14-1: Ends vs. Means

(I apologize for the long post. Someone take my laptop away from me.)

For, Machiavelli, power was the be-all and end-all of life. He believed that people were selfish, untrustworthy creatures, a belief that was, indeed, essential to the disposition of his philosophy. And on this point, our group was divided: was the nature of humans one of compassion or selfishness?

Some stated that humans were predisposed to a life of self-regard, that all of our actions could be traced back to benefit the self. Others disagreed, insisting that humanity is laced with compassion, that our lives are illuminated when shared. Whichever claim you agree with, though, will surely reflect your perception of Machiavelli.

Undoubtedly, Machiavelli achieved unrivaled power. But if absolute power is achieved, then what remains? Why was Machiavelli so consumed by it? If "the ends justify the means," as Machiavelli himself stated, did absolute power—the end—render the course of his life—the means—useless? Suppose Machiavelli did only value the results of his actions. He wouldn't have much to value, then. Death is just another end. So does death eclipse the lives we lead? (Discussion questions)

Nonetheless, Machiavelli succeeded in implementing his philosophy. The people feared him. So they remained silent; not because they didn't have anything to say, but because to do so would be futile attempt. There was no mayhem, but there also wasn't any movement—and without movement, how can we expect peace in a constantly changing world?

In any case, I don't think our group could admire Machiavelli other than in the strange, detached way one admires the names that have made history.

We also touched on the philosophies of both Thomas Hobbes and Rene Descartes. Hobbes' argument for the necessity of an absolute sovereign. Among other things, this view is eurocentric at best. From a historical perspective, the rise of a centralized state of government was the functional result of a growing population, developing civilization, and an increasingly specialized division of labor. That doesn't mean it was the only viable result. Individual freedoms were traded for communal benefits. (This is only one theory of state formation among many.) Also, not all cultures are governed by the state systems referred to by Hobbes. That doesn't mean they are any less functional. So the "social contract" suggested by Hobbes is not the only solution, and arguably not the best.

As for Descartes (after sharing our experiences with lucid dreams and sleepwalking), our group concluded that we never really will know how we exist. But we have enough evidence to believe that we do. "I think, therefore I am," is a good way to put it. Does it matter whether this is all a dream? If you can interact with the world in a dialogue of cause and effect, then it does not—it is still your world, and you can still make a difference in it.

Factual Q: What was the Italian word for "manliness" which Machiavelli believed essential to a successful life?
A: virtù