What does Machiavellian mean
video description
Date: 2024-12-17
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
yomuin5389
I wouldn't be surprised if in 80 years the word democratic has become associated with the way we're currently flushing our freedom and safety down the toilet. With what little I know about Machiavelli, I always thought it signified an understanding of how to gain power in an until now imperfect world. So, you may not think it's morally right, but you're presented with the problem of knowing that it works. And then you have to balance between drawing the line too soon and losing grip to those with less scruples. Or drawing the line too far and thus taking your means to get and stay in power too far.
To me, if you look at today's politics. There is a strong increase in those who have no morals holding them back. And especially now, through crisis and manipulation of people's fears in unstable times, they benefit from that attitude. And there's those playing catch-up. Like an 80s police force dealing with 20's hackers.
I get the apprehension, I really do. But do we really let the demagogues destroy the rules-based order in the world with their substance, because we don't want to mimic their style
reply
I wouldn't be surprised if in 80 years the word democratic has become associated with the way we're currently flushing our freedom and safety down the toilet. With what little I know about Machiavelli, I always thought it signified an understanding of how to gain power in an until now imperfect world. So, you may not think it's morally right, but you're presented with the problem of knowing that it works. And then you have to balance between drawing the line too soon and losing grip to those with less scruples. Or drawing the line too far and thus taking your means to get and stay in power too far.
To me, if you look at today's politics. There is a strong increase in those who have no morals holding them back. And especially now, through crisis and manipulation of people's fears in unstable times, they benefit from that attitude. And there's those playing catch-up. Like an 80s police force dealing with 20's hackers.
I get the apprehension, I really do. But do we really let the demagogues destroy the rules-based order in the world with their substance, because we don't want to mimic their style
reply
leegreen4165
Operation TP-AJAX was justified as realpolitik. Though it made money for American and British oil interests for some years, the final outcome was so bad it’s still used in the CIA’s training as the textbook example of blowback a successful operation that leaves you worse off. The Middle East, Latin America, and Southeast Asia are full of similar examples, on both sides of the Cold War divide. Too often what is defended as realpolitik isn’t realism at all, but just short-term greed at the expense of long-term outcomes. The case for at least a reasonable degree of morality in politics is the old saying, what goes around comes around. Kissinger understood a lot of things, but he never understood that. If a stable society rather than an endless cycle of violence is the goal, the truly Machiavellian leader must think far enough into the future to avoid inviting the politics of escalating tit-for-tat. Machiavelli seemed to understand that. Unfortunately, most who claim the mantle of realpolitik today seem either unable or unwilling to do so.
reply
Operation TP-AJAX was justified as realpolitik. Though it made money for American and British oil interests for some years, the final outcome was so bad it’s still used in the CIA’s training as the textbook example of blowback a successful operation that leaves you worse off. The Middle East, Latin America, and Southeast Asia are full of similar examples, on both sides of the Cold War divide. Too often what is defended as realpolitik isn’t realism at all, but just short-term greed at the expense of long-term outcomes. The case for at least a reasonable degree of morality in politics is the old saying, what goes around comes around. Kissinger understood a lot of things, but he never understood that. If a stable society rather than an endless cycle of violence is the goal, the truly Machiavellian leader must think far enough into the future to avoid inviting the politics of escalating tit-for-tat. Machiavelli seemed to understand that. Unfortunately, most who claim the mantle of realpolitik today seem either unable or unwilling to do so.
reply
Kingpinatron
I read The Prince earlier this year. What I find most fascinating about the discussion around Machiavelli and his work is how often it's taken out of the context in which it is written. Machiavelli is quoted left, right, and center, but people almost never mention why he was writing such political advice in the first place. However, if you read the final chapter in The Prince, you will find Machiavelli's reasoning is purely in the interest of fascism. He falls into the trap of the one-man fallacy, thinking if one man was given all the power he/she can save us from. whatever people are afraid of in that particular moment in history. He wanted to make Italy great again as it were. I'm a firm believer in the ends justifying the means and standing up to those who do harm, but it always seems that those who take Machiavelli to heart are the ones who we need to be standing up against.
