The Philosophy Of Niccolo Machiavelli

There are, in the history of philosophy, very few who have reached the level of notoriety as Niccolo Machiavelli. Here was a man who failed in just about everything throughout his lifetime, but succeeded, nonetheless, in adding his name to the list of heroes throughout history. The Philosophy of Machiavelli is almost exclusively a political philosophy, ethics and religions also make themselves known but only as tributary to the main theme.
Sources:
The History of Western Philosophy - Bertrand Russell
The Story of Civilization V | The Renaissance - Will Durant
Music: Birth of a Hero - Bensound.com
CC Attributions:
Emperor Marcus Aurelius - www.flickr.com/photos/carolem...
Emperor Antoninus Pius - www.flickr.com/photos/carolem...
Emperor Hadrian - commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Emperor Trajan - commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Emperor Nerva - www.flickr.com/photos/carolem...
Machiavelli House - commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
The Prince - www.flickr.com/photos/3996530...
Cesare Borgia - www.flickr.com/photos/hinkels...
Machiavelli tomb - www.flickr.com/photos/andyhay...
Machiavelli Statue - www.flickr.com/photos/robert_...
#NiccolòMachiavelli #Machiavelli #Philosophy #NiccoloMachiavelli

[@myuga9918]

Honestly i agree so much with Machiavelli's philosophy up to the point where i feel like a sheep, his practical approach towards the true quality of a leader makes a lot of sense, atleast in accordance to the centuries that he has gone through when disobenience and global conflict was the first meal of the day. Machiavelli may not be the most ethical philosopher but he truly is that bullet which shatters the idealistic world of man in order to show him how things really are...his philosophy is basically the reminder of the tension between practical approaches and ethical decisions, a reminder to show us that it's unrealistic to think that those 2 can allign. My english isn't advanced so some lines may not entirely make sense but i'll hope the message is transmitted. Great video

[@richjustin06]

He had a lot of really good philosophy. Jesus also said “those who live by the sword shall die by it.” Machavellian philosophy didn’t account for a lot of human unpredictability. It’s a general guideline of maintaining order. Which is why you also see this principle of “ends justifying the means” but you can’t predict the consequences of the actions. Watch every Mafia film and it all ends all the same

[@VirusVanquisher]

Excellent breakdown. Thank you. As I listened it became more apparent the spectrum/dichotomy and the importance to understand. This, sums up the doctrine of Kissinger. Ruthlessly effective. What I find strangely missing from "our" history, is one where the power was truly patient, kind, not envious, not boastful. Refrains from dishonoring others, not self-seeking at the expense of others, not easily angered, and is more forgiving. Ultimately does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. Always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. This would never fail, as it would be embraced by all life. It would NOT need to hide behind deceit, as it would have the good of ALL life in mind. ANYTHING that is founded on secrecy, IS of evil.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

The man who follows his conscience is not a coward. Rather, the coward is the man who ignores his conscience and follows his own desire for the sake of his fear. A wounded soldier is lying on the ground bleeding to death after being shot by a sniper, while his fellow soldier has taken cover. What will the soldier who has taken cover now do? His conscience tells him to risk his own life by trying to get to the wounded soldier and try to save his life, but his desire is to run-away because he is afraid of being shot and killed himself. If he is a coward, then he will run-away, but, if he is brave, he will follow the command of his conscience, risking his own life in order to attempt to save the life of the wounded soldier. Whether he lives or dies, whether he saves the wounded soldier's life or not, the man who follows his conscience is the REAL HERO !

[@Nykandros]

Sounds like mental gymnastics. In reality, he who ignores his conscience tends to be of stronger volition; a certain single-minded dedication to the realization of a goal, by any means. Highly determined, highly ruthless. Those who have consciences tend to be naive, gullible, vulnerable & dependent. In truth, he who achieves his desires in life is the strongest of them all. He who takes what he wants, lives how he wants, does what he wants; because this can only be done through the overcoming of opposition.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

@@Nykandros First of all, just because you use the phrase 'in reality' doesn't make what you are claiming real. You could have just as easily said that in reality pigs fly. But, of course, they don't ! So, this 'in reality' phrase is a mere sophistical trick on your part. Simply state what you believe, and everyone already knows that you believe it to be real. Why even attempt to use such an obvious sophistical trick, unless you are afraid that your assertion will not seem real enough unless you add 'in reality' to what you are saying ?

