Hello, viewers! I want to clarify something here. The phrase "the end justifies the means" does not actually appear in the works of Niccolò Machiavelli, nor did he ever say it directly. It’s a paraphrase of his ideas. I would highly recommend you all to watch the entire video to understand why this statement is often associated with him. Thank You! P.S I made a mistake from the start "the end justifies the meaning" so kindly ignore it
Jesus is heavenly machilivi is Earthly .Genesis 34 Now Diʹnah, Jacob’s daughter by Leʹah,+ used to go out to spend time with* the young women of the land.+ 2
@@Micscience Jesus is second to Jehovah in wisdom. 2 When Sheʹchem, the son of Haʹmor the Hiʹvite,+ a chieftain of the land, saw her, he took her and lay down with her and violated her. 3
Exactly. The notion that this man invented political intrigue is thoroughly ridiculous. Still a very important man no doubt but it's like saying Euclid invented geometry. Anyone who thinks that, doesn't understand where these things come from. They are inherent to existence, whether we like it or not at least in our current stage of evolution. To curse someone for naming the truth is wrong headed
Machiavelli's entire thesis is that good meaning people will always be curb stomped by the evil sort unless they learn to read into truth of human nature
Jordan peterson talks a lot about this. Anyone trying to beat evil back must recognize it’s true nature and what it’s truly capable of. You cannot do this without venturing deep into the abyss…
@@RockStock6 No they don't and no it's not. Just because you've gained power and maintained it without being hated doesn't mean you've made anything better.
I read The Prince years ago when I was a student. From what I remember, his idea was that bad people are more successful than good people, and since he wanted good people to succeed, he wanted them to adopt the winning strategies bad people use
This reminds me of the time in school that one of my teachers told us: "People claim that they like good people, when in fact, they like bad people. By the things we say, it's the bad people that get liked. Because they will give their friends preferential treatment and be seen as helpful. Meanwhile the good person will not give preferential treatment, will not bend the rules just because you're friends or family."
Being good doesn't necessarily mean being absolutely impartial like God. Nor absolutely non-rule breaking. People generally avoid bad people like the plague as they don't want to get involved with them and they don't trust them.
Game theory shows that you cannot win a game against someone who cheats. And so if the good guy never cheat cheats and the bad guy does, the bad guy wins.
That falls apart when you consider the game is played repeatedly and reputation is involved. After you cheat a couple of times, no one wants to play with you anymore.
Well it depends on the game you are playing. There are small games and there are big games one game for example is the game of life. If you cheat your way to success the cheat won't enjoy his success like the man who didn't cheat imo.
Repetitive cheaters often get caught and after that you're very likely to not be in the game anymore. So you have to weigh risks and benefits both long and short term
@@PhiloNauticaa that’s Machiavellis whole point though! If you are bogged down by morality you will lose to the person who isn’t. There is a reason why people in power are largely amoral. “Good” people almost never succeed and the few that do have short lived success. Morality and good intentions cripple the ability to think critically because morality and good intentions operate based off emotions over logic.
"If people throw stones at you, throw bread instead - with a grenade inside of course." That is literally one of the best quotes I have ever heard. It's wild that you found this from a random person online. I'm going to remember that one for sure
The prince is basically like a centuries updated version of the art of war. This knowledge can either use to defend yourself against threats or manipulate others.
That is basically the intent of the book - as a warning guide to his patron. “Here’s all you will face, if you go that way”. What is mostly misunderstood, is that he also describes the ways of good government, the ones that he hoped his prince would pick up. And instead, people retained just the “you don’t want to go this way, do you?” part and sticked that to his name
Well if you can try reading Arthshastra it's in Sanskrit written by Channakya also called Machivalli on steroids read it and you'll know...his wrote his book centuries before Machivalli and Sun tzu
@@karandullet380art of war was written 2 centuries before Arthashastra in 500 BCE while Arthshastra begun in 300 BCE. Due to different writing styles found in Arthshastra, there is an argument that it is a multi-author book and the full 15 books are believed to have taken 600 years between 300BCE - 300CE for its final form based on existing manuscripts. I’m pretty sure nobody lived for 600 years. That said, it is an impressive treatise.
Jesus himself said that you need to become a dove and a snake in this world. I'm not even religious. So yeah, I don't agree with Machiavelli, there's more side to humanity than AI brain rot.
You're absolutely right! In Matthew 10:16b, Jesus advises his followers to "be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." This is a powerful piece of wisdom, urging believers to strike a balance between shrewdness and purity. The phrase suggests that while we should navigate the world with wisdom and discernment (like serpents), we should also maintain a spirit of innocence, gentleness, and purity
This might be the best example of why is FAR Better to know than being an ignorant of your surroundings. Doesn't matter if you agree or disagree, History always tells a pillar for humanity: "I will rather have control than be controlled".
There should always be a line drawn for humanity and morals. I can give you examples of rulers who were just, kind, and never crossed the limits for power and most importantly, no one dared to control them in their era.
I'm reminded of a line from a movie - Departed - where Nicholson, a crime lord, states: "I'd rather not become a product of my environment, and instead make my environment a product of myself"
He was born to good fortune during a time when very few people were and through his realist cunning he really got tied up and dropped multiple times to dislocate his shoulders, banned from the place he loved, briefly imprisoned under horrible conditions, and died in filth and poverty. He sure adapted well to reality. Oh wait. You didn't actually know what you were writing about. My bad. Took you seriously for a moment there.
@ you interpret his tragic life as disproving his observations about power. There is no correlation. Nice try. 😂 the observations still stand as accurate.
@@BoreasCastel that’s a red herring. Disprove his observations. How is any of it not realistic? You are merely distracting from the observations onto his life so you don’t have to think about their accuracy.
If you seek power. It’s evil, which exists in the hearts of all men and women. His philosophy is to embrace it and you will be rewarded with power. It’s just straight up evil.
@rocksparadox All of the three competing monotheistic deathcults are guilty of that, and it all stems from ALL of their fictional storybooks. Fictional storybooks, written by ignorant humans and based on mythological malarkey and superstitious hogwash.
Palestine never did any of that until the colony of Israel was made by the USA and the UK. Palestinians invited in Jewish refugees. There were Jews in Palestine long before europeans claiming Jewish faith ever showed up from the countries they originated in. Jews Muslims and Christians were living in peace before Israel was allowed to be founded. p@@rocksparadox
The reality is, power is for good guys. The reason for why is, because they are called gentlemen. Machiavelli lived in a world which denied him the right to say this. If you think about it, the best and most noble rulers have all been altruists. This is because once you put an altruist in charge its usually guaranteed that the money goes where its supposed to go. There are cases where an altruist spends his or her money so unwisely, it never ends in the right pockets. What´s best for bad guys, is servitude. Being wise, clever and resourceful, the future belongs to those who know how to wield power, and not only how to abuse it.
like in the movie gladiator, the emperor wanted to hand over his power to maximus because maximus didn't want power over other people. commodus craved power and wanted to rule that is why he shouldn't of allowed to have ruled.
When I read The Prince and (some of) The Discourses for Social Science 2 and Political Science 11, my instructor (because he taught both courses) laid out their scope and limitations plainly: Machiavelli was writing for the leaders, not the common person; and he wasn't pulling stuff out of thin airse, he was describing what was already being done by his model politicians. It was simplistic in its beauty and of course Machiavelli's works had more layers than that, but it was a good starting point. But the global success of liberal democracy got us all into thinking that we could all be leaders in some way. So Machiavelli's works, which were written for a specific social class at a specific time period, was thrust into the faces of the general public. They're being maligned and demonized by people whom they were not written for.
@@barefootarts737 What is your evidence? He never wrote about being miserable nor did you personally know him. You're asserting a claim with zero evidence. In fact there is evidence to the contrary. He held prestigious positions in government for most of his life and was very wealth. He also had a wife and seven children. All three of those are things that have been proven to bring happiness.
@@TravisKastl-ui9mk If you think those things are evidence of happiness, then you might not be a happy person either. Maybe wealth, prestige and power will do it for you. Give it shot!
@@barefootarts737 funny how you didn’t mention family even though I talked about it. Family has been proven to make people happy and Machiavelli had a family. And yes all those other things I mentioned have also been proven to make people happy. That’s why people chase them. The less power and money you have the harder problems are to deal with when they inevitably arise. There is a reason unhappy couples argue over money. 😂 think before you speak. Just some friendly advice.
The grim reality of power is that groups and individuals who come to dominate inevitably become corrupted by their power and use the instruments of the state to further their interests, even if it means oppressing opponents. By becoming the Chief capable of cruelty, the leader ensures his own safety, and that of his followers, and the violence used may deter armed enemies' intent to avenge themselves. Ugly, but in complex social structures, bouts of terror cleanse societies of opponents and demonstrate strength to the people, and strength is always admired rather than condemned. A leader who seemingly defends his people from harm, provides basic necessities for life, and is seen to be competent is preferred to a weak leader who cannot achieve anything guided by some flustered ideology that serves no one well.
You're talking about invasion infiltration or organized crime in a position of legal authority being attained by election then transforms into a crime boss instead of a man or woman given the age of civility could get away with this jekyll and hyde character? I think this type of person might have been able to get past everyone if the power was distributed although this could not happen unless there are traitors and no one would ever accept a traitor only use to gain their own position but to continue as partners well you've seen how loyal the faculty is. So you know both want power from the powerful of another place that also makes other's take notice so maybe a poor people who don't have grandeur as those who have more than that still is a threat in legal business but there's underground too you just have to find the other faction so one is legit the other must stay quite so what type of noise can either make to alarm everyone with opportunities they'll think their safety is lost what I'm saying it will corrupt the air people breathe and if your power is this type of work you'll only surround yourself with like minded individuals so your lives danger increases and just adds more stress and pressure you could become paranoid and that's terrible way to live comfortably especially your families will be burdened. I'm assuming I could give you my ideas for power but I think we're in disagreement and not in control of power but opinions and the reality of it.
