselves after the actions of Cesare Borgia, and not like some of those who caved in to the church and moral sentiments. At the least he thought that Italy was in need of what he viewed to be a clever and unrelenting leader, with good examples from history (thus in some regard detailing how politics are/were), and he didn't think the younger Lorenzo Medici was capable
@@andrewbowen2837 Machiavelli certainly had a vision, I agree.
Thank you Dr Sugrue
thank you for uploading this
this guy is in top form on this topic
I'm very proud of you. Hopefully that means something. 😘
9:30 this is true for all men in all endeavors. Life is about being dissatisfied and choosing to deal with that creatively or destructively.
This is Human Art! Thank you for teaching Me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Very good speech had me interested the whole time
Ahh the famous lecture - Sugrue ad-libbed it on the spot when the prof who was supposed to present suffered from stage fright.
Source?
And misinformed the audience, yeah. What a clown this guy Sugrue is.
@@ultimusromanorumget his ass
@@ultimusromanorumWhat did he get wrong?
"Once we abolish the metaphysical realm, there is no law or ultimate standard by which to judge our actions, by which to judge good and evil. And that means there is only the satisfaction of desires down here."
prescient
I love these lectures, thank you
As someone who grew up under a man who was absolute tyrant in his trade. I slowly over the years grew to see how he conducted business, and how he abused men. I quickly came to the realization, the most trust worthy man is a broken man. A broken man can be built up, and with these means you can create many firm relationships. A man who looks as if he owns the world, or mankind belongs to him you stay far away. Goes far back to the gladiatorial uprising in Rome. Broken men are not to be casted aside, they should be built upon. I shake the hand of those who need it in their eyes, not the ones who believe they deserve it in their eyes.
I think I heard in one of the Q&A's that this lecture was winged last minute. Pretty good for that.
This lecturer is truly amazing, and the subject matter makes me want to watch Scarface.... for the 1000th time.
Excellent thinker, telling it how it is not how it ought to be. Fantastic lecture, cheers.
This lecture is also what psychopathy is about.
Thank you. Really excellent lecture I'm happy the algoDrithm sent me here on this Sunday morning. It makes me think of what's happening you know where.
_________________
We are ran by junkies, “profit junkies”
Which is why of ‘The Top Ten Jobs that Attract Psychopaths (article) CEO is number one. (read it)
'Our politicians are interchangeable figureheads on the pirate ships of the Corporatocracy Empire' (translated anonymous quote from French)
oh my god I was searching for lectures from Dr Sugrue about Machiavelli, this is great!
I am really flattered by the way he gave that presentation 🫡
That was an amazing lecture 👏
This is a somewhat cartoonish description of Machiavelli. Even on a lone reading of the Prince, Machiavelli comes off as a witty proto-utilitarian and moderate nationalist, not as an amoral political climber. I am not quite in the camp that interprets The Prince as entirely sarcastic, but Machiavelli definitely has a dry and occasionally hyperbolic sense of humor. I have read all of Machi’s Art of War, the Prince, and about a third of the Discourses on Livy, and he was more concerned with the common good even in The Prince than most give him credit for. Painting this caricature of him is a mild to moderate disservice to The Prince, and a major disservice Machiavelli himself.
The role of The Prince and the expanded Machiavellian worldview is in outlining a realist view of power and pragmatism in regards to political governance. The important insight is that the powerful are guardians of their own authority, and directly responsible in case of their downfall
It's amazing how blind polemicists get when they attempt to argue against Machiavelli. They talk as if they don't actually adhere to or at least condone the very principles Machiavelli outlined.
Thankyu. Gonna follow yu .. a true educator .. entertains and informs .. yu do both
Half way into this, and wow! What an insightful and elucidating lecture so far. Bravo.
This was so good, that I had to rewinded to watch it again.
Just brilliant, thank you.
We love you Mr. Sugrue.
I would argue that The Prince was written as a special case, like Marx's baseline assumptions for each of his volumes of Capital, about how the struggle for political power applies for and to monarchy, and pursuers of absolute power. It's advice for dictators and would-be dictators. That isn't necessarily what Macchiavelli actually believed in or wanted to see being done. He was trying to get a job, advertising his gifts as a political strategist to the dictators in the Rennaissance Italy, after he had lost the job he had trained for and believed in, as a government minister in his home Republic, to which he remained loyal. He had steeled himself to writing this job application in the form of a treatise on political science by considering that a tyrant who used his advice well, might be able to unify Italy and bring about peace and independence for its peoples who were subject not only to endemic internecine warfare and extortion by mercenaries, but invasion and interference at will by the kingdoms of France and the Hapsburg rulers of Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. His job application failed because in characterising the ruthless cunning of the ultimate Virile tyrant, he had inadvertantly and completely insulted the real men he was trying to appeal to, who didn't like to think of themselves as apt to evil nor wanted to be thought of as apt to evil whenever necessity prompted.
His philosophical category of Virtus was cribbed from the ancients, based on a systematic review of ancient history, and while it wasn't so clearly stated by the writers of ancient Greece and Rome, it is clearly their cosmology, not the Biblical cosmology, which it belongs to. The Virtus of the Vir, the strong man, seduces and bends the will of _the gods_ to support his interests. It is the boldness which the gods favour, that quote so often paraphrased down to Goethe's "be bold and _mighty forces_ will come to your aid". Goethe was wishing to hide the polytheistic origin of the claim in his pretensions to being a modern, secular thinker. Those before him needed to hide that polytheism from their fellow Christians. But Macchiavelli as a Catholic Humanist like Erasmus was so used to referring to those pagan sources that he lets the cat out of the bag. Virtus is a pre-Christian concept. He's detailing a Classical heresy, which he thinks has political relevance, but again isn't necessarily what he believes in as a dutiful Catholic of his times.
All roman empire church cathlocism is fake, only protestant is real christianity as jesus was protesting the roman empire slavery when they sentenced him to death for speaking against the emperor
This fella doesn't get Italy in the middle ages. Machiavelli cast a cold, detached eye on human nature. Everything he describes informs out reality today. Machiavelli isn't evil, he's unapologetically analytical and honest.
Yes, an honest work such as The Prince must be countered with relevant arguments on basis of power and realism, not run-of-the-mill moralism
Yes. He speaks like politicians used to be good when they had their religion to dictate morals but he fails to acknowledge all of the horrible atrocities committed in the name of religion.
I still admire his view point though. It was a very interesting lecture.
It is fair if you want to criticize Machiavelli on a moral basis for his lack of moral considerations, but since the Prince is ultimately about realistically maintaining power you must extend your analysis further than that
I've read much of Machiavellis works. I didn't find the same man as you describe here. I found great wisdom and pragmatism, but not evil.
yeah having read the prince about a year ago i had to wonder if i’ve even read the book or if he read another one lol
This!
He was FABULOUS. Wonderful thinker and speaker. Broad mind. Great listening.Time flew.
Was? IS!
Thank you & Happy MayDay