reply
I read The Prince earlier this year. What I find most fascinating about the discussion around Machiavelli and his work is how often it's taken out of the context in which it is written. Machiavelli is quoted left, right, and center, but people almost never mention why he was writing such political advice in the first place. However, if you read the final chapter in The Prince, you will find Machiavelli's reasoning is purely in the interest of fascism. He falls into the trap of the one-man fallacy, thinking if one man was given all the power he/she can save us from. whatever people are afraid of in that particular moment in history. He wanted to make Italy great again as it were. I'm a firm believer in the ends justifying the means and standing up to those who do harm, but it always seems that those who take Machiavelli to heart are the ones who we need to be standing up against.
reply
fwm2548
it's not just about getting things done because whether that's desirable entirely depends on what's being done. it's also not just a conflict between politics and morality, because no politics is amoral and morality can judge acts and outcomes, not just abstract ideals. governing is not separate or even incompatible from morality.
neither is governing a conflict between outcomes and ideals ( 9: 10 )--if outcomes are just policy being effective, then outcomes reflect ideals, which are meaningless without practice. neither having ideals nor getting outcomes are necessarily good or bad, and taking either as a side is a fundamentally empty, unhelpful ideology.
further, morality is not necessarily traditional absolute rules or what makes me feel proud and content and not guilty. doing harm can be good if if beings greater joy or prevents worse harm.
reply
it's not just about getting things done because whether that's desirable entirely depends on what's being done. it's also not just a conflict between politics and morality, because no politics is amoral and morality can judge acts and outcomes, not just abstract ideals. governing is not separate or even incompatible from morality.
neither is governing a conflict between outcomes and ideals ( 9: 10 )--if outcomes are just policy being effective, then outcomes reflect ideals, which are meaningless without practice. neither having ideals nor getting outcomes are necessarily good or bad, and taking either as a side is a fundamentally empty, unhelpful ideology.
further, morality is not necessarily traditional absolute rules or what makes me feel proud and content and not guilty. doing harm can be good if if beings greater joy or prevents worse harm.
reply
crash_course
Loooooooved the episode! so clear, and the editing was so crisp through out!
IMO, the tension between good outcomes versus ideals may be misdirected when good outcomes themselves aren't clearly defined. In a world dominated by capital, colonial legacies, and patriarchy, pragmatists who deliver good outcomes inevitably succeed because these outcomes are defined and reified by existing systems of power. Those labeled idealists appear ineffective not due to any inherent flaw in their approach, but because the very systems they seek to transform actively resist radical change. Therefore, judging political theories primarily by their material outcomes is flawed bc it fails to recognize how power structures themselves shape what we consider successful change.
reply
Loooooooved the episode! so clear, and the editing was so crisp through out!
IMO, the tension between good outcomes versus ideals may be misdirected when good outcomes themselves aren't clearly defined. In a world dominated by capital, colonial legacies, and patriarchy, pragmatists who deliver good outcomes inevitably succeed because these outcomes are defined and reified by existing systems of power. Those labeled idealists appear ineffective not due to any inherent flaw in their approach, but because the very systems they seek to transform actively resist radical change. Therefore, judging political theories primarily by their material outcomes is flawed bc it fails to recognize how power structures themselves shape what we consider successful change.
reply
Jedi_Vigilante
I always thought of The Prince as being similar to 1984.
It wasn't written AS a playbook, but almost as a guide to RECOGNIZING the playbook. Nobody should read 1984 and think that sounds like a good idea. They should read it and then reflect on the current actions of their government and think wait, that looks _really_ similar.
After all, most people who would implement the practices in The Prince or 1984 probably already have a pretty good idea of how/what to do before ever reading/watching such a piece of media. But many authoritarian playbooks can be pretty surreptitious and difficult to identify unless you are actively on the look out for them.
reply
I always thought of The Prince as being similar to 1984.
It wasn't written AS a playbook, but almost as a guide to RECOGNIZING the playbook. Nobody should read 1984 and think that sounds like a good idea. They should read it and then reflect on the current actions of their government and think wait, that looks _really_ similar.