Being a good person means to support good & eliminate evil. You need to do both. Power is thus meant for good people but because there are so many pretenders, omitting the second half of what it takes to be good, we have the situation where evil eliminates good, but good does not eliminate evil, resulting in more evil being there in the world.
Very prideful to say that human beings are even capable of eliminating evil. Evil is within all of our very bones - it is our fatal flaw and original sin. The only way to be a good person in this world is to love thy neighbor as thyself.
Good people cannot wield power. They are too clumsy and fidgety with it. Whatever power they amass can be ripped away from them from even a half-witted person who wants it bad enough. Idealistic people make for the worst leaders because they cannot cope with the reality of many people wanting many things for many reasons with many backgrounds. We are not some homogenous blob of people with the same wants and needs.
The Prince is a satire. Machiavelli is not advocating the tactics he describes; he is explaining why monarchies always become tyrannical. The mainstream interpretation ignores the context of Machiavelli's other writings. The dedication clarifies that he is specifically talking about principalities (monarchies) and not republics.
Just monarchies? the USA's "democracy" and most communism has also become tyrannical. perhaps it is human nature for most to want a strong intimidating leader and for the few to want to be one.
Wrong. He wrote this as a manual for a prince in an attempt to be able to go back to Florence.... he understood how the power and the government worked.
The truth will eventually come out. Begin in truth and you will find strength that abounds without subsiding, even after your bodily death. Begin in lies and your sandy foundation dissolves as soon as a single wave slips past your defenses, which it always eventually does. Similarly, ask what it is you seek, for there ain't no rest for the wicked.
Its funny how people blame Machiavelli for coming up with these ruthless ideas. In reality he observed them being used by the powers of the time and those powers hated him for giving up game.
We're all assuming money and power are the principle things. To someone with this mindset, and thats most of the world, you do what the world does to get what the world has. The most dangerous man in the world is one whos not afraid to die and or lose everything he has.....
Don't trust Ai (and TikTok/IG/FB/X for good measure)... This is a misintpretation of Nicolo Machiavelli's work, The Prince is often oversimplified in this way. In The Prince, Machiavelli did explore various strategies rulers used to maintain power, but he also highlighted the risks of immoral actions. Rather than outright advocating for "the ends justify the means," he observed how different tactics-moral or otherwise-impacted governance. This nuanced view shows that while he acknowledged harsh methods, he also understood the complexities and potential pitfalls, suggesting a more balanced perspective than the phrase typically implies. The Prince is an observational work, not a prospective one. Do better Ai.
@@PhiloNauticaa lol... Fair, you lost me at "Nicolo Machiavelli is an enemy of the people," (which is 20sec in...) but only because that notion is so far from the accepted scholarly history of Machiavelli's contributions to politics, leadership and statecraft as a whole. I'll admit I did come in a little hot, these are trying times for facts... I'll watch the rest of it out of curiosity.
Italian philiosopher Niccolo Machchiavelli was the most unscrupulous man in the Renaissance period who adviced on use of treachery and mind games for fulfillment of political objectives.
A persons relationship to power will be determined by their relationship to suffering and death particularly their own. Cowards become tyrant's when given power. The word coward is ambiguous but it is a word that attempts to capture a persons relationship to the experience of fear. A cowardly relationship with fear produces tyrants when they aquire power. The most common form of " abused power" is that by a parent over a child. This may be the "Original Sin" that gives birth to all others.
Power over oneself or others ? People who attribute power over others as their own have always lead cruel lives. Those who have it towards themselves, know how to live.
John 11:25-26 ; “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die.
@Cris_carias98 Nah nothing. Bible quotes are nothing empty. It's all Christians can say. Just quotes. 1000+ years of NOTHING but quotes. Don't even have the faith to walk on water. Utterly nothing.
The pursuit of power, in it of itself, must be considered evil because it implies the pursuit of superiority; that’s antithetical to our primal instincts to survive as a species - as a collective. Our ability to value each other’s life as inherently equal, since we all came from the same spliced cell, is crucial and foundational to understanding our nature, and should be the basis for resolving any conflict.
I do think it’s so powerful, though, that Machiavelli experienced extreme wartime discrepancies, which helped him demonstrate to us why one’s ideals can be easily snuffed out by need or greed…it’s eerie.
Wrong. So wrong. Painfully wrong. Persuit of power is the most natural thing anyone can do. We do not value eachothers lives as equal. That is literally a 21st century ideal. Equal based on what? One of us has to be faster than the other, stronger than the other, more cunning than the other, more useful than the other. Some abstract notion of equality doesn't exist in nature. Entire species die out because others are superior and adapted more successfully to the environment than they did. The persuit of superiority is a deeply seated primal instinct. It protects your immediate family and tribe from invaders. Our brains haven't changed much since the cave man days. It's just that our "tribes" became the size of countries. There's a reason why nationalism is a thing.
Very interesting point. I have to say I agree with a lot of what you say. What might be a better approach is to take a more Nietzschian approach, that is, Excellence is pursuable, sure, but to what end? If we say that the pursuit of power, in it of itself, is the most valuable, then, there we go…but power is corrupting; it’s very difficult to refute that. Instead, similar to how you say, our Will to life is powerful enough to cause us to be naturally more accomplished since we adapt to the environment around us. Nietzsche believes the will to power is important, but power can be accrued via the Will to Compassion. The will to power can be inadvertently invoked via the Will to compassion…or even the Will to life. Compassion is an action that can be exerted in a significant and observable way, while also reaching out to help those in need - it’s in our nature, but, at the end of the day, our moral choices are ours. What we put into the world with passion will stay there…let it be good that we put into the world, and let’s not idly perpetuate the negative.
Also, regarding tribalism and nationalism, if we don’t check ourselves, those things will put us at the feet of nuclear war. Narratives, dogma, and tribalism will bring us down if we aren’t careful.
Only cowards choose fear over love. Love bravely Your EGO says you are what happens to you. But your soul is defined by how you face what happens for you. Live bravely The Prince should have been titled, "The Coward".
Machiavelli advised the prince that if speaking the truth could potentially lead to losing the state (returning it to the French), then he should lie. You portray this as gruesome and malevolent, but in reality, he is merely advocating realistic actions for the prince to take. I do not know why you would put it in such a way as you did.
Agreed, he missed the point all together. I knew this was a weird slander piece when he started off the video by calling Machiavellis writing “satanic”
For one, this is an AI video if it wasn’t already obvious by the speaking cadence. Two, reality is often gruesome and malevolent, so the irony here is that you seemingly have a problem with how bluntly realistic an artificial intelligence explains reality through Machiavelli terms
Thanks for the video ! you are running a nice series to provoke our thoughts on various subjects. Machiavelli philosophy does seem to be in play today in many circles and at many levels - politics, business and even religion. Reality can be nauseating when we peel the layers that we look up to for protection and enhancement. Our top rulers couldn't be in their jobs without a strong dose of machiavelli in them. we are not getting benevolent buddhas ever to run the show for us ! May we atleast get enough supply of machiavellis to counter one another, for the normies just cant do it.
We are supposed to balance the good and the bad together. That is why Jesus said the meek will inherit the Earth. it's original meaning it means someone who knows how to fight and is willing to fight but will only use it as a last resort. A person that is under full control of themselves.
I use this philosophy in my life. 1. I pay attention to my surroundings. 2. I trust no one. 3. I make enemies, rather than friends. 4. I never look for attention. 5. I walk in silence.
You blurting this out loud already means you are not as smart as you think you are, and making enemies while not being smart is a guaranteed ticket to suffering.
The problem with this analysis is that it only views power through one lens: top-down power of a few over the many. It ignores the kinds of bottom-up power that can be exercised by the majority. Reverse dominance hierarchies use power to prevent domination rather than perpetuate it. People are often cruel and selfish when dealing with people they have power over, but this is harder to get away with among equals.
The saying you’re looking for is cautious as a serpent, innocent as a dove. Understand our Dual nature and keep up your guard. Question everything especially authority
People are not “evil” per se, just self-serving, and often myopic. Altruism should not be enforced: instead, people should be persuaded or worked towards the bigger picture of species prosperity, and allowed to see that it promotes individual gain as well. The issue is people are often too desperate, and too kept in the dark. Machiavelli thus provides a simpler solution, easier to actually adopt. He wasn’t harsher than necessary. He didn’t want a sadist, he wanted strength, using violence as a means to a beneficial end, austere when necessary, doing it thoroughly instead of shirking from it and doing it halfway, yet also in the least _appearing_ generous when need be (it’s best if one can be truly generous, but if there is risk of favoritism or bankruptcy, one really has no choice but to at least adopt the appearance of being generous, and plus “true generosity” may be easily betrayed if people can’t perceive it), and never harming a person’s money or spouse unless absolutely needed. Frankly, I like Machiavelli’s pragmatism. He actually provides shields for truly good-meaning people to navigate the world with. Justice is a noble goal, but how can one even aim for it if one can’t hold onto the power necessary for it? The true challenge thus may be to not lose oneself in the mud and fully become the tool in the process.
Depends on who wields it. Just look at the roman Emperor marcus arillius. If a person is well-trained. With a mind forged in compassion and gratitude real power can be wheelded appropriately and effectively.
You can always loose. Giving up your moral integrity for something as feeble as winning is a bad bargain. Anything outside yourself can be lost. Now what you hold onto in yourself, that is forever.