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

@@Nykandros Again, you are afraid that your later assertion will not be strong enough to stand on its own merits. Thus, you preface your later assertion with 'in truth'. We already know that what you are asserting is what you believe to be true. These sophistical tricks already indicate that you feel afraid that what you are saying is not strong enough to stand on its own.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

@@Nykandros Now, putting aside your sophistical tricks, the issue is whether or not a man who follows his conscience is a coward, or whether it is instead, the man who obeys his fear. Now, a cowardly act is one that is done from a feeling of being afraid. In contrast, a courageous act is one that is done by ignoring the fear that one feels, putting aside the desire to avoid or run-away from the object of fear. In other words, a courageous man faces his fear, and overcomes his fear through a strength of his will. Now, there is no proof that a man who follows his conscience does so from a feeling of fear. But there is reason to believe that a soldier who runs from the battlefield to save his own life, instead of fighting alongside his fellow soldiers, acts from a feeling of fear. Of course, it might be that he just doesn't care about anyone nor anything other than himself. In that case, he is not acting out of fear, but mere selfishness. So, he would not necessarily be a coward, although he would be viewed as such by most people -- who would naturally assume he acted out of fear, rather than a fearless selfishness. This is because most people believe that almost all men have a conscience that tells them what is right and wrong on a fundamental level, and it is hard for them to believe that there are some men who are so selfish that they have no concern for anyone but themselves. But, regardless of whether or not the selfish person is a coward, the question is whether it can be asserted with positive proof that a man who follows his conscience is a coward ? Again, the test for cowardice is whether or not an act was done from a feeling of being afraid. However, just as in the case of the selfish man, you have no positive proof that a man who follows his conscience acted from a feeling of fear. You simply assert that a man who achieves what he desires in life is the strongest -- as if men did not have within themselves conflicting desires ! Thus, a single man might desire to be celebrated by others as a Great Hero, yet at the same time desire to avoid any danger or harm to himself. Which desire is stronger ? Which of these desires will this man have to achieve to make him the stronger man ? Will he be the stronger man if he achieves his desire to be celebrated as a Great Hero, or if he achieves his desire to avoid any danger to himself ? Now, I am not saying that a man who follows his conscience wants to be celebrated as a Great Hero. I merely used the desire to be regarded as a Great Hero as an example of a desire within a selfish man that would conflict with his natural desire to avoid harm, danger, and possible death resulting from armed conflict. But just as there can be a desire to be celebrated as a Great Hero within a selfish man that conflicts with his instinctual desire to avoid danger and death, so there can be a desire in a Good Man to follow his conscience that conflicts with an instinctual desire to avoid danger and death. Now, all this might seem like mental gymnastics to you, but thinking is hard for those not used to thinking, so they might view it as mental gymnastics. These people simply want to assert what they believe without thinking it through, and, so, as a way to cover-up their mental laziness and intellectual weakness, they use sophistical phrases such as, 'in reality' and 'in truth'.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

@@Nykandros Another sophistical trick you employed is in misidentifying strength as courage. Simply having strength doesn't make you courageous -- it doesn't take any courage to crush an ant, for example. A man is millions of times stronger than an ant at his feet, but it doesn't mean the man is millions of times more courageous than the ant. Indeed, it is often the weaker person who takes on a stronger person, organization, or government, etc. that is the courageous one. Being in the weaker position and still fighting for what you believe in your heart, and for your values -- and not merely for your selfish desires -- is what it means to be courageous. Courage is not the same as strength or power, rather it is the willingness to stand-up and to oppose strength and power !

[@ninjammer726]

Very educational and thanks for the upload

[@LetsTalkPhilosophy]

Glad you enjoyed the video and found it helpful. Thanks for taking the time to watch!

