>Machiavelli was tortured and exiled by the Medici after being falsely accused of participating in an assassination plot>in exile, he wrote The Prince, a satirical critique of the ruthlessness of the "new princes" in Italy and the inherent faults of one man rule>despite his other works supporting republicanism and popular representation, he ended up having The Prince taken literally by the public at large>authoritarians used it as a guide book for their reign of terror, and it spawned the realpolitik policy, which advocates separating politics from ethics for the sake of national interest>his name ended up being a synonim for evil and amoral actionsDamn, dude got a rough deal
>>24925967How did they do buzz cuts back then?
>>24926071Modern razors are basically the old ones with motors instead of a but you squeeze like scissors
is there a term for the phenomenon when somebody creates a satirical work that is so grounded in reality and truthful that people can't tell that it's satire?
>>24926107Poe's law?
>>24925967>satiricaldepends if you're going by Strauss or Berlin's interpretation.
>he also wrote treatise on satire >Anons in this thread now having trouble with it's definitions and divisions
>>24926124Strauss didn't consider it satirical.>Features like those mentioned supply the strongest support for the view, held by men of the competence of Spinoza and Rousseau, according to which the Prince is a satire on princes. They also support the view, more characteristic of our age, according to which we find the full presentation of Machiavelli’s teaching in the Discourses, so much so that we must always read the Prince in the light of the Discourses and never by itself. I do not believe that we can follow these lines of interpretation: the older view is insufficient and the later view is altogether misleading.
>>24925967Every great person in history basically agreed with me, personally, and when they didn't it's because they were doing a bit.
>>24926248>spends a considerable amount of time praising Cesare Borgia>who just happens to be the greatest example of the folly of one man rule due to his rapid and spectacular collapseYeah, I'm sure he meant it earnestly
Machiavelli was an Italian nationalist first and a republican second. His greatest political concern by far was the unification of Italy to prevent conquest by external enemies, and that was most likely to occur under a watlord. His idea government was republican but his realism in Discourses is the same as in The Prince. He says political murder is praiseworthy if it prevents greater conflicts and he considers religion beneficial even if pagan or based on duping people
>>24925967He advocates for ruthless action and dictatorship as based upon necessity in The Discourses. You'd know this if you actually read him instead of copy and pasting prewritten slop. The Prince isn't satire and it didn't spawn realpolitik either. His end was always a powerful and prosperous new Roman Republic with all the nasty means or tools needed along the way to create and maintain it.
>>24926418And then in the prince he advises unnecessary violence to obtain allegiance through terror, a system that crumbles easily as soon as the big man in charge falters since it fosters no true loyaltyEven in the prince he admits that a republican citizen's army motivated by the defense of their freedom is more effective at fighting off hostile external threats than the mercenaries autocracies depend on
>>24925967Literally no one that has read even a single chapter of the prince could ever think that it was a satire. Yeah when Machiavelli was describing the distinction between the centralised federal states such as the Ottoman empire and highly decentralised states such as France and each types unique dynamics in war and peace, What exactly was the comedic value in this? Where was the satirical punchline to this? Literally no one that has read the text could claim that it is a satire. These types of cretins always assume the entire text is just non-stop ramblings about murdering puppies or some other sort of retardation.
>>24925967>Writes an honest and rational book about how sociopath produces results>Gets pushback>"It's just satire guise."
>>24925967the book was literally a gift to the medici family to make them like him more and maybe rehabilitate him, if he sounds witty sometimes that's the reason but the prince was never supposed to make fun of them.
>>24925967the prince is rather unremarkable honestly. it is obvious that its primary function was to show that he was still a competent statesmen, which he probably wasnt considering that he died in obscurity
Not a single page of the book suggests satire. It's a very direct and sober analysis of politics. Suggesting it's satire is simply a dishonest tactic by people who want to remove Machiavelli's message and replace it with its opposite.
>>24927181iirc he was known but only like in his area as a minor writer, besides that's not his only work.
>>24926418Necessity in creating and maintaining a republic is his main motivating factor. While it's correct that Machiavelli sees a benevolent dictatorship as starting point for a republic, you also have to consider that the prince was written with the intention to praise the current Medici boss such that he would allow him to return to some office. However, the friend who was supposed to hand over the manuscript to that Medici guy more or less ghosted him on that issue. Once Machiavelli noticed that his efforts were in vain he solely focused on his writing.>>24926518Well, during the time Machiavelli was in office he tested his militia system but it got buttfucked by merc armies. His reasons for a militia system are derived by the success of the Roman republic alone and he compares it with the corrupted roman empire past Caesare. So, it's just a theoretical comparision
>>24926107Authors love giving good ideas to bad people. It feeds their sense of self importance. All the better if they can bitch about it after.
>>24927146>it was just a prank, bro