@@TravisKastl-ui9mk No, it's really very simple. If you experience pain, you know it's unpleasannt. Knowing it's not enjoyable you avoid causing pain in others. "Do unto others as you wish to be done unto yourself." It's not a theorem, it comes from lived experience and lived feelings within yourself. I've been bullied a lot in school, not a day went by were my dad didn't scold me being a loser. A part of me is glad, it's the foundation of my values and morals. No one needed to teach me either. In fact I believe it can't be taught. To teach it, you only teach obedience.
@@olafweyer859 what are you talking about? No one here is talking about bullying or causing others pain for no reason. We are talking about competing with other people for power. The person who wins that competition is the one willing to put “morality” aside because it gives them a massive advantage when you have nothing holding you back. Your “lived experience” doesn’t change reality nor does it make your point more valid.
For reference, Machiavelli was only speaking in regards to other nobles/powerful vassals. Not in regards to the general constituency. A rulers constituency should always be valued and ruled with love not fear.
not true. especially in Machiavellian politic as it borrows a lot from Chanakya. Even there it is advised for rulers to cultivate a modicum of fear else people will not respond to laws.
@ he talks about using fear against constituents in regards to the application of good law. In his works he separates nobles and commoners to say that commoners are more honorable than nobles, and that respecting commoners is more important than nobles. Also, if you notice; Lorenzo de Medici was a populace leader who made an “alliance” with the commoners of Florence. Because of this, Lorenzo only had serious political issues with other nobles. I think Lorenzo’s actions are indicative that under normal circumstances machiavelli valued popular opinion among commoners and would generally advise a nations traditional rule of law to be sufficient enough of a fear factor for Florentine citizens… We could argue all day whether raising the marginal tax rate of citizens income tax is ruling commoners by “fear” or not.
Machiavelli's insights remind us of the complexities of power and human nature. As he wrote in The Prince: 'It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.' A challenging truth that provokes reflection on leadership and the balance between ethics and pragmatism.
No. He is a protector of his people. He loves good and freedom. He knows he has to maim and kill others because they are a shield for the leeches who hate non-violence and desire total suppression of his people. He tries to minimize the awful destruction of others. He does not love destroying them. This is the difference. There are times when there is no choice. His action is not an impulse for total destruction of others, but rather that the destruction of others is temporary and will cease when the outcome of peace and protection of his people is achieved.
Russia, North Korea and Cuba come to mind when Machiavellianism is discussed. The result is the same, a population ruled by fear with no faith in the integrity of its justice system. To build or create in such a society exposes you to danger from those with power and covetous of what you have. Countries with a moral and just governance inspire the individual to hope, build and strive. For all its faults and failings, democratic republics with their checks and balances based on moral ethics are the only places where the human spirit can soar to the greatest heights.
@@tokugamer9930 Exactly. Unbelievable that they felt this was some sort of worthwhile or even relevant exposition, when the democratic republics are the Machiavellian states by comparison.
I think you have Cuba and Russia all wrong. The dictatorships are not really for the body of people but to protect the people from the tentacles of democratic states that create coups in any country chosen. Without a dictatorship your country is doomed to influence from the west.
I too believe in a Constitutional Republic. With the Constitution, we have a set of moral and legal principles that become the supreme law of the land. With the Republic, we have the voice of the people. In any political system, Machiavelli has a point and insight about human political maneuvers. I find Machiavelli to be the dark side of the force. Darth Vader would have embraced the teachings of the Prince! I prefer love thy neighbor and treat others as you would want to be treated. See the teachings of Jesus Christ. But, never underestimate the Dark side of the force.
@@hakaishinkage9899 it could be but no one has the problems we have and still gets weighed down by unrelated issues other countries demanding from them our people demanding and destroying for gain it's all the codependency 😂
If anyone has really read the book, it gives a reason why to be ruthless and reasons why not to be. Power and Mercy should be looked at as tools in a toolbox, sometimes you need only one tool other times you'll need the entire set. Caesar Borgia was a ruthless person and in the end it didn't help him. He died naked in a field, Borgia was one of the idols of the book and in the end it shown power is fleeting. I have a saying: power to a man is like beauty to a woman, it all fades with time.
with fear and love I'd rather have respect, fear only last as long as the person is around, love only lasts as long as the person keeps giving, but respect is something that oddly stays no matter if the person ruthless or loved you would respect what he would do, I think it takes an extreme amount of time to get that level of respect but once obtained its hard to break.
@@PhiloNauticaa there is no such moral thing. People just show off morality.in reality it do not exist.people born in Africa and Asia as poor will understand.
Machiavelli should have known about Dyonisus from Syracuse. His Prince is a Tyrant, and as in the Damocles sword tale, the Tyrant is Prisoner of his own power. The necessity to not trust anyone brings the Tyrant into isolation and into a self enclosed echo chamber, losing an objective vision of reality. The Tyrant always ends serving only himself, and the state becomes a tool, despite the best intention in the beginning. That's in the human nature too.
@@user-rm4vk6tr3j hell is her on earth More Orwellian, and people suck Too dumb, greedy, and not deep enough. You you you you the American nuclear intellectual void
Fun fact, that is not what Machiavelli meant at least not in my opinion based on having read a lot of his works and having studied his life. We have to remember that while the prince was supposedly made as a way to try to get a job. Machiavelli intentionally had it published using the printing press to make it accessible to as many people as possible. Thus it is my theory that Machiavelli isn’t actually saying, he recommends any of these callous and cold methods, but is rather describing how monarchs rule. Something that supports this is his writing of the discourses on Titus Levy that he wrote at the same time he wrote the prince which shows him advocating for stuff like a direct democracy and like showing a lot of faith in humanity.
Understanding the cruel truth of human nature is necessary for being a good person. How could we become a good person without understanding the opposite part?
I would say,just a single state of being analysed. Much like programming,a function has statements it executes,a state may be likened to a function,in a particular state,the human being will animate(run) certain tendencies, behaviors, while it is,to understand these illusions,it is,also,to never loose truck of being. know others and you are wise know self and you are enlightened.Every state has its accessories,has its means, wherever you are, always be.
I've realized this a long time ago, that we are simply geared in such a way that the ruthless and self-serving will always be on top. And it's a big part of why I am a misanthrope.
One can't lose one's spirit. One can't even sacrifice it away. Weak individuals are easily swayed and convinced by religious con men through fear. Reincarnation will work this weakness out of everyone.
Nah f that. A word is enough for the wise. Good people also need power in order to stand ip to bad people.. it doesn’t matter what you stand for if you don’t have the strength to protect. As a good person I learned that blindly being kind to everyone is one way to ensure your doom
Power is a concept defined indefinitely by different types of people. To say that "power" isn't for "good" guys is such a binary way of thinking. Power is power. Just like legs are legs. It is a function/tool to achieve a certain goal. Would you say legs are useless if you don't run as well as an expert marathoner?
You are being over-reductive by casually ignoring the fact that the pursuit of power often involves things which arent always "good" or the best outcome for the most people, such as unending greed and infighting, especially if one cared about sustainability and not shitting where you eat. While many moral systems have their limits and need for iteration, there is a pragmatic evolutionarily reason these are selected for, a universally inspired math by dint of it existing in reality and not just some loft abstract ideal. As to why psychopathy is relatively rare, why behavior like rape and unjust murder is seen as repulsive, and cooperation is a more common strategy for apex predators like humans. Just because it can be seen as a "tool" doesnt mean its the best tool for any number of parameters or predictions. Its not just purely arbitrary, there is a point. Different behaviors all produce different results and different responses, thus are not equal in evaluation. Forceful copulation for example is common in the animal kingdom than we lrobably like to admkt or think about, but consent tends to work better, especially if the goal is offspring and not inflicting your own offspring with that epigenetic trauma and having a cooperative willing partner to help, etc. There may be a evolutionary logic which condemns the natural order of animalistic and thoughtless instinct and favors cooperative emergent complexity for organisms with more potential to influence the world around them. Just because people intuit most of this and cannot philosophically break it down on demand doesnt mean logic - however flawed - is nonexistent to the behavior.
@@PhiloNauticaa Machiavellianism is thus a mental disorder, and part of what are known as the Dark Triads - narcissism, sociopathy and macchiavellianism.
I wonder why a change of mind during the death of the mind is considered important by some people. I expect the mind to change once half of the brain cells suddenly die. Simply not enough computing power to keep the same beliefs.
@elinope4745 I'm not trying to be a dick but to pretend to not know why death is something important then you are out of sorts friend. A person's mind can be functioning normal before they die. A death bed can last for an entire month or more. When a person is about to face the biggest adversary known to existence it makes you reflect on your life and your decisions. Did you spend your time wisely while alive on earth.
The Prince is probably one of the most misunderstood pieces of literature in human history. First off, Machiavelli was analyzing politics as they existed and taking a pragmatic stance on how leaders should adapt to the dark reality of the situation, not advocating these things as “good” or “bad”. Second, his point is that as a leader of whatever political entity you are running, your only responsibility is the preservation of that state. The citizens you are responsible for aren’t going to care if you acted morally righteous in your conduct with opposing states if those other leaders just walk all over you and conquer your state, and since there are countless examples of human history where leaders don’t behave morally right you can’t be constrained by morality in your conduct either. Politics at a global scale have been largely anarchy for almost all of human history, and even today with international political organizations it’s still just certain groups of nations trying to control other groups of nations arbitrarily. The anti-Machiavelli tone in this video is puzzling, especially since it echoes the critics who often pretended to uphold morality while secretly conducting themselves in the same manner.
