Preface

To all those who read this work, let it be known that this post serves a two-fold purpose: it is first a simplified and non-complex examination and analysis of The Prince as a whole and, as secondly, a taste to what dialectical-materialist analysis is while not being fully utilized in this post. The point of making this point is to have it as a simple resource for philosophy and history students and assumes that they have no prior knowledge of the work. For the second-fold, it is for establishing the theme of the account here on Steemit for all future posts and to exercise my understanding of dialectics (n.b.* not dialect) in general. Henceforth, any historical mentioning will be used to facilitate the understanding of and reinforcement of The Prince, even from a dialectical-materialist analysis of said work. Otherwise, this isn't to be taken as a whole frontal work like secondary literature which focuses primarily on the work and explains away the reasoning for said lines in it, treat it as a warm-up to a work and, as aforementioned, a taste of dialectical thinking.

Machiavelli himself and the book origin

Machiavelli himself: Machiavelli was born in 1469 and died at 1527 as a diplomat, historian, philosopher and most importantly a writer in 16th century Italy that had wrote many books of politics, and one of which is the magnum opus: The Prince. This book for that time for both philosophers, of laws, and princes took a heavy interest of the work as we humans nowadays stare in awe of somethings Machiavelli has to say.

Why he wrote it: To say that this book was nothing more of a reflection of 15-16th century Italian thought is to be an understatement to what the book is about and poses serious implications of the man himself. For The Prince sets out as a guideline for Princes and rulers of the sorts to follow what he had to say, especially considering the material conditions of the time. Even when he was in the prison cell writing this**, he never gave a hint of resentment for the princes for it would be contradictory to his thought and his work.

The main points and style analyzed

Style: The style of delivery that Machiavelli possesses is one not of idealistic, of which it I mean the history of ideas and not Utopian, analysis of the abstract ruler, to which every ruling idea of history are relative to this title. Rather it is a materialistic analysis of the past leaders of past Italian duchies with a consideration to contextualize their material conditions, meanwhile he lists off qualities that people, peasant and noble, seek for a good ruler to which he, at the same time, slaps at for being abstractions. He persists in his works to always to consider every REAL thing that can practically threaten or help a ruler and it stays true to what he sets out, to be a guideline for princes and rulers. Though he has the materialistic looks at what a ruler should be like, this is where he concerns himself to stay at: how ought to be a ruler, not what a ruler is in the totality of the domain. Ought is the main game of The Prince, but these guidelines do bear fruit to material conditions, and the economy and the rituals of and for a ruler are implicitly a second issue to the primary issue of ruling. So it stays that way, a book perfected to being a guideline of ruling over your domain.

To be feared or to be loved: One of the many talking points in the Prince is the topic of fear and love. For what makes it significant in Machiavelli's world to include this in his work? If one were to be ignorant of the material conditions of 16th century Italia, this wouldn't seem an important issue for any analysis of the notion of ruling a duchy or republic. Yet, Machiavelli goes out of his way to analyze Italy in general as to why these two traits are important in ruling. And in the analysis of the notion of ruling, he delivers to us the answer that is universally applicable to all scenarios: that you must be loved and feared. However he reminds us how difficult it is to handle both by again citing actual human leaders that had to enforce the quality of fear to maintain their rule, thus fear became the dominant trait of what makes the best ruler***. And, in this madness of this section, he invokes the line of “the ends justify the means” without ever being explicit about it.

The ends justify the means: From the previous section, I noted that Machiavelli pulled off a wonderful philosophical trick of making his audience subconsciously agree to the notion of "the ends justify the means" even in the times he was in. Yet why does he, with all these absolutes of the topics of ruling, make them relative to this singular point. It shouldn't be a surprise why he would in the previous section here, for it was the dominant thought of feudal barons and princes at the time that was losing appeal. The rulers in feudal times had their interests as a class, regardless of rival rulers posing threats to their stability, and needed to make sure it was upheld in order to maintain this class by subjugating the peasants into working with them. Yet how does the ends justify the means in this sense and why does Machiavelli justify it? In this period of time, the ends of maintaining the base (feudalism) supported the superstructure (religion, authority and classes) supported the means of tax and grain collection, peasant suppression and repression and imposing fear to all those who wished to depose the noble of the province. For remember, that this work is a guideline for rulers and what their thoughts ought to be when ruling. No matter the means, the consequences always are weighted more as they hold relevance of the future of the kingdom/duchy.

The two beasts of the ruler:  In this portion of the book, after he had went in great length to discuss the importance of love and fear he know focuses of how a leader should act in every situation, like if it were a game of chess in our times. And in his imitation game, it comes down to two important animals: the fox and the lion. For the fox is the clever animal of the bunch because it can spot and avoid traps if need be, but it lacks the ability to scare of and defend from the wolves who dare to threaten the power of the ruler when the time comes to absolve the rule. And, of the other beast, for the lion does what the fox fails to fend from but, like a Taoist symbol of Yin Yang, it lacks the ability to avoid traps made by the sorts who like to steal power bit by bit. And like many of his points, it comes down to be a dualistic relationship between one opposing point and another when it comes to the general topic of ruling. And this point, like many others, are no exception to this rule.

And the modern times: Though you may be hard-pressed to find semi-related to topics to apply the, simplified, knowledge of The Prince today, it does have a good reason for this. If it wasn't already emphasized, it is the fact that, like a good Aristotelian that Machiavelli is, he had studied the world for what it had become and predicted for what it could be. Like many great thinkers of Machiavelli's time, they were revolutionary in thought, like a zeitgeist, especially as they developed and applied Humanism in the Renaissance. However, we humans today don't exist in the Renaissance but many points, even the ones listed here from The Prince, from that time are still relevant today because we still face these issues. Anyways, in other words, Machiavelli's theory still needs an update for the modern times as not everything can be universally applied here, unlike what he stated of being equally loved and feared no matter where you are. And for how we approach to modernize Machiavelli is the great question of today as we still see as rulers who still follow and/or need Machiavelli's advice more than ever...

Fin

Footnotes

*n.b. nota bene = "note well." Essentially, pay special attention to and keep in mind.

**prison cell situation... back when the Florentine republic was dissolved, he was accused of conspiracy against the Medici family by the family itself and was thus thrown into prison, but got out three weeks later after denying involvement in it.

***In his time when it became the rule, not the exception to be feared in Italy.

Sources

The Prince - Niccolo Machiavelli

If you like these sorts of posts, it would be helpful if you upvote and subscribe to this account. Thank you and have a good day.