This is the first update of this series. Maybe it's because I really want to make a good start, and I'm walking on thin ice when I'm preparing. Because my philosophy and world history are so poor, it is difficult to explain a philosophy or a person clearly. In order to make my final conclusion look fair, I went to study Zhuang, a mainland scholar and vice president of Taiwan Province Institute of International Studies, an open class of Yale University, and Russell's Western Philosophy, but my heart was still very uneasy, because the foundation was extremely weak, and I didn't have any personal thoughts in my mind. I just carried and accumulated all the sentences. Finally, I found that my position was actually wrong. I position myself as a teacher, thinking that only through my own efforts for a week can I achieve mastery and then explain it to others. I will only feel conceited if I know that a person thinks that a week's study is worth a long-term and dedicated study by Chinese and foreign scholars and professors. So naturally, I will try my best to prepare for the unsatisfactory result:)
Next, I will take the description of the history of western philosophy as the main line, and then make supplementary explanations according to what I got from other scholars. Finally, I will summarize Machiavelli's eight contributions and understand one of his basic points. (The words in [] are self-supplemented, and other words are taken from the history of western philosophy.)
There was no important theoretical philosopher in the Renaissance, but an outstanding philosopher-Niygro Hotel Machiavelli was created in political philosophy. Machiavelli's political philosophy is scientific empirical knowledge. Based on his personal experience, Machiavelli tried to explain the means needed to achieve the set goal, but did not say whether the goal should be regarded as good or evil. Because of this, he is controversial about whether he is a prophet or a demon. The slander usually added to his name is largely due to the indignation of hypocrites, who are angry that people confess their bad things. Of course, there are still many places that really need criticism, but in this regard, he is the performance of the times. It can be seen that Mr. Russell is inclined that Machiavelli is a prophet, not a demon, hahahahahahaha. At any other time, in any other country, it is impossible to be so honest about hypocrisy and evil deeds in politics. Perhaps in Greece, those who received theoretical education from intellectuals and were actually honed by the small city-state war were exceptions [this exception refers to Machiavelli, who received a fairly complete education in Latin and Italian and later served as a national diplomat. In his political life, he came into contact with the kings and popes of that era, so he was Russell's' exception'.
Machiavelli (1469- 1527) was from Florence. His father used to be a lawyer, with two sisters and a younger brother, and his family basically lived a well-off life. Machiavelli was born in troubled times, and the Pope was the most powerful military force. The rich Italian city-states were successively captured by foreign powers such as France, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. At that time, the alliances of major powers in Lian Heng were constantly changing, mercenaries often changed camps overnight, and local governments were often established or disintegrated within a few weeks. In his twenties, Savannah Lola ruled Florence. Machiavelli was deeply impressed by this man's tragic fate. From this, he said that "all armed prophets have won and unarmed prophets have failed", and immediately quoted Savannah Lola as an example of the latter type. The history of Savannah Lola is very interesting, from which we can see how chaotic Italy was at that time, but for the completeness of this article, I will put this history in another special article.
Just after Savannah Lola was executed, Machiavelli got a small job in the Florence government (1498), but it was quickly appreciated and was often entrusted with the important task of diplomatic envoy. 15 12 medici family was restored, and Machiavelli, who had always opposed medici family, came to the end of his political career. However, medici family did not execute Machiavelli, detained him for some time, and then released him. Since then, he has been living in seclusion. His most famous The Prince was written in 15 13. This book was actually written to please medici family, but it turned out to be just his wishful thinking. At the same time, the longer work he is writing, On Theory (about Roman history or about Li Wei), is obviously more harmonious and free. He said at the beginning of The Prince that he was not going to talk about * * * and China in this book, because he had already discussed * * * and China in other places. People who don't look at the discussion together can easily have biased views on his theory [here you can also see some Machiavelli that Mr. Russell most agrees with, hahahaha, before studying philosophy, I thought philosophy was mysterious, but the more I understand it, the more I will find that the whole is the tearing history of intellectuals with different views, hahahahahahaha]
《The？ The book Prince aims to reveal how the empire was acquired, preserved and lost according to historical facts and events at that time. /kloc-Italy in the 0/5th century provided many large and small examples as the basis of this book. At that time, few princes were legal. In many cases, even the Pope was elected by bribery. The success at that time is often very different from the success after the times became more stable, because if such cruel treachery happened in the eighteenth or nineteenth century, it would definitely be laughed at and despised, but no one would be indignant at that time. Perhaps people of our time will appreciate Machiavelli more, because some of the most outstanding successes of our time were achieved by means as despicable as any method used in Renaissance Italy. I think Machiavelli, a connoisseur of political and strategic arts, will certainly applaud Hitler's arson in parliament, the Nazi Party purge in 1934 and the treachery after the Munich Agreement. It is obvious here that although Mr Russell appreciates Machiavelli, he is shameless about those "cruel" means.