There are a lot of conclusions in this video that are directly opposed to what Machiavelli wrote. For instance, he circles back repeatedly to the idea that the leader must ultimately answer for the morality of his rule, and that the common people were ultimately both the origin of power for the government and also the final responsibility of the government. The portions where he recommends ruthlessness are from the perspective of retaining power against opposition. The train of logic is thus: 1. If you are to be a good ruler, you must first and foremost remain the ruler. If you are deposed, none of the good you may have done will come to pass. 2. If you are to retain your rulership, your opposition will be at least partially composed of ruthless men prepared to do great evil to accomplish their goal. If you cannot defeat them, you cannot retain your power. 3. You cannot assume any significant advantage over your opponents, and thus cannot afford to give any advantage to them. Thus, any rule you impose on yourself that your opponent is willing to ignore is the rule that will defeat you. 4. Thus, a truly good ruler must be both willing and able to do anything necessary to retain his position. If he does this well, the end result will be sufficient stability and authority to do those good deeds that justify the rest. Machiavelli did not advocate immortality. He simply recognized that a simplistic view of that morality would ultimately lead to far MORE suffering and strife, by handing all advantage to those without any moral considerations.
Hate to break to you but he wasnt disillusioned about human behavior. We are all capable of good, bad, and evil. I do think we can treat people morally and i dont think it should be about personal gain, but he has points.
Just remember that this is the dude writing to the duke begging for a job (and to join the duke faction). His side (some sort noble council) were utter defeat by the duke and the pope for the revolt. Thanks to his orchestrate, the council manage to resist duke army to the point he ask for foreigner via the pope. It is some sort of resume, probably mean to stroke duke ego so he would hire him.
Being a "good" guy is different from being a "nice" guy. It is possible to preserve the inner goodness while immersed in politics, but it is extremely difficult to achieve. It is for a very few rare souls, like Subhas Chandra Bose.
Remember, the truth n good always wins at the end. Evil will win the battle but goodness always wins the war, just know your opponent and know the game.
If power gravitates towards machiavellian types then isnt it fitting that manipulation is a under handed game that has to be hiden but is often a game that gets overplayed or exposed as critical thinking and patterns reveal situations over time? The power crazed always up the stakes as they get high on their own supply. Thats normally the way the game ends. So in retrospect the man who's willing to take a knee and not jeopardise his principles will be the man to show concern and catch, even teach the game player what life is and how no matter how well you think you're playing it we are all the same. We come with nothing and we leave with nothing. If someone is rude always try and stay respectful,not for them but for you. Your reward is the honour you receive for being authentically and true to you. It may feel like you're losing as others get what they want but you gotta be cool with you. If you have peace of mind thats enough
Power is for the good people and needs to be. Bad people in power often get their comeuppance. The confusion is that power is not for NICE people. You need to be a sociopath to wield power successfully. You just need to be a benevolent one with a good grasp of pragmatism and utilitarianism. Every day you're faced with the trolley problem, and if you're fine with an equation that says your actions killed twenty people in order to save a thousand, you have the constitution to be a benevolent leader. Any action taken by the powerful will hurt some innocent person somewhere and one of the problems with modern society is politicians try to push 'everyone wins' scenarios which result in nearly everyone losing (e.g. increasing the minimum wage and by doing so destroying jobs, causing inflation and pushing the unskilled and less desireable out of the job market completely).
There are a lot of assumptioms here, the biggest and most egregious one is that everything is and always will be a zero sum game. Utilitariam Pragmatism is useful, but its arguable it will always be necessary. New solutions will continue to evolve and emerge as time goes on. It may be necessary to sacrifice a few or yourself, but its always good to leave it as a last resort and explore other possibilities when possible. Maybe in the future mental illness is cured and culture becomes so efficient and sustainable, such evolutionary pressure to compete may diminish or even disappear. Nothing ever stays the same. Growth is not the same thing as emergent complexity. One can destroy a planet on instinct, the other can engineer itself and potential solutions.
I remember when I realized I would only go so far in my career, and thus life, because I refuse to take credit for someone else’s work, or throw someone else under the bus if something goes wrong. I may have my integrity, but it’d be nice to have the salary if the douchbags in upper corporate management
He should've understand that fear will only eventually lead to hatred. Once the point of when people who feared you reach the peak of their fear, and that fear change to hate, they will no longer fear you, and you know what awaits at the end of that road...
I think he was aware of hatred pre-existing. Im willing to bet perceived unjustified hatred is partly why he wrote this book as per his observations. If people already hate regardless what you do or did, it doesnt really matter to take unnecessary risks because people will just make up whatever narrative suits them. Not everything people do is your fault, even if those people think so.
I'm a dog type personality that has slowly changed into a cat. Cats are social, but ever wary, and can always leave and find a new home or survive in the wild. They don't depend on masters. 51 years of life has taught me that dogs are suckers
Hello, viewers! I want to clarify something here. The phrase "the end justifies the means" does not actually appear in the works of Niccolò Machiavelli, nor did he ever say it directly. It’s a paraphrase of his ideas. I would highly recommend you all to watch the entire video to understand why this statement is often associated with him. Thank You!
P.S I made a mistake from the start "the end justifies the meaning" so kindly ignore it
Jesus is heavenly machilivi is Earthly .Genesis
34 Now Diʹnah, Jacob’s daughter by Leʹah,+ used to go out to spend time with* the young women of the land.+ 2
Didn't Machiavelli copy some of his ideas or was influenced by an Arab?
@@Micscience Jesus is in heaven.
@@Micscience Jesus is second to Jehovah in wisdom. 2 When Sheʹchem, the son of Haʹmor the Hiʹvite,+ a chieftain of the land, saw her, he took her and lay down with her and violated her. 3
Had to read the prince in college, it went against every Christian value, 50 years later, I completely agree with the Prince
Machiavelli wasn't advocating for what he wrote. He was simply showing that he understood what already existed.
💯
Therefore, there is NOTHING wrong with Machiavelli.
Exactly. The notion that this man invented political intrigue is thoroughly ridiculous. Still a very important man no doubt but it's like saying Euclid invented geometry. Anyone who thinks that, doesn't understand where these things come from. They are inherent to existence, whether we like it or not at least in our current stage of evolution. To curse someone for naming the truth is wrong headed
@xhagast like Marx who described capitalism
@@keereeweet Marx was a dilettante who let his children starve. Machiavelli LIVED it.
Machiavelli's entire thesis is that good meaning people will always be curb stomped by the evil sort unless they learn to read into truth of human nature
If you ain't rich and dirty then you ain't sheet.
Machiavelli showed people who they are and he was vilified for it. Pretty standard, actually.
@@Novastar.SaberCombat No one can be rich if other people aren’t.
Have you actually read Machavelli? Sure he recommends playing dirty at times but ultimately it's about being fair rather than being nice.
Jordan peterson talks a lot about this. Anyone trying to beat evil back must recognize it’s true nature and what it’s truly capable of. You cannot do this without venturing deep into the abyss…
"The more you accept that the world is flawed, the more you can make it a better place"
Machiavelli summed up
His work is about gaining and maintaining political power, not about making the world a better place.
@KasparOne those who gain and maintain political power without being hated must also improve upon it, this is a constant theme in the Prince
@@RockStock6 No they don't and no it's not. Just because you've gained power and maintained it without being hated doesn't mean you've made anything better.
@@TravisKastl-ui9mk if you didnt you'd be hated
Not even close
I read The Prince years ago when I was a student. From what I remember, his idea was that bad people are more successful than good people, and since he wanted good people to succeed, he wanted them to adopt the winning strategies bad people use
There you go.
Bingo
It required such a person to be duplicitous and even devious. Good ppl don’t want to leave like that. And generally don’t. Simple life.
@@newagain9964 which is why bad things happen
Exactly. Forces yiu to almost split life living. Sigh @@newagain9964
This reminds me of the time in school that one of my teachers told us:
"People claim that they like good people, when in fact, they like bad people.
By the things we say, it's the bad people that get liked. Because they will give their friends preferential treatment and be seen as helpful.
Meanwhile the good person will not give preferential treatment, will not bend the rules just because you're friends or family."
But truly good people will recognize injustice caused by the rules and will bend the rules to contribute towards rectification of it.
Being good doesn't necessarily mean being absolutely impartial like God. Nor absolutely non-rule breaking. People generally avoid bad people like the plague as they don't want to get involved with them and they don't trust them.
“For Family” is the biggest cop-out and grift invented. Super toxic.
it's because bad people will tell you whatever you want to hear and good people won't
you can favor friends and family, but too bad that's not how businesses are run. Because friends and family are usually the least reliable people.
Game theory shows that you cannot win a game against someone who cheats. And so if the good guy never cheat cheats and the bad guy does, the bad guy wins.
I'm just saying, draw a line on morality. That's it!
That falls apart when you consider the game is played repeatedly and reputation is involved. After you cheat a couple of times, no one wants to play with you anymore.
Well it depends on the game you are playing. There are small games and there are big games one game for example is the game of life. If you cheat your way to success the cheat won't enjoy his success like the man who didn't cheat imo.
Repetitive cheaters often get caught and after that you're very likely to not be in the game anymore. So you have to weigh risks and benefits both long and short term
@@PhiloNauticaa that’s Machiavellis whole point though! If you are bogged down by morality you will lose to the person who isn’t. There is a reason why people in power are largely amoral. “Good” people almost never succeed and the few that do have short lived success. Morality and good intentions cripple the ability to think critically because morality and good intentions operate based off emotions over logic.