After all, most people who would implement the practices in The Prince or 1984 probably already have a pretty good idea of how/what to do before ever reading/watching such a piece of media. But many authoritarian playbooks can be pretty surreptitious and difficult to identify unless you are actively on the look out for them.
reply
lrfranks
I find it interesting how the episode doesn't distinguish between harm committed to the subjects of a ruler/government and harm to people outside their nation. The discourse these days tends to pose it as two different ethical questions: how many cutthroat things a politician would need to do to their own friends, family or citizens in order to stay in power and then achieve a greater good; as opposed to how much harm one nation can or should inflict on others and colonies in order to bring a general benefit to its own people. But ultimately it's all the same issue of moral compromise.
reply
I find it interesting how the episode doesn't distinguish between harm committed to the subjects of a ruler/government and harm to people outside their nation. The discourse these days tends to pose it as two different ethical questions: how many cutthroat things a politician would need to do to their own friends, family or citizens in order to stay in power and then achieve a greater good; as opposed to how much harm one nation can or should inflict on others and colonies in order to bring a general benefit to its own people. But ultimately it's all the same issue of moral compromise.
reply
pedrostormrage
9: 06 What matters more: outcomes or ideals So it's consequentialism (outcomes) versus deontology (moral duties. Philosophy doesn't provide a definitive answer on how to choose an ethical theory, maybe because each one has pros and cons. Deontology can be useful for protecting individual rights, but its rule dependancy can be too inflexible. Consequentialism can get you better results, but if you care about the means then it won't always be the answer.
reply
9: 06 What matters more: outcomes or ideals So it's consequentialism (outcomes) versus deontology (moral duties. Philosophy doesn't provide a definitive answer on how to choose an ethical theory, maybe because each one has pros and cons. Deontology can be useful for protecting individual rights, but its rule dependancy can be too inflexible. Consequentialism can get you better results, but if you care about the means then it won't always be the answer.
reply
Langharig_Tuig
An important note is that Machiavelli doesnt give too much of a value judgement. He just says: this IS what an effective leader would have to do. He doesnt say that he necessarily would like that.
A math textbook isnt a value judgement either.
Also on why it is boring often: it is a very contemporary piece of work. A lot of names mean nothing to us, but imagine it as if it were about some of the most hot in the moment celebrities of our time.
reply
An important note is that Machiavelli doesnt give too much of a value judgement. He just says: this IS what an effective leader would have to do. He doesnt say that he necessarily would like that.
A math textbook isnt a value judgement either.
Also on why it is boring often: it is a very contemporary piece of work. A lot of names mean nothing to us, but imagine it as if it were about some of the most hot in the moment celebrities of our time.
reply
Unknown-lf2kl
I might come out sounding naive saying this, but I don't see why we can't have ideals and outcomes. I always feel like when it comes to the political landscape they always try and force you to choose a side. And tell us it's impossible for the other side or the other thing to work together. I think in this time I think we can use ideals and objectives together. I don't see why we still have to stay in 1500 medieval thinking.
reply
I might come out sounding naive saying this, but I don't see why we can't have ideals and outcomes. I always feel like when it comes to the political landscape they always try and force you to choose a side. And tell us it's impossible for the other side or the other thing to work together. I think in this time I think we can use ideals and objectives together. I don't see why we still have to stay in 1500 medieval thinking.
reply
siondafydd
I think Machiavelli gets a bad rap, politicians (all people really) always do bad things, Machiavelli seems to just be saying how to do the best of a bad situation and get the best result. Like 3: 29 is literally just life advice that you hear from a bunch of things, it’s better to get all the bed things over now so you can start healing than drag it out over a long time, how does that make you look at him with disgust
reply
I think Machiavelli gets a bad rap, politicians (all people really) always do bad things, Machiavelli seems to just be saying how to do the best of a bad situation and get the best result. Like 3: 29 is literally just life advice that you hear from a bunch of things, it’s better to get all the bed things over now so you can start healing than drag it out over a long time, how does that make you look at him with disgust
reply
soup_ostrich
so many concessions to a broken political system. there is no reality where this system can possibly satisfy the needs of the people when it centers money and power. the problem is not with political strategy but with the design of the larger context in which they take place. if you center shelter, food, water, education these concessions would never need to be made in the first place.
reply
so many concessions to a broken political system. there is no reality where this system can possibly satisfy the needs of the people when it centers money and power. the problem is not with political strategy but with the design of the larger context in which they take place. if you center shelter, food, water, education these concessions would never need to be made in the first place.
reply
mrfalleo
People who get ahead or innovate and be successful, don't care that much and they are ruthless when needed to be. IF their ideals align with it. You can't care and be successful in a chaotic and indifferent world. Yes I am aware it is generalizing but observe the big companies or the powerful nowadays, and you can somewhat see why I may believe that. So yes the dude is relatively right.
