Posted by Kim S. on May 01, 19100 at 21:02:16:
In Reply to: Re: the prince posted by Dr. Scholls on May 01, 19100 at 17:02:37:
Machiavelli was firmly convinced about the necessity that Florence have a citizen army. Granted, some of his efforts at directing such an army in practice manoeuvres were not particularly successful, but the point remains: Machiavelli's state would indeed have an army, but it would not be an army composed of mercenaries or foreign auxiliaries. Furthermore, not only do we find, time and time again, that Machiavelli laments the fickleness and unreliability of mercenary captains, but we also find that Machiavelli laments the neglect of military virtue. That is, Machiavelli criticizes the what he sees to be a cause, in his day, of the ruin of Florence and Italy: the abandoment of the study, cultivation, and practice of the military arts. In other words, then, I do not think we can say that "machiavelli's ideal state would have no army...".
In any case, would it not be true to say that a crucial aspect of Machiavelli's teaching is that we neither think about nor 'do' politics in terms of the actualization of the best regime or of some other sort of Utopia? I would argue that Machiavelli was advising, in opposition to both Christianity AND classical political philosophy, that politics should be ruled by the imperative of the 'IS', not the 'ought.' You stated that in the Utopian society "...the mind would be emphasized", emphasized, that is, by those who rule. But isn't this akin to saying that Machiavelli favoured contemplation over action? Machiavelli was not saying that contemplation, i.e., the mind, should rule supreme, that it should rule to the extent that we humans neglect worldly, practical, secular, or every-day concerns. Rather, he seems to have been saying (for example, see the Dedicatory preface and the preface to Book I of the Discourses) that the proper balance -- my words not his -- between contemplation and action is that action and practice be reinforced by a consideration (i.e., study and contemplation) of the ancient histories.
You also state that "machiavelli has written time and time again that the only IDEAL ruler is God..." But is not Machiavelli saying that we humans are, can or should be ruled by ourselves? Or to put this differently, is not Machiavelli saying that one half (approximately) of human affairs is ruled over by Fortuna, while the other half is ruled over by those rare excellent men of virtue? If Machiavelli does articulate a concept of an 'ideal ruler' he does not mean God or Fortuna; he means an excellent man of virtue who can impose his will upon a world which is in a (manifestly seemingly) perpetual state of flux and uncertainty. Furthermore, Machiavelli does indicate -- see the end of Chapter 25 of The Prince -- that Fortuna herself can be coerced by the bold, virile, audacious and young men of action, that is, the excellent men of virtue.
I agree with your statement "...all human rulers will error and bring about horror and dismay to their subjects at some point." After all, no human being is perfect, the world is in a perpetual state of flux, and human affairs vary accordingly.
READ THE GREAT BOOKS
TERM PAPERS, RESEARCH PAPERS, ESSAYS