[@ThePurplePillPerspective]

Today is his birthday. Happy Birthday Niccolo. 🦾

[@LetsTalkPhilosophy]

Thanks for watching and the quick fact!

[@ThePurplePillPerspective]

@@LetsTalkPhilosophy . You’re welcome! 🦾

[@angievajda3502]

Yeh, he came on earth to write the bible for our dear modern day masters and their minions, our politicians. What a legendary battle when the clash will happen..who do you think will win?

[@christopherthrawn1333]

Awesome 🎉

[@videdalon3748]

Your videos are great!!!!

[@LetsTalkPhilosophy]

Thank you, So glad you enjoy them!

[@SEPoffical]

Would love to see a video on Nietzsche. M was one of his favourite writers.

[@LetsTalkPhilosophy]

I have done a video on "The Life of Nietzsche" and do expect to make one covering his philosophy!

[@russellbudlong3521]

thank you for these educational videos. it's of great value to reflect on who and what has formed how we think.

[@LetsTalkPhilosophy]

Glad that you are still with me Russell! Your continued support is very uplifting, thank you!

[@russellbudlong3521]

@@LetsTalkPhilosophy I appreciate your clear sharp definition of schools of thought.

[@supernovaversion3.05]

Brilliant video.

[@LetsTalkPhilosophy]

Thank you for the kind words and I am glad that you enjoyed the video, cheers friend!

[@Rico-Suave_]

Great video, thank you very much, note to self (nts) watched all of it ,

[@jeremiahmarkusmedia6915]

Machiavelli was a true badass , thanks the video

[@LetsTalkPhilosophy]

Thank you!

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

CONSIDER WELL: Because it is quite possible that by choosing whatever means appear to you as being necessary to achieve your end, you will unwittingly choose a means that is actually detrimental to your end, corrupting and destroying that end before you even get there !

[@user-lo9yx7pi1z]

Do a video on Chankya please..

[@TERRELL_GASKINS]

You control the path others walk or will walk because it's all about control cuz if you don't do it who will and it's not just for yourself but to save others from themselves not through physical abuse or yelling but by manipulating there feelings into unconditional submission through absolute dominance you lead while they follow by default making the followers into better men and women

[@defunctuserchannel]

Have you ever tried composting the nests (after giving the larvae to the birds)?

[@LetsTalkPhilosophy]

I have not, have you tried balancing on one leg with your eyes closed and head moving horizontally? Harder than you might think.

[@mitfreude]

now I understand why Peacemaker killed his teammate.. (Suicide Squad)

[@YellowPlagueProductions]

Strange that Machiavelli couldn't follow his own advice.

[@SergioBecerraII]

I’m literally writing a sequel to the first prince.

[@Bankdontclosebro]

Where can i read?

[@SergioBecerraII]

@@Bankdontclosebro I’m still doing some further research while writing it.

[@Bankdontclosebro]

@@SergioBecerraII thanks for the update, take your time. Cant wait. 👍

[@SergioBecerraII]

@@Bankdontclosebro No problem.

[@SergioBecerraII]

Thanks.

[@ConservativeVoicesUniversity]

POLITICAL THEORY - Niccolò Machiavelli - The Philosophy Of Niccolo Machiavelli

[@MachiavellisTrees]

wow

[@Zero.freingetei]

A solid state

[@ayman2008]

king of morocco 🇲🇦

[@oh_rhythm]

Man...

[@Britt.907]

... i guess I'm dumb because i didn't get anything he said

[@denisearceo5784]

Literally me

[@LetsTalkPhilosophy]

it is entirely possible that what he is saying didn't make any sense, but possible that further reading is necessary. I have been reading Spinoza for years and still do not quite understand completely his thought. Typically, I try to find some respectable commentary to supplement the work I am reading or section which I am trying to understand, and if the commentary I find is insufficient, I will look further. I hope you are able to find some understanding of his work!

[@addisondiaz]

Lol 😂 need Machiavelli for dummies! I’ve constantly thought to myself that they should rewrite Machiavelli to make sense with modern times. We’re talking about 500 years ago.