reply
People who get ahead or innovate and be successful, don't care that much and they are ruthless when needed to be. IF their ideals align with it. You can't care and be successful in a chaotic and indifferent world. Yes I am aware it is generalizing but observe the big companies or the powerful nowadays, and you can somewhat see why I may believe that. So yes the dude is relatively right.
reply
sohelbhuiyan2643
Politics and Ideals are not same. Politics is working with what you got, and ideal is the goal you strive for. So, politics is not enough to reach Ideals, it takes more than that, given that you already have defined the Ideals you would like to reach and populace has agreed to strive toward it. So yeah, sorting out the ideal first is in itself a gargotan politics.
reply
Politics and Ideals are not same. Politics is working with what you got, and ideal is the goal you strive for. So, politics is not enough to reach Ideals, it takes more than that, given that you already have defined the Ideals you would like to reach and populace has agreed to strive toward it. So yeah, sorting out the ideal first is in itself a gargotan politics.
reply
BrainSoap
Machiavelli says that if you want to be virtuous - to do good - then you have to stay in power. He and the Republic of Florence lost power to the monarchic Medici family. Clearly, he regretted not being more nasty to stay in power, as a fledgling democracy was more ethical than hereditary rule by people willing to torture him. In short, life made Machiavelli a cynic.
reply
Machiavelli says that if you want to be virtuous - to do good - then you have to stay in power. He and the Republic of Florence lost power to the monarchic Medici family. Clearly, he regretted not being more nasty to stay in power, as a fledgling democracy was more ethical than hereditary rule by people willing to torture him. In short, life made Machiavelli a cynic.
reply
Carlos-ln8fd
As long as evil is committed, there will be victims. If there are victims, the regime will eventually be threatened by the people it has hurt, which will bring instability.
You can say that being moral requires too much effort and time, but that is just true of leadership in general. The best leaders are the best problem-solvers, not the most morally flexible.
reply
As long as evil is committed, there will be victims. If there are victims, the regime will eventually be threatened by the people it has hurt, which will bring instability.
You can say that being moral requires too much effort and time, but that is just true of leadership in general. The best leaders are the best problem-solvers, not the most morally flexible.
reply
awesomehpt8938
Well the Prince quite likely was a resume for a job as it was gifted to Lorenzo de Medici in 1513. He probably was hoping it would get him a position as a political advisor.
What he wrote down in the book might not have accurately reflected what he truly believed but what he thought would benefit him personally.
reply
Well the Prince quite likely was a resume for a job as it was gifted to Lorenzo de Medici in 1513. He probably was hoping it would get him a position as a political advisor.
What he wrote down in the book might not have accurately reflected what he truly believed but what he thought would benefit him personally.
reply
ericjome7284
It is the defining attribute of evil that it makes a self serving choice over a decision that puts others first. Good derived from evil is just more evil; saving money, time, or lives does not make it right. The ends cannot justify the means. Because then it is just a war of all against all and good means nothing.
reply
It is the defining attribute of evil that it makes a self serving choice over a decision that puts others first. Good derived from evil is just more evil; saving money, time, or lives does not make it right. The ends cannot justify the means. Because then it is just a war of all against all and good means nothing.
reply
trevinbeattie4888
This reminds me of CGP Grey’s The Rules for Rulers, adapted from The Dictator’s Handbook. While that doesn’t specifically address Machiavellianism (as far as I’m aware) the theme of having to do distasteful things in order to stay in power in spite of otherwise benevolent intentions is very similar.
reply
This reminds me of CGP Grey’s The Rules for Rulers, adapted from The Dictator’s Handbook. While that doesn’t specifically address Machiavellianism (as far as I’m aware) the theme of having to do distasteful things in order to stay in power in spite of otherwise benevolent intentions is very similar.
reply
evanli421
Does anybody actually expect politicians to be good people it's pretty obvious from reading the news and history that good ppl make bad politicians. if the leader is perceived to be good, the enemies would always create moral dilemma that would manipulate the good leader choose the action favoured by the enemy
reply
Does anybody actually expect politicians to be good people it's pretty obvious from reading the news and history that good ppl make bad politicians. if the leader is perceived to be good, the enemies would always create moral dilemma that would manipulate the good leader choose the action favoured by the enemy
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
