There are, in the history of philosophy, very few who have reached the level of notoriety as
Niccolo Machiavelli. Here is a philosophy almost exclusively comprised of politics;
ethics and religion also make themselves known, but only as tributary to the main theme. It is
true that in our modern day political sphere there is a stigma surrounding his name. This is do,
of course, to the hypocritical excoriation of evil-doing from our modern politicians.
We must forgive them though for indeed they must do this to secure the popular vote.
Do not let these contemporary views deter you; The Prince and Discourses
are brilliant works of literature. For the first time we had a philosopher who was not
concerned with utopian ideals of how the world should be, but instead with how it really is.
The aim of the Machiavellian philosophy is this;
to better understand why states rise, why they fall, and how one might best go about
maintaining its stability to the end of slowing this inevitable decomposition.
He is confident in his ability to produce such a method of statesmanship since the nature of man
never changes, “wise men say, not without reason, that whoever wishes to foresee the future must
consult the past; for human events ever resemble those of preceding times. This arises from the
fact that they are produced by men who have been, and ever will be, animated by the same passions;
and they must necessarily have the same results.” We must begin by assuming that all men are bad
and will, if given the proper circumstances; bare their fangs to acquire what they wish.
In like manner they can, if given the proper guidance, be made civil and obedient.
If the state is to achieve this then organized force, in all likelihood, will be required.
Through this force laws can be established, and through these laws habit can be cultivated.
Once habits have been formed by the people inordinate force will no longer be required.
Here we have the basic formula for the creation of the state.
It is best practice, Machiavelli thought, for the ruler of the state to adopt or start a religion,
“in truth there never was any remarkable lawgiver . . . who did not resort to divine authority,
as otherwise his laws would not have been accepted by the people.”
For this reason Machiavelli gives the greatest of respect to those who establish these religions
and the greatest of distain to those who destroy them, “for where the fear of god is wanting,
there the country will be destroyed.” There is, however an avenue by which a state may follow to
substitute the divine authority provided by religion. This being by fear of the prince,
“but the lives of princes are short,” so religion remains our most trusted path to stability.
Though Machiavelli accepts religion he looks upon Christianity as a failure. He thinks it causes its
followers to value death more than life for the sake of going to paradise. Furthermore “it has
placed the supreme good in humility and poorness of spirit,” which has caused Italy to fall into
the hands of wicked and nefarious men. A religion such as that which the Romans adopted would be of
more use as it placed its highest virtues in “greatness of mind” and “bodily strength.”
This ethic of might is right will allow the nation to act according to its best interests
without the consideration of what is morally permissible, “where it is an absolute question
of the welfare of our country,” said Machiavelli, “we must admit of no considerations of justice or
injustice, of mercy or cruelty, of praise or ignominy; but putting all else aside we
must adopt whatever course will save the nation’s existence and liberty.”
To maintain stability, the state must have a leader or leaders who, without hesitation, will
do what must be done. Deceit, violence; whatever must be undertaken for the sake of the state
will be considered right and just, “when the act accuses him, the result should excuse him.”
It was a fixation of Machiavelli’s to find one who could achieve his lifelong goal of unifying
all of Italy. He knew any chance for peaceful union had long since passed, it could only now be
achieved by the prince. This is to say a man “who would not let conscience make a coward of him,
but would strike with an iron hand, letting his great aim justify all means.” – Will Durant.
It was to his greatest delight when, at the age of 29, he met Cesare Borgia who he thought could
be this unifying force, but fortune would not be on the young Borgia’s side and the dual sickness
of father and son would dash Machiavelli’s hopes and dreams. After the capture of Florence by the
Medici Machiavelli would himself run into a series of unfortunate events.
But we may thank fortune here, for without it we may never have heard the name Niccolo Machiavelli.
Here was a book revolutionary for its time;
it was to be a sort of guide to any ruler interested in achieving success.
What sets it apart from any other book of its likeness is its embrace of wickedness
as a necessary trait for any ruler to exploit if they wish to acquire and maintain power. “It
being my intention,” he said, “to write something that shall be useful to him who comprehends it,
it appears to me more appropriate to follow up the real truth of a matter than the imagination
of it.” So let us uncover the traits which, in the eyes of Machiavelli, comprise the ideal prince.
It is necessary that he understands that what is good for the state
may not always align with his moral compass, he must know how, when necessity calls, “to do wrong,
and to make use of it or not.” Though it is true that in his discourses he does bring attention to
those such as the five good emperors of Rome, who, by the goodness of their character, were able to
rule sufficiently without the use of wickedness and deceit. In either case a ruler must raise and
maintain a strong military, but he should keep in mind that often times cunning and deceit achieve
more than war, and for this diplomacy should be sufficiently known. For those states that wish to
revolt or disobey he should not hesitate to deploy whatever means necessary to quell the situation,
even cruelty should remain an acceptable avenue. But a fatal mistake that must
be avoided is that of continued cruelty, even after obedience has been established.
What he appears to be is more important than what he really is. Machiavelli stated “though
a prince need not possess all the virtues, to seem to have them is useful; as, for example,
to seem merciful, loyal, humane, religious, and sincere; it is also useful to be so,
but with a mind so flexible that if the need arise he can be the contrary.”
The ability of the prince to uphold this image is indispensable if he is to maintain what
he has acquired. The ones who see through this guise “dare not oppose the opinion of the many.”
While the work was a revelation to common peoples it was not so to the ruling class;
after all it was what they had been practicing for millennia.
It was Francis Bacon who said “our thanks are due to Machiavelli and similar writings, who have
openly and without dissimulation shown us what men are accustomed to do, not what they ought to do.”
So though he failed in just about everything in life,
Machiavelli would succeed in adding his name on the list of histories heroes.
If you enjoyed this video or found it helpful consider subscribing
to the channel, here my goal is to illuminate history’s greatest philosophic minds and ideas.
Let me know in the comments below who you would like to see me do a video on in the future,
and as always thank you for talking philosophy with me, until next time.