Comments on: An Introduction to Machiavelli’s “The Prince,” Part 1 http://www.ashokkarra.com/2009/07/an-introduction-to-machiavellis-the-prince-part-1/ On Poetry, Politics and Philosophy - A Sketch, An Intersection Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:44:12 +0000 hourly 1 By: Iris http://www.ashokkarra.com/2009/07/an-introduction-to-machiavellis-the-prince-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-9325 Iris Tue, 07 Jun 2011 06:02:06 +0000 http://www.ashokkarra.com/?p=2319#comment-9325 You are a great writer, Ashok. You always make me want to keep reading and that's rare! :) You are a great writer, Ashok. You always make me want to keep reading and that’s rare! :)

]]> By: Sam Sall http://www.ashokkarra.com/2009/07/an-introduction-to-machiavellis-the-prince-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-5917 Sam Sall Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:02:30 +0000 http://www.ashokkarra.com/?p=2319#comment-5917 Your brilliant Ashok, i enjoyed it I can't believe that I read the whole thing :)   The whole separation of the church and politics were based on the act of people who used religion as a source of authority ,people trusted them because they supposed to be the the icons...they put things into religion God didn't put ,they want to control people they almost prevented them to think .  For example, they made it full of superstitions... They work their way through domination and intervention  in the followers  personal matters....so on order for Europ to move on is to  have their freedom  from this ideology of myths and heresies to a world depend on science logics  and  from this the whole idea of separating the state came ... Thanks can't wait to read part 2 Your brilliant Ashok, i enjoyed it I can’t believe that I read the whole thing :)
 
The whole separation of the church and politics were based on the act of people who used religion as a source of authority ,people trusted them because they supposed to be the the icons…they put things into religion God didn’t put ,they want to control people they almost prevented them to think .  For example, they made it full of superstitions… They work their way through domination and intervention  in the followers  personal matters….so on order for Europ to move on is to  have their freedom  from this ideology of myths and heresies to a world depend on science logics  and  from this the whole idea of separating the state came …

Thanks can’t wait to read part 2
Sam Sall´s last [type] ..Top 10 list of medical Advances in the Twenty First Century help to spreed please

]]> By: thag http://www.ashokkarra.com/2009/07/an-introduction-to-machiavellis-the-prince-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-4676 thag Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:03:12 +0000 http://www.ashokkarra.com/?p=2319#comment-4676 In light of your suggestion that Machiavelli breaks with classical and Christian politics, why does it seem that he many times looks to the Romans as a high example? And what is to be made of Ch. XI, which holds up Moses, Theseus, Cyrus, and Romulus (all prophets), with the brazen distiction between the success of "armed" and calamity of "unarmed" prophets thereafter? This problem seems serious. The modern example of an unarmed prophet is Brother Girolamo Savonarola (p. 24 in Mansfield), who was "ruined in his new orders as soon as the multitude began not to believe in them." Mansfield notes that Savonarola met a terrible end, burning at the stake. Yet the story of Christ seems similar to this, and Christianity in its wild success seems to be the political problem of the day for NM. Is it because the papacy smartened up? In light of your suggestion that Machiavelli breaks with classical and Christian politics, why does it seem that he many times looks to the Romans as a high example? And what is to be made of Ch. XI, which holds up Moses, Theseus, Cyrus, and Romulus (all prophets), with the brazen distiction between the success of “armed” and calamity of “unarmed” prophets thereafter?

This problem seems serious. The modern example of an unarmed prophet is Brother Girolamo Savonarola (p. 24 in Mansfield), who was “ruined in his new orders as soon as the multitude began not to believe in them.” Mansfield notes that Savonarola met a terrible end, burning at the stake. Yet the story of Christ seems similar to this, and Christianity in its wild success seems to be the political problem of the day for NM. Is it because the papacy smartened up?

]]> By: Augustine http://www.ashokkarra.com/2009/07/an-introduction-to-machiavellis-the-prince-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-3990 Augustine Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:14:33 +0000 http://www.ashokkarra.com/?p=2319#comment-3990 See the book Willmoore Kendall Contra Mundum, in the chapter entitled "Thoughts on Machiavelli," which is a review of Strauss's book of that name, in which Kendall says this: “The Strauss revolution in the interpretation of modern political philosophy is the decisive development in modern political philosophy since Machiavelli himself.” .-= Augustine´s last blog ..<a href="http://www.zazzle.com/the_pitiful_gods_of_neopagan_emptiness_celebri_tshirt-235922861386564368?gl=Jitpring">The pitiful gods of neopagan emptiness: Celebri...</a> =-. See the book Willmoore Kendall Contra Mundum, in the chapter entitled “Thoughts on Machiavelli,” which is a review of Strauss’s book of that name, in which Kendall says this:

“The Strauss revolution in the interpretation of modern political philosophy is the decisive development in modern political philosophy since Machiavelli himself.”
.-= Augustine´s last blog ..The pitiful gods of neopagan emptiness: Celebri… =-.

]]> By: ashok http://www.ashokkarra.com/2009/07/an-introduction-to-machiavellis-the-prince-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-3141 ashok Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:47:26 +0000 http://www.ashokkarra.com/?p=2319#comment-3141 @ Ahsan - yeah, the traditional exterior is necessary. Recall that Strauss says it has the form of a scholastic treatise, and when the argumentation becomes scholastic in that 3rd part he delineates, it becomes what I laid out: property is more valuable than parents, etc. @ Ahsan – yeah, the traditional exterior is necessary. Recall that Strauss says it has the form of a scholastic treatise, and when the argumentation becomes scholastic in that 3rd part he delineates, it becomes what I laid out: property is more valuable than parents, etc.