I must have read this, everyone is right? The book The Prince is very interesting. Let me briefly talk about the background and content of this book, and I will explain it in more detail below. In Italy, when the political power was divided by powerful people, anyone who was armed militarily or good at demagoguery had the opportunity to seize the political power. Machiavelli served as a diplomat and often interacted with the kings at that time. Therefore, according to his own experience and observation, he wrote? Prince "(this book is dedicated to the then monarch Medici, not to the people). This book divides people into two categories from the perspective of human nature. Is the prince born, or is it contained in human nature? Wise, bold, decisive and other characteristics, people (vulgar) are born with it? Stupidity, indecision, cowardice and other characteristics. After reading this, I feel that there is a saddest fate in the world, that is, the father is born a prince and the son is born vulgar. A son always wants to be praised and encouraged by his father, but in our nature, the prince will not respect vulgarity. If the prince can't correctly understand that the difference between these two people lies in nature, not anything else. 《The？ The book The Prince expounds how kings rule the people. Some kings tried to seek long-term welfare for the people, but because the people were stupid and difficult, they didn't want to lose their immediate small profits, and finally failed; Some kings tried to completely suppress by force, but long-term suppression would eventually lead to the direct rise of the people and eventually failure; Facts have proved that there is only one way to win political power and consolidate one's position, and that is deception. Using the people's indecision and cowardice, overwhelming propaganda and sufficient military force to crack down on deserters, it is easy for ignorant people to listen and fearless people to be afraid. With the continuous strengthening of these political means, their dominant position has been consolidated. ]
From this, it can be inferred that the king has the right to be tyrannical, to be hypocritical and to do anything contrary to morality, so many people in later generations satirize Machiavelli and think that he is the devil's mentor. In order to prove that he did not oppose the evil deeds of the king, Russell gave the following examples]
? Alexander VI's son Caesar Borgia was praised by Machiavelli. Caesar's problem is a difficult problem: first, he wants to become the only beneficiary of his father's great cause through his brother's death; Second, conquer some territories by force in the name of the Pope, which must be owned by Alexander himself after his death, not by the Pope; Third, it is necessary to manipulate the parliament and let his companions become the next generation of popes. Caesar was very sophisticated in pursuing this difficult goal; Machiavelli said that the new king should learn from his practice. In the end, Caesar failed only because of "unexpected misfortune." It happened that when his father died, he was very ill. By the time he recovered, his enemies had mixed up their own strength, and his sworn enemy had been elected Pope. On the day of this election, Caesar told Machiavelli that he had made all the preparations. "But he never imagined that he was seriously ill when his father died." Machiavelli was well aware of his evil deeds, but he concluded: "So, looking back at all Caesar's actions, I can't find anything to blame;" On the contrary, as I said before, I think he should be an example to all those who rely on fate and are seized by others. " ?
[As mentioned above, "The? The prince was trying to please the ruling family at that time, so he hid some of his fundamental purposes and revealed them in his words. See the example below]
Machiavelli wrote: "The closer a person is to our religious leader, the more ungodly his faith is. ..... Its destruction and punishment are imminent. ..... We Italians owe the Roman church and its sacrifice and become the scum of ungodly; But we also got a greater favor from it, a favor that will eventually be destroyed by us, that is, this church has torn our country and is still tearing. "
[There are many similar fields. It can be seen that Machiavelli wants risorgimento, and never wants to be torn apart in it. Therefore, it must be considered that Machiavelli's appreciation of Caesar Borgia is nothing more than his skill, not his purpose. ]
During the Renaissance, people were amazed at the ingenious skills and behaviors that could bring fame. Such feelings have always existed; Many enemies of Napoleon admired him very much as a general. However, in Machiavelli's Italy, the appreciation of clever quasi-art greatly exceeded the previous and subsequent centuries. But it is wrong to think that this kind of praise is consistent with Machiavelli's important political goals. Love wrist and risorgimento's patriotic desire coexist in his mind and have nothing to do with it. This is why he can praise Caesar's skill and accuse him of not letting Italy fall apart. ?