"If people throw stones at you, throw bread instead - with a grenade inside of course." That is literally one of the best quotes I have ever heard. It's wild that you found this from a random person online. I'm going to remember that one for sure
It reads like someone from the internet wrote it. It lacks nuance and engages in cheap misdirection…
Corny ass line 😂
LoL
I like it 👌 👌 👌
@@wille7319 guy: hey look, a sandwich!
bread:💥🍞💥
😂❤
Use this knowledge as a shield, not as a sword.
Well said!
I love this. Bravo.
..and let others to attack you instead of the other way around.😂
Yes but "incoming fire has the right of way". 😂😂😂
This comment deserves its own Netflix series.
The prince is basically like a centuries updated version of the art of war. This knowledge can either use to defend yourself against threats or manipulate others.
Yes, the Italians/West adapted many of the Eastern philosophies and technologies
That is basically the intent of the book - as a warning guide to his patron. “Here’s all you will face, if you go that way”.
What is mostly misunderstood, is that he also describes the ways of good government, the ones that he hoped his prince would pick up.
And instead, people retained just the “you don’t want to go this way, do you?” part and sticked that to his name
Well if you can try reading Arthshastra it's in Sanskrit written by Channakya also called Machivalli on steroids read it and you'll know...his wrote his book centuries before Machivalli and Sun tzu
@@karandullet380art of war was written 2 centuries before Arthashastra in 500 BCE while Arthshastra begun in 300 BCE. Due to different writing styles found in Arthshastra, there is an argument that it is a multi-author book and the full 15 books are believed to have taken 600 years between 300BCE - 300CE for its final form based on existing manuscripts. I’m pretty sure nobody lived for 600 years. That said, it is an impressive treatise.
A college professor had a great quote for my class. Leadership is inspired by God, plays for power is inspired for the Devil. Learn the ways of both.
religion is a power structure. You are duped.
@@sertocd It's a metaphor to explain the concept
Well said.
@GH-xy4zz A metaphor? You sure?
Jesus himself said that you need to become a dove and a snake in this world. I'm not even religious. So yeah, I don't agree with Machiavelli, there's more side to humanity than AI brain rot.
Followers don't like nice leaders, they want a ruthless person. They'll complain about him but deep down that's the kind of person they want
The problem is, if your not a follower, your caught and must abide
Keep your head down. Always. 🧿@@JointFive
💯 I had first hand experience
47
They want a leader who is ruthless w but not petty and needlessly cruel. A Septimius Severus and not a Domitian or Caligula.
10:45 Christ actually has a similar message to this in Matthew 10:16b “be wise as serpents and innocent as doves”
That is not the same thing.
No … that is not the same thing … not even close … 🙏🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
You're absolutely right! In Matthew 10:16b, Jesus advises his followers to "be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." This is a powerful piece of wisdom, urging believers to strike a balance between shrewdness and purity. The phrase suggests that while we should navigate the world with wisdom and discernment (like serpents), we should also maintain a spirit of innocence, gentleness, and purity
I'll remember that next time someone calls my intellect Luciferian.
Just curious. Why are Christians so passive in the face of nationalists hijacking the word of god to preach hate and racism to oppress the "other"
"If somebody hurts you, never hit back soft." -uncle
Who the he🏑🏑is uncle?! 🤣🤣🤣
@@joeydinero9300sounds like uncle from rdr2
@@joeydinero9300my uncle only told me "I'ma fuck your aunt, so keep quiet".... He wasn't one to bullshit an 8yr old.
“And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.” Jesus
This might be the best example of why is FAR Better to know than being an ignorant of your surroundings. Doesn't matter if you agree or disagree, History always tells a pillar for humanity: "I will rather have control than be controlled".
There should always be a line drawn for humanity and morals. I can give you examples of rulers who were just, kind, and never crossed the limits for power and most importantly, no one dared to control them in their era.
@PhiloNauticaa who?
marcus arelius
I'm reminded of a line from a movie - Departed - where Nicholson, a crime lord, states: "I'd rather not become a product of my environment, and instead make my environment a product of myself"
Niccolo is a realist. This is how to adapt to reality.
He was born to good fortune during a time when very few people were and through his realist cunning he really got tied up and dropped multiple times to dislocate his shoulders, banned from the place he loved, briefly imprisoned under horrible conditions, and died in filth and poverty. He sure adapted well to reality. Oh wait. You didn't actually know what you were writing about. My bad. Took you seriously for a moment there.
@ you interpret his tragic life as disproving his observations about power. There is no correlation. Nice try. 😂 the observations still stand as accurate.
@@adonaiel-rohi2460 If there is no correlation between his advice and his outcomes then the advice is worthless.
@@BoreasCastel that’s a red herring. Disprove his observations. How is any of it not realistic? You are merely distracting from the observations onto his life so you don’t have to think about their accuracy.
If you seek power. It’s evil, which exists in the hearts of all men and women. His philosophy is to embrace it and you will be rewarded with power. It’s just straight up evil.
he tells it like it is
not the way it should be
That's what people have a hard time to understand.
Like what is happening in Palestine now.
@@viadharmawheel That's M0h4mmedan karma for centuries of raping, stealing and murdering.
@rocksparadox
All of the three competing monotheistic deathcults are guilty of that, and it all stems from ALL of their fictional storybooks.
Fictional storybooks, written by ignorant humans and based on mythological malarkey and superstitious hogwash.
Palestine never did any of that until the colony of Israel was made by the USA and the UK. Palestinians invited in Jewish refugees. There were Jews in Palestine long before europeans claiming Jewish faith ever showed up from the countries they originated in. Jews Muslims and Christians were living in peace before Israel was allowed to be founded. p@@rocksparadox
The reality is, power is for good guys. The reason for why is, because they are called gentlemen. Machiavelli lived in a world which denied him the right to say this. If you think about it, the best and most noble rulers have all been altruists. This is because once you put an altruist in charge its usually guaranteed that the money goes where its supposed to go. There are cases where an altruist spends his or her money so unwisely, it never ends in the right pockets. What´s best for bad guys, is servitude. Being wise, clever and resourceful, the future belongs to those who know how to wield power, and not only how to abuse it.
AGREED 💯
Well said sir
@@EnlightenedCapricorn Hey thanks.
💪
like in the movie gladiator, the emperor wanted to hand over his power to maximus because maximus didn't want power over other people. commodus craved power and wanted to rule that is why he shouldn't of allowed to have ruled.
He put in print, what was happening since the beginning of time.
When I read The Prince and (some of) The Discourses for Social Science 2 and Political Science 11, my instructor (because he taught both courses) laid out their scope and limitations plainly: Machiavelli was writing for the leaders, not the common person; and he wasn't pulling stuff out of thin airse, he was describing what was already being done by his model politicians. It was simplistic in its beauty and of course Machiavelli's works had more layers than that, but it was a good starting point. But the global success of liberal democracy got us all into thinking that we could all be leaders in some way. So Machiavelli's works, which were written for a specific social class at a specific time period, was thrust into the faces of the general public. They're being maligned and demonized by people whom they were not written for.
My Dad used to say 'if control freaks want to be in charge of everything, let them. Unhappy people want to control others.'
That's probably because your dad never had control over anything in his own life so he had to find a coping mechanism.
@@TravisKastl-ui9mk Machiavelli was also a deeply miserable person.
@@barefootarts737 What is your evidence? He never wrote about being miserable nor did you personally know him. You're asserting a claim with zero evidence. In fact there is evidence to the contrary. He held prestigious positions in government for most of his life and was very wealth. He also had a wife and seven children. All three of those are things that have been proven to bring happiness.
@@TravisKastl-ui9mk If you think those things are evidence of happiness, then you might not be a happy person either. Maybe wealth, prestige and power will do it for you. Give it shot!
@@barefootarts737 funny how you didn’t mention family even though I talked about it. Family has been proven to make people happy and Machiavelli had a family. And yes all those other things I mentioned have also been proven to make people happy. That’s why people chase them. The less power and money you have the harder problems are to deal with when they inevitably arise. There is a reason unhappy couples argue over money. 😂 think before you speak. Just some friendly advice.
The grim reality of power is that groups and individuals who come to dominate inevitably become corrupted by their power and use the instruments of the state to further their interests, even if it means oppressing opponents. By becoming the Chief capable of cruelty, the leader ensures his own safety, and that of his followers, and the violence used may deter armed enemies' intent to avenge themselves. Ugly, but in complex social structures, bouts of terror cleanse societies of opponents and demonstrate strength to the people, and strength is always admired rather than condemned. A leader who seemingly defends his people from harm, provides basic necessities for life, and is seen to be competent is preferred to a weak leader who cannot achieve anything guided by some flustered ideology that serves no one well.
You're talking about invasion infiltration or organized crime in a position of legal authority being attained by election then transforms into a crime boss instead of a man or woman given the age of civility could get away with this jekyll and hyde character? I think this type of person might have been able to get past everyone if the power was distributed although this could not happen unless there are traitors and no one would ever accept a traitor only use to gain their own position but to continue as partners well you've seen how loyal the faculty is. So you know both want power from the powerful of another place that also makes other's take notice so maybe a poor people who don't have grandeur as those who have more than that still is a threat in legal business but there's underground too you just have to find the other faction so one is legit the other must stay quite so what type of noise can either make to alarm everyone with opportunities they'll think their safety is lost what I'm saying it will corrupt the air people breathe and if your power is this type of work you'll only surround yourself with like minded individuals so your lives danger increases and just adds more stress and pressure you could become paranoid and that's terrible way to live comfortably especially your families will be burdened. I'm assuming I could give you my ideas for power but I think we're in disagreement and not in control of power but opinions and the reality of it.
it's a really naive POV when you say "become corrupted", you MUST be corrupt if you want to survive and stay in power.
Thus being feared but not hated, earning respect.
