I started reading this to be more smart. How can I apply the principles in this book to real life situations?

Not OP, what books do you have in mind?

Machiavellian insights shouldn't be applied to personal interactions.

How to win friends and influence people.

>help you succeed in your job or in interviews
There's only so much you can do with books here. At some point you need to practice social skills.

>Books that make you think and make you more intelligent
Oh stop it. That is not why you read the prince. Not sure how to express this but the book about Aristotelian categories literally helped me understand what the issue in a given situation is better. Not through strict following of the definitions but through reflectation of what is actually said and meant in a situation. As I said don't know how to express it but this was probably the most valuable thing I read.

Industrial Society and its Future

What is the book called? The one about Aristotelian categories?

Categories. More importantly the introduction by poryphyrius.

In the standart counting I know of Aristotle's complete work it would be book 1.

Introduction to Categories (poryphyrius)
Categories
Teaching of Sentence
First Analytics
Second Analytics

Translated from top of my head but you should find it

Apply it to politics and foreign policy- you know, the stuff it was written for.
In one section, you'll read Machiavelli's advice for what to do after conquering a foreign city. He gives you two options: kill everyone there, or install your own government there. The one thing you can't do is invade, win, and leave without filling the power vacuum, because that vacuum will be filled with people who don't like you, since you just invaded them. Machiavelli doesn't make it explicit, but obviously the third option- just don't invade- also exists.
Now let's look at U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East over the last twenty years or so. Iraqi Freedom! Let's take out Saddam Hussein and- do what? Well, Machiavelli says we have two choices- put in our own man, or send all Iraq back to the stone age. The U.S. does neither. How has that worked out? Badly. We didn't listen to Machiavelli. We should have either stayed out of Iraq in the first place, or put in a puppet government with strong military and financial backing once Hussein was out. We did neither. ISIS, etc. Obviously "slaughter everyone" is a distasteful option for humanitarian reasons.
And for heaven's sake .

This. Machiavelli prefaces the whole work with different occupations require different sets of skills and laws to live by.

Defs agree with this. You really shouldn't apply Machiavelli to personal stuff, it wont turn out well.

That book is so godamn boring

What about the 48 laws of power

OP here, this is what I was looking for. Thank you.

"Machiavellian" anything has very little to do with the actual Machiavelli.

Also, did you analyze this on your own, or did you have a special tool like cliff's notes to analyze while you read? I'm not that smart yet and want to make sure I'm getting the analysis right.

Glad to know I could help a bit. The ideas I posted are mine. If you want insights and connections that are meaningful to you, you have to make them yourself, you can't get them from a commentary. For The Prince, you can try connecting Machiavelli's advice to historical events where that advice was or wasn't followed, and how things worked out. Machiavelli does a lot of that for you already.

doesnt answer my question

Its on my to read list. Ive heard its an interesting read, thats really all i can say bout it.

Amoral not immoral.

hi jerome

This distinction renders all use of the word immoral useless. It's cowardice.

But Machiavelli really is amoral, not immoral. He's constantly advocating against various evil """Machiavellian""" acts because they will cause civil unrest.

pay no attention to these fools, OP:
they have the reading comprehension of retarded 2nd graders, along with an undue sense of authority.

from someone who has taught machiavelli at more than one ivy-league, here are some lessons that the prince can introduce you to:

1. the notion of the verita effettuale. machiavelli's method teaches one to peer beyond the various illusions that surround daily political life, and begin to look at things are they really are. this in part relates to two things: 1a. machaivelli's notion of multiple perspectives--that one must see things from the point of view of both ruler and ruled to get the world in view; and 1b. that, insofar as one sees the truth for what it is, a choice must be made--either you can choose a life of virtue, and therefore renounce the possibility of wealth or power; or you can choose the path of wealth and power, and therefore renounce the path of virtue. the myth that one can be both is one of the greatest lies of christianized modernity. on a broader level, this further leads to a reading of contemporary politics akin to what accurately described.

2. that duplicity has its place in human affairs. machiavelli's distinction between the fox and the lion educates one to the fact that different circumstances call for different attitudes: whether to be cunning, or to be bold. this relates back to 1. insofar as the right perspective enables one to inhabit the right role for the given occasion. moving between these roles is key to success in the realms of wealth and power.

3. leading from 2.--that the greatest enemy one will face is oneself. this is in part machivelli's point re: Borgia. the same tools that brought you to power may not be the tools necessary to retain that power. what this requires is a sense of dynamism and a willingness to change oneself as the situation/times change.

4. that contingency matters. whatever plans you make, whether small-scale or large, expect things to change, alter, prove resistant. this attunes you simply to the nature of reality itself, and leads to the sort of dynamism of self i referred to above. against this contingency, a type of virtu or boldness is recommended. you know that girl you've been wanting to ask out for months but don't have the courage? it'll never happen until you simply act. on a larger scale, this privileges the vita activa above the vita contemplativa. stop thinking about it and simply do it--this is not to say that one should act unintelligently, but rather than reality will always fortune the man who acts over the man who doesnt.

beyond these points, there are various further ideas that exist in the discourses, etc. that are worth covering as well. you know how people use the term "machiavellian" to describe those who believe the ends justify the means? machiavelli would find this a deplorable bastardization of his thought. the whole point of machiavelli's (cont)

Yeah originally I said the acts were immoral, not the man

(cont) machiavelli's princely training is to train the would be republican citizen to the continuities of political reality: that one may lie, cheat, steal, even use force and violence AS LONG AS these are done in the service of the common good. machiavelli wants you to think broader than the simple "good = good, evil = evil" equation. if anything, machiavelli attunes you to the fact that good often comes from evil, and the "best laid schemes" that see themselves as unequivocally good often lead to unforeseen and even heinous forms of evil.

again, reading machiavelli should attune you to the foolishness of people like
they know neither the truth nor the way to the truth. machiavelli is the most read thinker in the western world for a reason. to describe him as "meme" level only announces ignorance and a form of pretentiousness that holds no salience for any form of political affair--and our world is thoroughly a political one. pay no attention to these false prophets--they will only lead you astray. keep at it, read closely and critically, and you will be rewarded.