[@justaudreynow]

@@addisondiaz I'm an English major, maybe I am the answer to your prayers

[@MaryHernandez-lq8kq]

​@denisearceo5784 the actual book is better. His tone is the problem. There's another good video

[@jaketallo1117]

Behold, someone who actually read machiavelli

[@RickJames1983]

Thalp

[@akashgaming4327]

Please make hindi

[@manuelgallego3196]

Anyone who has been put on a rack by the Medici probably has issues.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

But not all men are bad; for if there are no good men, how can there be any who are bad ? No, in that case, there would be only men -- neither good nor bad. But there are good men and there are bad men, so Machiavelli made his first mistake by assuming all men are bad. But, by all means, go on... Being civil and obedient is not the same as being good, a good person will sometimes seem uncivilized and disobedient in the eyes of an evil authority... But, by all means, go on... And what is to be the object of worship for this religion which provides divine authority ? God ? Sure, but the supposition is that God gives divine authority to the state, thus it is the state that will rule for God, take the place of God, and become the object of worship in place of God on earth. A state religion ? Is this really any different from an atheistic communist state ? Doesn't the communist just cut-out the middle-man (God and the church) -- by claiming its authority comes from the people (not by election, of course, but by some spurious thing called the General Will of the People). Is there really any difference between a state claiming to be the Will of God, and another claiming to be the General Will of the People ? One knows all too well that in both cases it is just the will of the few autocratic elites in power ! But, by all means, go on... And everyone knows the State Religion of the Romans made their rulers safe from intrigues, plots, and assassins. But, by all means, go on... 'Might is right' is not in a nation's best interest, unless it happens to be he strongest nation. But there are many nations, yet only one strongest among them. Thus, for most nations 'might is right' will actually be against their best interest, unless they can unite with other nations. This will lead to alliances and wars, double-dealing, treaties promised and broken. Is war in the best interest of any nation ? Perhaps. But consider war in the nuclear age. The mightiest nation is the one with the mightiest nuclear arsenal. If only side has nuclear weapons, there is probably nothing to fear, but, of course, both sides have them. Might is right ? Sounds more like a recipe for eventual nuclear holocaust than it does a long-term plan for doing what's in a nation's best interest. Unless, of course, it is in a nation's best interest to occupy an unlivable planet. But, by all means, go on... As if the existence of the State were more important than the rights of men. Yes, I understand that this is the position of those on the far-left (communists) and the alt-right (nationalists), but a free man knows that no state is worth preserving that does not first and foremost act to preserve his human rights. But, by all means, go on... As if power were an end in itself, and the question, 'Power for what purpose ?' never arose. To get what we want, of course ! That is the answer ! Thus, Icarus got what he wanted and flew ever higher, feeling ever more powerful with every ascent higher into the air, he flew so high that he almost felt like a god -- a fallen god plummeting uncontrollably to the ground, tragically discovering that, for all his power, he was yet only a mortal man, after all. But, by all means, go on... So, his book was advice for men (the ruling-class) who had for millennia practiced what he was advising them to do...interesting. I think I'll write a book that advises politicians to,practice the art of lying. Then, I will be famous like Machiavelli for giving useless advise to those who have already been doing what I am advising them to do, millennia before I ever wrote the book ! But, by all means, go on...

[@writersautocorrectabbrevia32]

Hero is not a term that comes to mind 😂

[@ManiEtormani-si1fs]

I disagree with you that niccolo Machiavelli failed in everything in his life except for his writings

[@user-ol8tx1yn9g]

L

[@JFD1220]

Ehh dude was just a war profiteer and only was loyal to money and power 😂 Aurelian's words are much better tbh

[@universumaeternalisfirmus]

Absolutely Machiavellianism is not a way of life though that’s what you need to understand. It is simply a guide of understanding modern politicians.

[@RanawakaRanaaka]

WRONG! IT IS A MEANS OF UNDERSTANDING LIFE AND HUMAN NATURE!