Being a good person means to support good & eliminate evil. You need to do both. Power is thus meant for good people but because there are so many pretenders, omitting the second half of what it takes to be good, we have the situation where evil eliminates good, but good does not eliminate evil, resulting in more evil being there in the world.
Very prideful to say that human beings are even capable of eliminating evil. Evil is within all of our very bones - it is our fatal flaw and original sin.
The only way to be a good person in this world is to love thy neighbor as thyself.
Good people cannot wield power. They are too clumsy and fidgety with it. Whatever power they amass can be ripped away from them from even a half-witted person who wants it bad enough. Idealistic people make for the worst leaders because they cannot cope with the reality of many people wanting many things for many reasons with many backgrounds. We are not some homogenous blob of people with the same wants and needs.
People, in time will mess up and so starts all over .
Wow man beautiful poetry written in beautiful English
The Prince is a satire. Machiavelli is not advocating the tactics he describes; he is explaining why monarchies always become tyrannical. The mainstream interpretation ignores the context of Machiavelli's other writings. The dedication clarifies that he is specifically talking about principalities (monarchies) and not republics.
Just monarchies? the USA's "democracy" and most communism has also become tyrannical. perhaps it is human nature for most to want a strong intimidating leader and for the few to want to be one.
Wrong. He wrote this as a manual for a prince in an attempt to be able to go back to Florence.... he understood how the power and the government worked.
The truth will eventually come out. Begin in truth and you will find strength that abounds without subsiding, even after your bodily death. Begin in lies and your sandy foundation dissolves as soon as a single wave slips past your defenses, which it always eventually does.
Similarly, ask what it is you seek, for there ain't no rest for the wicked.
Real power is within every human being, it doesn't have to do anything with aggressive power that destroys human beings and environment.
I had no idea about this in my twenties or early thirties, but you explain this brilliantly!
BETTER TO BE A WARRIOR IN A GARDEN..THAN A GARDENER IN A WAR🤫💯
Its funny how people blame Machiavelli for coming up with these ruthless ideas. In reality he observed them being used by the powers of the time and those powers hated him for giving up game.
We're all assuming money and power are the principle things. To someone with this mindset, and thats most of the world, you do what the world does to get what the world has.
The most dangerous man in the world is one whos not afraid to die and or lose everything he has.....
Don't trust Ai (and TikTok/IG/FB/X for good measure)... This is a misintpretation of Nicolo Machiavelli's work, The Prince is often oversimplified in this way. In The Prince, Machiavelli did explore various strategies rulers used to maintain power, but he also highlighted the risks of immoral actions. Rather than outright advocating for "the ends justify the means," he observed how different tactics-moral or otherwise-impacted governance. This nuanced view shows that while he acknowledged harsh methods, he also understood the complexities and potential pitfalls, suggesting a more balanced perspective than the phrase typically implies. The Prince is an observational work, not a prospective one. Do better Ai.
If you would just watch the whole video!
@@PhiloNauticaa lol... Fair, you lost me at "Nicolo Machiavelli is an enemy of the people," (which is 20sec in...) but only because that notion is so far from the accepted scholarly history of Machiavelli's contributions to politics, leadership and statecraft as a whole. I'll admit I did come in a little hot, these are trying times for facts... I'll watch the rest of it out of curiosity.
In order to see the true character of a person give him Power or lots of money. Abraham Lincoln
How they treat animals is a good indicator.
Seeing how a person behaves when they think no one's watching is also another.
Italian philiosopher Niccolo Machchiavelli was the most unscrupulous man in the Renaissance period who adviced on use of treachery and mind games for fulfillment of political objectives.
A persons relationship to power will be determined by their relationship to suffering and death particularly their own. Cowards become tyrant's when given power. The word coward is ambiguous but it is a word that attempts to capture a persons relationship to the experience of fear. A cowardly relationship with fear produces tyrants when they aquire power. The most common form of " abused power" is that by a parent over a child. This may be the "Original Sin" that gives birth to all others.
So all jews are cowards
Power over oneself or others ?
People who attribute power over others as their own have always lead cruel lives. Those who have it towards themselves, know how to live.
John 11:25-26 ;
“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die.
Read John 14:12-14
Where is your faith to do great works Jesus has done?
Amen
@@Cris_carias98
Empty bible quotes. When will humanity learn?
@@DreamMonster7X nah bro , proven as the living word. Hebrews 4:12.
@Cris_carias98
Nah nothing. Bible quotes are nothing empty. It's all Christians can say. Just quotes. 1000+ years of NOTHING but quotes. Don't even have the faith to walk on water. Utterly nothing.
Fear motivates subservience. But fear is the enemy of innovation and productivity. Creative risk-taking is crushed by fear.
The pursuit of power, in it of itself, must be considered evil because it implies the pursuit of superiority; that’s antithetical to our primal instincts to survive as a species - as a collective. Our ability to value each other’s life as inherently equal, since we all came from the same spliced cell, is crucial and foundational to understanding our nature, and should be the basis for resolving any conflict.
I do think it’s so powerful, though, that Machiavelli experienced extreme wartime discrepancies, which helped him demonstrate to us why one’s ideals can be easily snuffed out by need or greed…it’s eerie.
Wrong. So wrong. Painfully wrong. Persuit of power is the most natural thing anyone can do. We do not value eachothers lives as equal. That is literally a 21st century ideal.
Equal based on what? One of us has to be faster than the other, stronger than the other, more cunning than the other, more useful than the other. Some abstract notion of equality doesn't exist in nature. Entire species die out because others are superior and adapted more successfully to the environment than they did.
The persuit of superiority is a deeply seated primal instinct. It protects your immediate family and tribe from invaders. Our brains haven't changed much since the cave man days. It's just that our "tribes" became the size of countries. There's a reason why nationalism is a thing.
Very interesting point. I have to say I agree with a lot of what you say. What might be a better approach is to take a more Nietzschian approach, that is, Excellence is pursuable, sure, but to what end?
If we say that the pursuit of power, in it of itself, is the most valuable, then, there we go…but power is corrupting; it’s very difficult to refute that.
Instead, similar to how you say, our Will to life is powerful enough to cause us to be naturally more accomplished since we adapt to the environment around us. Nietzsche believes the will to power is important, but power can be accrued via the Will to Compassion. The will to power can be inadvertently invoked via the Will to compassion…or even the Will to life.
Compassion is an action that can be exerted in a significant and observable way, while also reaching out to help those in need - it’s in our nature, but, at the end of the day, our moral choices are ours. What we put into the world with passion will stay there…let it be good that we put into the world, and let’s not idly perpetuate the negative.
Also, regarding tribalism and nationalism, if we don’t check ourselves, those things will put us at the feet of nuclear war. Narratives, dogma, and tribalism will bring us down if we aren’t careful.
Machiavelli got blamed for writing a book about what the Medicis were actually doing.
Only cowards choose fear over love.
Love bravely
Your EGO says you are what happens to you.
But your soul is defined by how you face what happens for you.
Live bravely
The Prince should have been titled, "The Coward".
In the work world where you’re surrounded by people with self interest including yourself, you want to have an element of fear.
Souls don't exist and fear is better than love when we are talking about power. If you can achieve both then great, but you only NEED fear.
Machiavelli advised the prince that if speaking the truth could potentially lead to losing the state (returning it to the French), then he should lie. You portray this as gruesome and malevolent, but in reality, he is merely advocating realistic actions for the prince to take. I do not know why you would put it in such a way as you did.
Agreed, he missed the point all together. I knew this was a weird slander piece when he started off the video by calling Machiavellis writing “satanic”
For one, this is an AI video if it wasn’t already obvious by the speaking cadence. Two, reality is often gruesome and malevolent, so the irony here is that you seemingly have a problem with how bluntly realistic an artificial intelligence explains reality through Machiavelli terms
@@Dandy-Lion949 What has that got to do with my comment? My statement had to do with what Machiavelli actually said in his advice to the Prince.
@ if it went over your head then it went over your head.
@@Dandy-Lion949 I think this is a case of projection on your part. I think my points went over your head.
There’s nothing satanic or dark about the prince. It’s practical advice and historical observation.
Draw a line on morality, that's it!
Thanks for the video ! you are running a nice series to provoke our thoughts on various subjects. Machiavelli philosophy does seem to be in play today in many circles and at many levels - politics, business and even religion. Reality can be nauseating when we peel the layers that we look up to for protection and enhancement. Our top rulers couldn't be in their jobs without a strong dose of machiavelli in them. we are not getting benevolent buddhas ever to run the show for us ! May we atleast get enough supply of machiavellis to counter one another, for the normies just cant do it.
We are supposed to balance the good and the bad together. That is why Jesus said the meek will inherit the Earth. it's original meaning it means someone who knows how to fight and is willing to fight but will only use it as a last resort. A person that is under full control of themselves.
I use this philosophy in my life.
1. I pay attention to my surroundings.
2. I trust no one.
3. I make enemies, rather than friends.
4. I never look for attention.
5. I walk in silence.
I wish you did but do you really? Liar
“I make enemies” lol sounds like. A recipe for disaster
Sad
uhhh why u make enemies? in my life, i never had to make enemies. they just appear and i had to eliminate them.
You blurting this out loud already means you are not as smart as you think you are, and making enemies while not being smart is a guaranteed ticket to suffering.
The problem with this analysis is that it only views power through one lens: top-down power of a few over the many. It ignores the kinds of bottom-up power that can be exercised by the majority. Reverse dominance hierarchies use power to prevent domination rather than perpetuate it.
People are often cruel and selfish when dealing with people they have power over, but this is harder to get away with among equals.