[Now that we have made clear Machiavelli's praise for the wrist and his patriotic desire for the reunification of the motherland, let's take a look at Machiavelli's views on the monarch's behavior]
About the monarch's behavior, "this? Prince bluntly denied the universally accepted morality. As a monarch, if you are always kind, you will perish; He must be as cunning as a fox and as fierce as a lion. There is a chapter in the book (chapter 18) entitled "How a monarch must keep his promise". It says that when keeping promises is a good thing, the monarch should keep promises, otherwise he will not keep promises. The monarch sometimes has to break his word.
"But you must be able to hide this character. You must get used to being a gentleman who pretends to be a good man and is duplicitous. The people are so simple-minded and easy to obey the immediate needs, so people who cheat will always find people who are willing to be cheated. I'll just give you a modern example. Alexander VI did nothing but cheat. He didn't want to help any career, but he got the chance to cheat. No one can make a promise better than him, or make a greater oath to assert things, but no one can break his promise and oath better than him. However, because of his deep understanding of this side of things, his deception is always successful. Therefore, as a monarch, you don't have to have all kinds of traditional virtues, but it is very necessary to appear that you have these qualities. "
[For? These descriptions in The Prince opened my eyes and made me understand many things that I didn't understand before. In college, I witnessed the ugly faces of some students when they got extra points in the insurance research, which really made me feel ashamed and despised. Now it seems that this is just a means. To measure this value, we must first look at everyone's goals. If his goal is to protect research, then he can do whatever he wants. As long as he achieves his goal, he will succeed. This truth is often not taught to you in school, because the (original) value in school is that everyone gets real talent and learning, and exam scoring is only a means, so the school will not encourage you to cheat in exams and get high marks. In the original value of this school, high marks are useless, but real talents are useful. Then let's take this as our thinking. If the value of your school is high score and ranking, then I can cheat and get high scores in exams, can't I? ]
Speaking of school, I am deeply saddened. I am deeply saddened by our children and parents. This kind of sadness stems from the uneven quality of teachers and the frequent incidents of child sexual assault in recent years. Parents have gone through hardships, groped in the mud, and even sent their children to aristocratic schools and colleges with heavily indebted families, but they even have to worry about whether their children have been sexually assaulted. Children are different in nature and good at it, but under the system, they all require high scores. Some children are good at literature and have no sense of numbers. Some children are obsessed with formulas and think literature is worthless. Those who just don't exclude or like any subject and can get high marks hard are praised by teachers and parents. I hope that parents and teachers who hold these ideas are more likely to succeed than you in the face of some irresistible unfair factors in society, such as others holding resources. For example, if others are well-off, putting their capital in the bank will earn more interest than your labor income. It is natural to praise those who strive to get high marks and criticize those who are lazy and get low marks, but what about those who strive to get low marks? And then what? Lazy to get high marks? Do we really have to criticize low marks? ]?
[I'm watching? "Prince", I suddenly reacted to a question. Teachers, parents and society are telling us to succeed. Yes, success is better than failure. Failure is never the mother of success. Success is the mother of success. But success means achieving your goals. Parents, teachers, couples and anyone can make you successful, but they all measure your success with their own goals. I like making money, so I can't succeed without making money. I like a good figure, so you won't succeed if you are bloated; I like papers, so I won't succeed if I don't hand them in. The sooner you know your goals, the sooner you tell others your goals, which is a great event in life]
[When I was watching Zhuang, the deputy director of Taiwan Province Institute of International Studies said, "That? I was very moved by the deception of the monarch in The Prince. Professor Zhuang asked the students, "Why do you think the Taiwan provincial government controls you? "When the students didn't answer, Professor Zhuang sighed and pointed to himself:" It depends on me, on the teacher. Anyone instills an idea in you, you have to find out who he is, whose salary he takes and who he works for. "A teacher sincerely tells his students that he also relies on these things, and he is not completely credible. I'm really touched by such frankness. ]
As mentioned earlier, Machiavelli drew the argument from Savannah Lola that all armed prophets won and unarmed prophets failed. In the final analysis, it is actually a matter of strength. In order to achieve a political goal, power of one kind or another is always indispensable. This simple fact is covered up by slogans such as "justice will win" and "evil victory will not last long". Even if you think that the just side really won, it is because this side has superior strength. Power often depends on public opinion, and public opinion depends on propaganda. Of course, it is beneficial to appear more moral than your opponent in propaganda, and a good way to appear moral is to be really moral. Because of this, victory may often fall on the side that the public thinks is the most disciplined.