This is an amazing post and as author of three posts you cited I retract my criticism.
I have not however the reading comprehension of retarded 2nd graders

And then this post ruins it all

>machiavelli is the most read thinker in the western world
lol

machiavelli is assigned in more college classes than any other author. this is a fact.

dude you really should just stop posting. you were wrong before and you continue to spread ignorance rather than knowledge.

>machiavelli is assigned in more college classes than any other author. this is a fact.
lol

nice comeback.

see, OP? read more machiavelli and dominate those who only pretend to know.

>The tactics he describes are immoral.
>I don't appreciate the context of Machiavelli having been imprisoned and tortured against any reasonable sense of justice.

I do appreciate the context that's why I phrased it the way I did.

>I think the U.S. fought the wars in Iraq for its own benefit.

Here is your (you) for a well reasoned post. Most analysis of Machiavelli is infantile and bigoted. A note to everyone else: Read this post twice. If you disagree with any of it then read it a third time. If you still find yourself disagreeing with him the re-read Machiavelli because you got it wrong.

>Kill the enemy with kindness.

Essentially his tactics are a kind of posturing. It's mostly how to look like you know what you're doing, regardless of actually know what you're doing. Don't sell your accomplishments short, and project an air of confidence with whatever you do, but be careful, because a prince can't have friends, because these skills are somewhat based on paranoia. So don't use them on your friends, (do the opposite with anyone you care about) but in a professional setting is where this shit really comes out

thank you, friend. i take it you've enjoyed machiavelli as well? what is it you study/are interested in?

Read it if you want to dominate relationships. Don't do it on friends tho.

My grandfather taught me to read history to find patterns in the present. I have no focus point. I find universal patterns across almost all population groups, though each needs to be considered in its own context. At age 50, the dots are all starting to connect. I was well served by his wisdom. My current study is cognates above modern English and modern German but next years study might be anything else.

this is quasi-accurate. machiavelli says that you should use appearances to your advantage, so that aspect of the posturing element is true; but there is also a reason he points to figures like theseus, numa pompilius and cyrus as his own heroes. these figures were great because they actually did great things, which is among the surest and most lasting forms of power.

of course, machiavelli also recognizes that not all men/princes are capable of real greatness, at which point you need to rely on images, myths and lies. but the more you do this, the more subject to contingency you become--and most of machiavelli's teaching is an attempt to release one from fortune/contingency.

machiavelli would say: rely on posturing/images only if you have to. otherwise, greatness is achieved most securely by aspiring to and completing acts that others are unwilling or unable to do.

have you read much about machiavelli's notion of history? your grandfather seems like a very intelligent man; do you read history to understand the present, to better act in the present--what exactly?

>have you read much about machiavelli's notion of history?
I have read The Prince perhaps three times and a few analyses by more studied readers with a small amount of discourse related to the subject matter. I read most of a compilation of military strategists - notably Jomini and Clausewitz. BTW, anyone interested in mindset should study Jomini.
>do you read history to understand the present, to better act in the present--what exactly?
Yes, I read history to understand the present. If I mention specifics then I will derail the thread. I will say that, if the totality of circumstances is considered, that there are far fewer mad men that have found themselves at the pinnacle of power than is popularly believed.

>I read most of a compilation of military strategists
I found the title: Roots of Strategy. There are several volumes - each a compilation. This is a very cost effective way to get access to some decent translations of these works. I suggest full immersion so you can freshly compare and contrast the differing philosophies.

Never hire too many mercenaries

But in all honesty Machiavelli proposes a pretty immoral take on leadership, as long as (your) people are looked after it doesn’t matter what you do. It’s important to look in the context of his time, so probs read up on the Italian Wars, understand his perspective and then realising it has little to no application in the modern world

is this board just full of super shallow readers?

OP is a Puerto Rican Jew.

Fuck off, Joe.

What? No. Honestly I think someone needs to do a comparison of ol' Nicky with Legalist autism. They both have that kind of "ends justifies the means", with the ends being a strong, unified state of peace and prosperity.

>machiavelli is assigned
Makes sense that would be the case in those liberal indoctrination factories.

>Strong, unified, and prosperous
Oh no what a turrible guy. Did you ever consider that the corrupt factions of Italian city states were the evil ones? Not the people trying to get by and not stir the shit and not the guy who wanted to destroy the corrosive grip these proto mafioso's had on power?

Can you explain the textual evidence behind:
>the whole point of machiavelli's princely training is to train the would be republican citizen to the continuities of political reality: that one may lie, cheat, steal, even use force and violence AS LONG AS these are done in the service of the common good.

specifically how Machiavelli says that these "immoral" actions are fine as long as they are done for the common good.

You’re so insecure that you need to post a useless, groundless opinion without contributing anything of value to a conversation about Machiavelli.

Just because you were rejected, weren’t smart enough or weren’t economically salient enough to get in doesn’t mean that there aren’t a lot of great universities teaching important and interesting things. But obviously.

Seriously, this level of projection is so beyond pity—it borders on the tragic

How about you choose any lit or humanities based subject of your choosing, make an argument, then watch how brutally said argument can be destroyed by someone actually educated.

god i love lit. i love all of you

is that you approving enthusiastically or disapproving ironically?

Seconding this, even though anons lack of capitalisation triggers my autism.