Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-19-2007, 10:56 PM

By my perspective I think Machiavelli wins by virtue of comments such as Will's in this thread; Carno made a solid point, but rather then put words in his mouth I will expand.

There is always two sides to the coin, obviously. One of Machiavelli's main points was the importance of the practical imperative (my copy of the Prince is missing atm so don't quote as to the name) as opposed to the moral imperative; men don't live as they should, to strive for that any idealistic notion, which would be in opposition to how things are, you are pursing your own downfall. At least it's so far as the political aspect pans out.

In a more general philosophical sense, I would have to lean more towards Machiavelli, I think Will make's a fair point about it being "both" with freedom, but at the same time it only secures Machivellis points: There is no honest man in a den of thieves, the fact that there is a choice, that the freedom exists, there is going to be problems.

Admittedly so my understanding and knowledge of Pico is limited and much less compared to my understanding of Machiavelli, but from what I understand Pico is big on the precept of free will and how it relates to man. Machiavelli no doubt is aware of this concept, I can't recollect him refuting it really in any capacity, but Machiavelli seems to throw a lot more stock in the "nature" of man. Thus it would seem Pico put more "faith" in man's cognisance, whereas machiavelli acknowledged that we are animals and ultimately we cannot escape our nature (selfish, instinctual); just seems to me that in world were both concepts exist, Machiavelli wins because he is a gangster.

/End rant, my sig factors into my mentality and perhaps this conversation

02-19-2007, 10:56 PM	#8 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	By my perspective I think Machiavelli wins by virtue of comments such as Will's in this thread; Carno made a solid point, but rather then put words in his mouth I will expand. There is always two sides to the coin, obviously. One of Machiavelli's main points was the importance of the practical imperative (my copy of the Prince is missing atm so don't quote as to the name) as opposed to the moral imperative; men don't live as they should, to strive for that any idealistic notion, which would be in opposition to how things are, you are pursing your own downfall. At least it's so far as the political aspect pans out. In a more general philosophical sense, I would have to lean more towards Machiavelli, I think Will make's a fair point about it being "both" with freedom, but at the same time it only secures Machivellis points: There is no honest man in a den of thieves, the fact that there is a choice, that the freedom exists, there is going to be problems. Admittedly so my understanding and knowledge of Pico is limited and much less compared to my understanding of Machiavelli, but from what I understand Pico is big on the precept of free will and how it relates to man. Machiavelli no doubt is aware of this concept, I can't recollect him refuting it really in any capacity, but Machiavelli seems to throw a lot more stock in the "nature" of man. Thus it would seem Pico put more "faith" in man's cognisance, whereas machiavelli acknowledged that we are animals and ultimately we cannot escape our nature (selfish, instinctual); just seems to me that in world were both concepts exist, Machiavelli wins because he is a gangster. /End rant, my sig factors into my mentality and perhaps this conversation __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 02-19-2007 at 11:01 PM..