The saying you’re looking for is cautious as a serpent, innocent as a dove. Understand our Dual nature and keep up your guard. Question everything especially authority
People are not “evil” per se, just self-serving, and often myopic. Altruism should not be enforced: instead, people should be persuaded or worked towards the bigger picture of species prosperity, and allowed to see that it promotes individual gain as well. The issue is people are often too desperate, and too kept in the dark. Machiavelli thus provides a simpler solution, easier to actually adopt. He wasn’t harsher than necessary. He didn’t want a sadist, he wanted strength, using violence as a means to a beneficial end, austere when necessary, doing it thoroughly instead of shirking from it and doing it halfway, yet also in the least _appearing_ generous when need be (it’s best if one can be truly generous, but if there is risk of favoritism or bankruptcy, one really has no choice but to at least adopt the appearance of being generous, and plus “true generosity” may be easily betrayed if people can’t perceive it), and never harming a person’s money or spouse unless absolutely needed. Frankly, I like Machiavelli’s pragmatism. He actually provides shields for truly good-meaning people to navigate the world with. Justice is a noble goal, but how can one even aim for it if one can’t hold onto the power necessary for it? The true challenge thus may be to not lose oneself in the mud and fully become the tool in the process.
Depends on who wields it. Just look at the roman Emperor marcus arillius. If a person is well-trained.
With a mind forged in compassion and gratitude real power can be wheelded appropriately and effectively.
If power is not for the good then do not complain when the wicked use power unjustly.
Well put.
I wish I saw this video when I was doing an assignment on Machiavelli, but there is the final exam next week.
You can always loose. Giving up your moral integrity for something as feeble as winning is a bad bargain. Anything outside yourself can be lost. Now what you hold onto in yourself, that is forever.
Tell that to Mike Tyson??
Morality is subjective
@@TravisKastl-ui9mk No, it's really very simple. If you experience pain, you know it's unpleasannt. Knowing it's not enjoyable you avoid causing pain in others. "Do unto others as you wish to be done unto yourself." It's not a theorem, it comes from lived experience and lived feelings within yourself. I've been bullied a lot in school, not a day went by were my dad didn't scold me being a loser. A part of me is glad, it's the foundation of my values and morals. No one needed to teach me either. In fact I believe it can't be taught. To teach it, you only teach obedience.
@@olafweyer859 what are you talking about? No one here is talking about bullying or causing others pain for no reason. We are talking about competing with other people for power. The person who wins that competition is the one willing to put “morality” aside because it gives them a massive advantage when you have nothing holding you back. Your “lived experience” doesn’t change reality nor does it make your point more valid.
@@olafweyer859 also what you think is morally wrong others might think is morally right. That’s why it’s subjective.
For reference, Machiavelli was only speaking in regards to other nobles/powerful vassals. Not in regards to the general constituency. A rulers constituency should always be valued and ruled with love not fear.
not true. especially in Machiavellian politic as it borrows a lot from Chanakya. Even there it is advised for rulers to cultivate a modicum of fear else people will not respond to laws.
@ he talks about using fear against constituents in regards to the application of good law. In his works he separates nobles and commoners to say that commoners are more honorable than nobles, and that respecting commoners is more important than nobles. Also, if you notice; Lorenzo de Medici was a populace leader who made an “alliance” with the commoners of Florence. Because of this, Lorenzo only had serious political issues with other nobles. I think Lorenzo’s actions are indicative that under normal circumstances machiavelli valued popular opinion among commoners and would generally advise a nations traditional rule of law to be sufficient enough of a fear factor for Florentine citizens…
We could argue all day whether raising the marginal tax rate of citizens income tax is ruling commoners by “fear” or not.
I’m 1995, Machiavelli became Makaveli.
What are you saying???
Stupid 2pac comparison is what he’s saying.
@ It’s a joke
Machiavelli's insights remind us of the complexities of power and human nature. As he wrote in The Prince: 'It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.' A challenging truth that provokes reflection on leadership and the balance between ethics and pragmatism.
@@QuotesWithBenefits Mussolini was feared and not loved. The people hung him and beat his corpse with anything at hand.
Bibi Netanyahu embodies this spirit well.
No. He is a protector of his people. He loves good and freedom. He knows he has to maim and kill others because they are a shield for the leeches who hate non-violence and desire total suppression of his people. He tries to minimize the awful destruction of others. He does not love destroying them.
This is the difference. There are times when there is no choice. His action is not an impulse for total destruction of others, but rather that the destruction of others is temporary and will cease when the outcome of peace and protection of his people is achieved.
If good men do not rise up to lead, it won’t be themselves that get hurt, but those they love and the innocent ones.
Russia, North Korea and Cuba come to mind when Machiavellianism is discussed. The result is the same, a population ruled by fear with no faith in the integrity of its justice system. To build or create in such a society exposes you to danger from those with power and covetous of what you have. Countries with a moral and just governance inspire the individual to hope, build and strive. For all its faults and failings, democratic republics with their checks and balances based on moral ethics are the only places where the human spirit can soar to the greatest heights.
You, dear human being, understood nothing from this book...
@@tokugamer9930 Exactly. Unbelievable that they felt this was some sort of worthwhile or even relevant exposition, when the democratic republics are the Machiavellian states by comparison.
I think you have Cuba and Russia all wrong. The dictatorships are not really for the body of people but to protect the people from the tentacles of democratic states that create coups in any country chosen. Without a dictatorship your country is doomed to influence from the west.
I too believe in a Constitutional Republic. With the Constitution, we have a set of moral and legal principles that become the supreme law of the land. With the Republic, we have the voice of the people. In any political system, Machiavelli has a point and insight about human political maneuvers. I find Machiavelli to be the dark side of the force. Darth Vader would have embraced the teachings of the Prince! I prefer love thy neighbor and treat others as you would want to be treated. See the teachings of Jesus Christ. But, never underestimate the Dark side of the force.
@@hakaishinkage9899 it could be but no one has the problems we have and still gets weighed down by unrelated issues other countries demanding from them our people demanding and destroying for gain it's all the codependency 😂
If anyone has really read the book, it gives a reason why to be ruthless and reasons why not to be. Power and Mercy should be looked at as tools in a toolbox, sometimes you need only one tool other times you'll need the entire set. Caesar Borgia was a ruthless person and in the end it didn't help him. He died naked in a field, Borgia was one of the idols of the book and in the end it shown power is fleeting. I have a saying: power to a man is like beauty to a woman, it all fades with time.
with fear and love I'd rather have respect, fear only last as long as the person is around, love only lasts as long as the person keeps giving, but respect is something that oddly stays no matter if the person ruthless or loved you would respect what he would do, I think it takes an extreme amount of time to get that level of respect but once obtained its hard to break.
I love Machiavelli ❤
Love??? it would be the stronger emotion for someone who just wanted to cross every moral value in his way!
@@PhiloNauticaa there is no such moral thing. People just show off morality.in reality it do not exist.people born in Africa and Asia as poor will understand.
Machiavelli should have known about Dyonisus from Syracuse. His Prince is a Tyrant, and as in the Damocles sword tale, the Tyrant is Prisoner of his own power.
The necessity to not trust anyone brings the Tyrant into isolation and into a self enclosed echo chamber, losing an objective vision of reality.
The Tyrant always ends serving only himself, and the state becomes a tool, despite the best intention in the beginning. That's in the human nature too.
In a “healthy” world we would all be equal. Case closed.
Sounds like dystopian hell. You should try thinking on this a little deeper.
@ stop spreading your American misery.
@ you are dead wrong
It’s the individualism and competitiveness that is synthetic, and a trance. A very violent, trance.
@@user-rm4vk6tr3j hell is her on earth
More Orwellian, and people suck
Too dumb, greedy, and not deep enough.
You you you you the American nuclear intellectual void
@Thatsbannanas-d8c you're dead wrong and your worldview will lead to a shitty, unsuccessful, whiny life. Good luck 👍
Fun fact, that is not what Machiavelli meant at least not in my opinion based on having read a lot of his works and having studied his life. We have to remember that while the prince was supposedly made as a way to try to get a job. Machiavelli intentionally had it published using the printing press to make it accessible to as many people as possible. Thus it is my theory that Machiavelli isn’t actually saying, he recommends any of these callous and cold methods, but is rather describing how monarchs rule. Something that supports this is his writing of the discourses on Titus Levy that he wrote at the same time he wrote the prince which shows him advocating for stuff like a direct democracy and like showing a lot of faith in humanity.
"The end justifies the means" is nowhere in the Prince. 🙂
@@CUSELİSFAN Yes it's a paraphrase of his ideas.
Understanding the cruel truth of human nature is necessary for being a good person. How could we become a good person without understanding the opposite part?
The more he narrates, the more I think... yeah, this was the 2Pac before 2Pac, if that makes any sense. 💯🎤
I would say,just a single state of being analysed. Much like programming,a function has statements it executes,a state may be likened to a function,in a particular state,the human being will animate(run) certain tendencies, behaviors, while it is,to understand these illusions,it is,also,to never loose truck of being. know others and you are wise know self and you are enlightened.Every state has its accessories,has its means, wherever you are, always be.
I've realized this a long time ago, that we are simply geared in such a way that the ruthless and self-serving will always be on top. And it's a big part of why I am a misanthrope.
Na you not going hard enough
So everyone was shocked he said the quiet part out loud. Cool
Jesus is my strength. I will not lose my soul to gain the world
@HateIncorporated The giant in front of you is never bigger than the God inside of you. 1 John 4:4 I fear none
One can't lose one's spirit. One can't even sacrifice it away. Weak individuals are easily swayed and convinced by religious con men through fear. Reincarnation will work this weakness out of everyone.