However, there are several major restrictions on this point: first, people who hold power can manipulate their own factions during propaganda, which is moral; Second, in some chaotic times, explicit hooliganism has repeatedly succeeded; Machiavelli's period was just such a period. In this era, there will be a rapidly growing view that no matter what, as long as the cost performance is high, the average person can stand it. According to Machiavelli himself, even in this era, it is appropriate to put on a moral face in front of the ignorant public.
When discussing this point, Professor Zhuang has an interesting point of view, talking about public morality. The following are just the original words, without any personal thoughts. What you can experience is what you have experienced, which has nothing to do with me or this article. "In the past, China had three obedience and four virtues, just to restrain women and make them feel that they could not do without their husbands; Later, with the concept of monarch and minister, officials established the glorious concept that they must die for the king. Every era has those public morals cultivated by the rulers in order to control the people of that era. What about now? " ]
About Machiavelli? The ideas in The Prince have been described in detail. Of course, not all of them are included. There's something I haven't said yet. If you are interested, please read the original. The book is very small, with more than 200 pages.
Machiavelli also writes plays. I want to introduce a play called Datuk, because Datuk shows Machiavelli's presence. Ideas in The Prince;
Karimark is a prodigal son, who inherits the heritage of Paris and eats, drinks and plays all day. One day, I learned about a lady in Florence. Kalimark wanted her, so she returned to Florence from Paris (during the war). Kalimark knew that the lady could not get pregnant, so he pretended to be a doctor and asked her questions, saying, "You have to drink Datura to get pregnant, but after drinking it, for example, if you want to sleep with a man, excrete toxins to him, and you will be safe." After that, he was caught by these people pretending to be a tramp, pretending to be forced to sleep with the lady, and after going to bed, he won the lady's heart. These two men successfully cheated the lady's husband, and the ending was happy. The lady's husband got a son. Although he was cheated, he was very happy. Kalimark and his wife finally abandoned the burden of conscience and maintained a good reputation.
Personality analysis: 1. Prodigal son: He returned to Florence, Italy from Paris because of emotional impulse and blindness, but he was able to make a decisive decision, come immediately to achieve his goal, unite a group of people for his use, listen to other people's opinions, and pretend (like the Pope's disguise) that the doctor cheated his wife and husband. 2. Planner: Machiavelli incarnated and planned the whole event. He looked down on his stupid and incompetent wife and husband and thought he was just lucky, but he was not a complainer, and he used his wisdom, ability and virtue to achieve what he wanted. 3. Lady: She is a devout Christian herself and has committed two crimes: adultery and murder (poisoning the homeless). People here can be called bad guys and successful people. They all achieved their goals by evil means at some point, but the ending was a grand finale, which also shows that Machiavelli hopes that all these cruel political means will eventually bring good results.
The following summarizes Machiavelli's contribution:
1. Distinguish between what is political should and what is political reality.
2. Distinguish between political morality and private morality (national morality and personal morality sometimes deviate)
3. On the basis of the first two, the technology of ruling (controlling evil according to time) is explained in detail.
4. It is expounded that politics is not only technology, but also vision and? resolute
Although politics needs wisdom and means, the purpose of politics should be happiness (Datura)
6. Rights are only the means and tools to achieve great things. The key is how to get glory.
? It is the failed monarch who is not qualified to own and maintain power, only cares about power or has the ability to patronize power.
Machiavelli also made great contributions to * * * and thought, mainly in the discussion, but I'm not interested in reading it now, so I'll put it here first and add it later if I'm interested.
If you really see this place, thank you for your efforts.