Nicolo Machiavelli once taught monarchs, but in fact, this "monarchism" is a lesson for all mankind. You can deny the prince's point of view, but you can't deny that the essence of the real world is dominated by the ideas represented by the prince, which ancient philosophers can't do.
I used to think that such wisdom only existed in the pre-Qin period of China. It was not until I read The Prince that I sincerely lamented the wisdom of the ancient Roman Empire.
According to the above background information
My personal understanding is that the phrase "achieve your goal by hook or by crook" has certain limitations.
It's just that the author tells people that being a king must be ruthless, which is caused by the monarchy.
The monarch is supreme under the monarchy system, so it has become the pursuit of many people!
2. What do you think of the theory of kings? The Prince is one of Machiavelli's representative works. The author discusses the way to be king with plain language and shocking views. After reading The Prince, I think there are two highlights: one is political theory, and the other is military theory.
In the part of political theory, Machiavelli made no secret of his contempt for morality. Based on the view that human nature is evil, he guided the monarch to achieve his goal without considering morality. This view has been criticized, which is why Machiavelli is called the first person to separate politics from ethics.
Machiavelli, based on his years of personal political life experience and research on ancient history, came to a conclusion: there is no need to ask moral good and evil for political purposes. But as Russell said, "But sometimes, when he is willing to tell himself what he wants, these goals are beneficial to us. The familiar ugliness of Liv's name is mostly due to the anger of good people-these people hate to confess bad things as bad things. " At this point, Russell is obviously in favor of Machiavelli's On Kings. Russell may have a point. There are indeed many hypocrites who hate to admit bad things as bad things, but the ethics that sustain people's basic lives are by no means as simple as hypocrisy in one sentence.
In this regard, I think Machiavelli reveals the law of politics based on the evil of human nature. It should be said that he found the truth, which is his contribution. But at the same time preach this truth to the monarch. Will you preach the truth? We know that truth, goodness and beauty are different concepts in two different disciplines. The real thing is not necessarily good. On the contrary, many real things are ugly. Machiavelli preached to the monarch that the truth he discovered was not the way of good, but the way of evil. Although it is the truth, no one will think that evil is right, but it is covered up by its truth. Machiavelli discovered the truth of political science, which is his greatness; But instead of trying to be a good person, he preached such a truth. I think it's a flaw in his character.
Nevertheless, Machiavelli's ultimate goal seems to be goodness and goodness: undoubtedly, this is a typical utilitarian thought. Whether it is feasible to take utility as the ultimate goal, for the time being. Utilitarianism is absolutely not feasible for the immediate goal. Machiavelli wrote The Kings not only for the king to strengthen his rule, but also for Florence and Italy. Even if Machiavelli's goal is achieved, has he considered the negative effects of his theory? If this set of ideas is not only used by monarchs, but also poisons all mankind, all people will only see the word "greed", what will the world look like! The collapse of material civilization can be "revived", but what about spirit? In fact, the theory of kings does have its negative effects. 400 years after Machiavelli's death, Italy under fascist rule once solemnly reprinted The Kings for Mussolini. Isn't this a negative effect? If this is in line with Machiavelli's intention, then I have nothing to say.
Although Machiavelli's political theory has been criticized a lot and is really worth discussing, his military theory is quite reasonable. Militarily, Machiavelli emphasized that you should attach great importance to the military and have your own army as the backing. As Machiavelli himself said, "A monarch should not have other goals and ideas except war, military system and training, nor should he focus on other things."
3. The most comprehensive ancient emperors' evaluation of emperors of past dynasties.
If the son Fu Su ascended the throne, maybe Qin Kechuan II, III, or even forever.
If Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty had not listened to Jiang Chong and other villains, there might not have been any witchcraft disaster and Yi would not have died unjustly. With his talent and virtue, he will be a wise master.
If Cao Chong hadn't died young, he might have succeeded in this life.
If Li Yu had tried his best to handle state affairs, there might not have been so many touching words.
If Emperor Taizong thought twice, why did he choose a cowardly Li Zhi? Maybe he can live a few years without him in the prosperous Tang Dynasty.
If Hui Zong loves Jiangshan more, why did the Northern Song Dynasty stop there? How can I become a prisoner?
If Chongzhen was far away from the sages, why did the Ming Dynasty die young and hang itself for eternity?
If Mei, the son of Dong E Fei, did not die young, how could he inherit the great unification and become an emperor through the ages?
If Cheng Cobalt, Kangxi's eldest son, is alive, why does Kangxi want to make a second effort and abolish it twice, which will make brothers kill each other and ask for trouble?
Emperors of all ages are inevitably lonely and die in this life.
4. What is the potential value of Biography of Kings? "On Kings" was written by Machiavelli in the Italian Renaissance (double-entry bookkeeping was also produced at this time, and this interesting coincidence caused a lot of thinking in the accounting field). The title is On, but it's a long story. It is actually a pamphlet about kings, politics and people.
Engels Machiavelli claimed to be teaching the monarch, but in fact he was teaching the people. -Rousseau's On Kings is suitable for people from all walks of life to read. For those who are indignant only by staring at the extraordinary image, this book can calm their hearts. Politics is politics, there is no need to make a fuss; For pedants who are used to long speeches, it may lead to another kind of thinking about learning attitudes and methods; For the author of accounting thesis, we can not only learn from his writing style, but also open up a new perspective of political research on accounting standards; At least, in the era of advocating "wolves", after reading this book, there will be a psychological satisfaction of "I am the king and the king is me".