Nah f that. A word is enough for the wise. Good people also need power in order to stand ip to bad people.. it doesn’t matter what you stand for if you don’t have the strength to protect. As a good person I learned that blindly being kind to everyone is one way to ensure your doom
@@DreamMonster7X Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
@KissseanSkeete
Weird. I saw that on a bumper sticker the other day. Hmm
The Britishers seem to be a big fan of his after all they have 'achieved' in history.
The Prince is boring but I agree with the philosophy. I like The 48 Laws of Power better. Thanks for the video.
Keep Supporting Fam!
Power is a concept defined indefinitely by different types of people. To say that "power" isn't for "good" guys is such a binary way of thinking. Power is power. Just like legs are legs. It is a function/tool to achieve a certain goal. Would you say legs are useless if you don't run as well as an expert marathoner?
You are being over-reductive by casually ignoring the fact that the pursuit of power often involves things which arent always "good" or the best outcome for the most people, such as unending greed and infighting, especially if one cared about sustainability and not shitting where you eat. While many moral systems have their limits and need for iteration, there is a pragmatic evolutionarily reason these are selected for, a universally inspired math by dint of it existing in reality and not just some loft abstract ideal. As to why psychopathy is relatively rare, why behavior like rape and unjust murder is seen as repulsive, and cooperation is a more common strategy for apex predators like humans. Just because it can be seen as a "tool" doesnt mean its the best tool for any number of parameters or predictions. Its not just purely arbitrary, there is a point. Different behaviors all produce different results and different responses, thus are not equal in evaluation. Forceful copulation for example is common in the animal kingdom than we lrobably like to admkt or think about, but consent tends to work better, especially if the goal is offspring and not inflicting your own offspring with that epigenetic trauma and having a cooperative willing partner to help, etc. There may be a evolutionary logic which condemns the natural order of animalistic and thoughtless instinct and favors cooperative emergent complexity for organisms with more potential to influence the world around them. Just because people intuit most of this and cannot philosophically break it down on demand doesnt mean logic - however flawed - is nonexistent to the behavior.
I wonder if Machiavelli felt the same way when he was on his death bed. Or if he had some time to reflect before he died.
No one felt the same way when they are on their death bed!
@@PhiloNauticaa Machiavellianism is thus a mental disorder, and part of what are known as the Dark Triads - narcissism, sociopathy and macchiavellianism.
I wonder why a change of mind during the death of the mind is considered important by some people. I expect the mind to change once half of the brain cells suddenly die. Simply not enough computing power to keep the same beliefs.
Of course he did, fact is fact!
@elinope4745 I'm not trying to be a dick but to pretend to not know why death is something important then you are out of sorts friend. A person's mind can be functioning normal before they die. A death bed can last for an entire month or more. When a person is about to face the biggest adversary known to existence it makes you reflect on your life and your decisions. Did you spend your time wisely while alive on earth.
5:15 is that our friend Benjy Netanyahu on the throne? I had no idea his power extended so far ...
This is so stupid I had to comment just how funny it is
Worthless comment. Explain what you mean or don’t bother.
@@RecklessRustyAgreed. Comments like this are meaningless.
The end justifies the meaning? What is that?
"Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb."
Dark Helmet
The Prince is probably one of the most misunderstood pieces of literature in human history.
First off, Machiavelli was analyzing politics as they existed and taking a pragmatic stance on how leaders should adapt to the dark reality of the situation, not advocating these things as “good” or “bad”.
Second, his point is that as a leader of whatever political entity you are running, your only responsibility is the preservation of that state. The citizens you are responsible for aren’t going to care if you acted morally righteous in your conduct with opposing states if those other leaders just walk all over you and conquer your state, and since there are countless examples of human history where leaders don’t behave morally right you can’t be constrained by morality in your conduct either. Politics at a global scale have been largely anarchy for almost all of human history, and even today with international political organizations it’s still just certain groups of nations trying to control other groups of nations arbitrarily.
The anti-Machiavelli tone in this video is puzzling, especially since it echoes the critics who often pretended to uphold morality while secretly conducting themselves in the same manner.
The biggest obstacle for any ruler is human rights.
ok, but can you be good and loving to your people while also be fearsome and bad ruthless to your enemies/threats?
In 3:14, there was a picture of a TANK
I didn't notice that, just a bad selection of clip. GUILTY
Yes, when he was exiled by the Medici, Machiavelli got a tank to take revenge 😂😂😂
There are a lot of conclusions in this video that are directly opposed to what Machiavelli wrote. For instance, he circles back repeatedly to the idea that the leader must ultimately answer for the morality of his rule, and that the common people were ultimately both the origin of power for the government and also the final responsibility of the government.
The portions where he recommends ruthlessness are from the perspective of retaining power against opposition. The train of logic is thus:
1. If you are to be a good ruler, you must first and foremost remain the ruler. If you are deposed, none of the good you may have done will come to pass.
2. If you are to retain your rulership, your opposition will be at least partially composed of ruthless men prepared to do great evil to accomplish their goal. If you cannot defeat them, you cannot retain your power.
3. You cannot assume any significant advantage over your opponents, and thus cannot afford to give any advantage to them. Thus, any rule you impose on yourself that your opponent is willing to ignore is the rule that will defeat you.
4. Thus, a truly good ruler must be both willing and able to do anything necessary to retain his position. If he does this well, the end result will be sufficient stability and authority to do those good deeds that justify the rest.
Machiavelli did not advocate immortality. He simply recognized that a simplistic view of that morality would ultimately lead to far MORE suffering and strife, by handing all advantage to those without any moral considerations.
Love people the way parents love their children by never trusting them with the car keys
Hate to break to you but he wasnt disillusioned about human behavior. We are all capable of good, bad, and evil. I do think we can treat people morally and i dont think it should be about personal gain, but he has points.
Just remember that this is the dude writing to the duke begging for a job (and to join the duke faction).
His side (some sort noble council) were utter defeat by the duke and the pope for the revolt. Thanks to his orchestrate, the council manage to resist duke army to the point he ask for foreigner via the pope.
It is some sort of resume, probably mean to stroke duke ego so he would hire him.
I didnt even know Machiavelli. And now i am closely reading his writings
Being a "good" guy is different from being a "nice" guy. It is possible to preserve the inner goodness while immersed in politics, but it is extremely difficult to achieve. It is for a very few rare souls, like Subhas Chandra Bose.
Remember, the truth n good always wins at the end. Evil will win the battle but goodness always wins the war, just know your opponent and know the game.
If power gravitates towards machiavellian types then isnt it fitting that manipulation is a under handed game that has to be hiden but is often a game that gets overplayed or exposed as critical thinking and patterns reveal situations over time? The power crazed always up the stakes as they get high on their own supply. Thats normally the way the game ends. So in retrospect the man who's willing to take a knee and not jeopardise his principles will be the man to show concern and catch, even teach the game player what life is and how no matter how well you think you're playing it we are all the same. We come with nothing and we leave with nothing. If someone is rude always try and stay respectful,not for them but for you. Your reward is the honour you receive for being authentically and true to you. It may feel like you're losing as others get what they want but you gotta be cool with you. If you have peace of mind thats enough
"I want people to fear how much they love me" - Micheal Scott
You got the money, you got the power, you got the power, you the broads 😲😵😎
Power is for the good people and needs to be. Bad people in power often get their comeuppance. The confusion is that power is not for NICE people. You need to be a sociopath to wield power successfully. You just need to be a benevolent one with a good grasp of pragmatism and utilitarianism. Every day you're faced with the trolley problem, and if you're fine with an equation that says your actions killed twenty people in order to save a thousand, you have the constitution to be a benevolent leader. Any action taken by the powerful will hurt some innocent person somewhere and one of the problems with modern society is politicians try to push 'everyone wins' scenarios which result in nearly everyone losing (e.g. increasing the minimum wage and by doing so destroying jobs, causing inflation and pushing the unskilled and less desireable out of the job market completely).
There are a lot of assumptioms here, the biggest and most egregious one is that everything is and always will be a zero sum game. Utilitariam Pragmatism is useful, but its arguable it will always be necessary. New solutions will continue to evolve and emerge as time goes on. It may be necessary to sacrifice a few or yourself, but its always good to leave it as a last resort and explore other possibilities when possible. Maybe in the future mental illness is cured and culture becomes so efficient and sustainable, such evolutionary pressure to compete may diminish or even disappear. Nothing ever stays the same. Growth is not the same thing as emergent complexity. One can destroy a planet on instinct, the other can engineer itself and potential solutions.
I depends. The interpretations of his words depend on who reads them.
All governance is cold and ruthless. Just ask those outside any status quo.
this is true...the real evolved enlightened dont care about or need power...ive argued this point for years
I remember when I realized I would only go so far in my career, and thus life, because I refuse to take credit for someone else’s work, or throw someone else under the bus if something goes wrong. I may have my integrity, but it’d be nice to have the salary if the douchbags in upper corporate management
He should've understand that fear will only eventually lead to hatred. Once the point of when people who feared you reach the peak of their fear, and that fear change to hate, they will no longer fear you, and you know what awaits at the end of that road...
I think he was aware of hatred pre-existing. Im willing to bet perceived unjustified hatred is partly why he wrote this book as per his observations. If people already hate regardless what you do or did, it doesnt really matter to take unnecessary risks because people will just make up whatever narrative suits them. Not everything people do is your fault, even if those people think so.
Love above fear, always Love above fear
I'm a dog type personality that has slowly changed into a cat. Cats are social, but ever wary, and can always leave and find a new home or survive in the wild. They don't depend on masters. 51 years of life has taught me that dogs are suckers
Sometimes you have to do a little evil for the greater good - Kingdom of Heaven