]]> By: Ahsan http://www.ashokkarra.com/2009/07/an-introduction-to-machiavellis-the-prince-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-3140 Ahsan Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:04:35 +0000 http://www.ashokkarra.com/?p=2319#comment-3140 Having read Strauss' chapter on The Prince, I'm wondering if someone has attempted a straightforward 'translation' or interpretation of the Prince's "revolutionary interior" ? Or is the presence of its traditional exterior necessary for its revolutionary interior to function ? Having read Strauss’ chapter on The Prince, I’m wondering if someone has attempted a straightforward ‘translation’ or interpretation of the Prince’s “revolutionary interior” ?

Or is the presence of its traditional exterior necessary for its revolutionary interior to function ?

]]> By: Ahsan http://www.ashokkarra.com/2009/07/an-introduction-to-machiavellis-the-prince-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-3135 Ahsan Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:16:11 +0000 http://www.ashokkarra.com/?p=2319#comment-3135 Thanks Ashok. I have also found a copy of Machiavelli's Virtue by Mansfield. Reading the preface, I'm blown by the idea of Machiavelli himself being the Prince ! Excited :) Thanks Ashok.

I have also found a copy of Machiavelli’s Virtue by Mansfield. Reading the preface, I’m blown by the idea of Machiavelli himself being the Prince !

Excited :)

]]> By: ashok http://www.ashokkarra.com/2009/07/an-introduction-to-machiavellis-the-prince-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-3134 ashok Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:39:54 +0000 http://www.ashokkarra.com/?p=2319#comment-3134 @ Ahsan - When the next blogpost on this topic is written, it will probably owe a lot to Strauss' "Thoughts on Machiavelli" - I think the book is awesome, but dense. de Alvarez, Harvey Mansfield, Nathan Tarcov, and a host of others are in the "Strauss" camp. The opposing camp is composed of the "New Historicists" - J.G.A. Pocock ("The Machiavellian Moment") & Quentin Skinner, with some others. The Strauss camp holds that Machiavelli is a decisive break with classical and Christian thought; the New Historicists see Machiavelli as more or less resurrecting the classics. My own thought is that the next logical places could be one of many: - de Alvarez's Introductory Essay to his edition of "The Prince" (here he talks about "lo stato," Machiavelli's notion of "the state," of decisive importance for political science today) - Mansfield's Introductory Essay to his edition of the "The Prince" (here he ends with the comment about "beating Fortuna" being a dark joke, inasmuch Fortuna is immortal) - Strauss' "Thoughts on Machiavelli," just the chapter on "The Prince" - the essay on Machiavelli in the Strauss/Cropsey History of Political Philosophy @ Ahsan – When the next blogpost on this topic is written, it will probably owe a lot to Strauss’ “Thoughts on Machiavelli” – I think the book is awesome, but dense.

de Alvarez, Harvey Mansfield, Nathan Tarcov, and a host of others are in the “Strauss” camp. The opposing camp is composed of the “New Historicists” – J.G.A. Pocock (“The Machiavellian Moment”) & Quentin Skinner, with some others. The Strauss camp holds that Machiavelli is a decisive break with classical and Christian thought; the New Historicists see Machiavelli as more or less resurrecting the classics.

My own thought is that the next logical places could be one of many:

- de Alvarez’s Introductory Essay to his edition of “The Prince” (here he talks about “lo stato,” Machiavelli’s notion of “the state,” of decisive importance for political science today)

- Mansfield’s Introductory Essay to his edition of the “The Prince” (here he ends with the comment about “beating Fortuna” being a dark joke, inasmuch Fortuna is immortal)

- Strauss’ “Thoughts on Machiavelli,” just the chapter on “The Prince”

- the essay on Machiavelli in the Strauss/Cropsey History of Political Philosophy

]]> By: Ahsan http://www.ashokkarra.com/2009/07/an-introduction-to-machiavellis-the-prince-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-3133 Ahsan Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:19:59 +0000 http://www.ashokkarra.com/?p=2319#comment-3133 Hi Ashok, What is your opinion of Strauss' Thoughts on Machiavelli ? I have just finished reading the Prince (Peter Bondanella, "The Portable Machiavelli"), and I'm interested in various interpretations of Machiavelli. Or do you think I should start with Alvarez' Machiavellian Enterprise ? How does Strauss relate to it ? Are they opposing schools ? To summarize, where to next ? Thanks. Hi Ashok,

What is your opinion of Strauss’ Thoughts on Machiavelli ?

I have just finished reading the Prince (Peter Bondanella, “The Portable Machiavelli”), and I’m interested in various interpretations of Machiavelli.

Or do you think I should start with Alvarez’ Machiavellian Enterprise ? How does Strauss relate to it ? Are they opposing schools ?

To summarize, where to next ?

Thanks.

]]> By: Alice Shapiro http://www.ashokkarra.com/2009/07/an-introduction-to-machiavellis-the-prince-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-3078 Alice Shapiro Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:31:37 +0000 http://www.ashokkarra.com/?p=2319#comment-3078 I tried to read this book recently (translated by W.K. Marriott). Perhaps it was the translation, but I didn't get very far into it. I did, however, read your entire post! Progress. I tried to read this book recently (translated by W.K. Marriott). Perhaps it was the translation, but I didn’t get very far into it. I did, however, read your entire post! Progress.

]]>