Machiavelli's value orientation may make him desperate to tear the hypocritical appearance of human beings and reveal to us the most despicable, dirty, treacherous and cruel elements in human hearts.
This is a wonderful recipe for governing the country that he wanted to dedicate to the monarch in order to please him, but on the other hand, he painted the ugliest souls of kings in previous dynasties. Machiavelli believed that the monarch could achieve his goal by any means. They can be treacherous, cruel and treacherous, but in the end they are often regarded as great and wise leaders: "If a monarch can conquer and maintain that country, the means he takes are always considered glorious and will be praised by everyone.
Because mobsters are always attracted by external things, and the world is full of mobsters. "Although Machiavelli's On Kings helps us to understand the ugliness of human nature, the book itself is also an evil, because it not only does not help people develop in the direction of goodness, but seeks some legitimacy for the existence of evil.
Every kind reader who has finished reading Biography of Kings will feel sad. Can human society only struggle forever in the endless struggle and trampling between monarchs? Good books make people do good, while bad books make people do evil. "On Kings" vividly depicts the animal side of western rulers and even the whole western culture with the brush strokes of a western wise man, which is undoubtedly a thought-provoking reference for the eastern cultural circle with goodness as the leading force in the 20th century.
Orientals should firmly believe that all power and status maintained by violence and conspiracy will eventually be destroyed by violence and conspiracy; Anyone who imitates Machiavelli's politics will eventually be hurt by Machiavelli's politics. The most original, incisive and frank "autopsy report" on political struggle skills in human history, and the most influential book recommended by Professor 1 13 of Harvard University, "On Kings" became all the rage from 1930s, but it was banned in the late 1950s and its reputation was not restored until1970s.
Some scholars in Europe believe that "On Kings" is one of the three works with eternal value written by human beings for thousands of years. It is said that when King Henry IV of France was killed, he was found wearing a bloody Book of Kings. Louis XIV, the famous French monarch, must review this book every night, saying: You can't sleep without reading this book; Napoleon never tires of reading "On Kings". When the victorious Coalition forces cleaned up the battlefield in Waterloo, they found an annotated book "On Kings" written by him ... It can be said that all modern political leaders learned the essence of managing the world from the theory of kings.
Even if they don't admit it in public, they have heard Machiavelli's teachings in the secret room. It was not until 1980s that the Western public opinion listed Kings, Bible and Das Kapital as one of the top ten works that influenced human history.
Machiavelli and other predecessors devoted themselves to observing what human beings have done, rather than forcing people to do it, which benefited future generations a lot. -The Prince by the British philosopher Bacon. I think there are two bright spots in it: one is political theory, and the other is military theory.
In the part of political theory, Machiavelli made no secret of his contempt for morality. Based on the view that human nature is evil, he guided the monarch to achieve his goal without considering morality.
This view has been criticized, which is why Machiavelli is called the first person to separate politics from ethics. Machiavelli, based on his years of personal political life experience and research on ancient history, came to a conclusion: there is no need to ask moral good and evil for political purposes.
But as Russell said, "But sometimes, when he is willing to tell himself what he wants, these goals are beneficial to us. Most of the ugliness in Liv's name is due to the anger of good people-these people hate to say bad things are bad things.
"At this point, Russell is obviously in favor of Machiavelli's On Kings. Russell may have a point. There are indeed many hypocrites who hate to admit bad things as bad things, but the ethics that sustain people's basic lives are by no means as simple as hypocrisy in one sentence.
In this regard, I think Machiavelli reveals the law of politics based on the evil of human nature. It should be said that he found the truth, which is his contribution. But at the same time preach this truth to the monarch.
Will you preach the truth? We know that truth, goodness and beauty are different concepts in two different disciplines. The real thing is not necessarily good. On the contrary, many real things are ugly. Machiavelli preached to the monarch that the truth he discovered was not the way of good, but the way of evil. Although it is the truth, no one will think that evil is right, but it is covered up by its truth.
Machiavelli discovered the truth of political science, which is his greatness; But instead of trying to be a good person, he preached such a truth. I think it's a flaw in his character. However, Machiavelli's ultimate goal.
5.≤ On Kings ≥ Who wrote On Kings? It is one of Machiavelli's representative works. Machiavelli was a Florentine, born in 1469 and died in 1527.
Before risorgimento, Florence was an independent vassal state. The horse was written in 15 13, dedicated to Lorenzo II who ruled Florence at that time. The purpose of his book offering is to get an official position or some gold coins.
Compared with other great thinkers and philosophers (such as Socrates in Greece and Zhuangzi in China), their writing motivation is really not noble, which may be the difference between those who engage in politics and those who engage in other kinds of research. As for the rule art dedicated to the king in the book, its terrible directness surprises the bookworm even more.
For example, chapter 17 says: "A monarch: A king should not worry about being condemned as cruel, because it is more merciful to deal with a few people with severe punishment and harsh laws than some kings who let unrest happen because of their excessive flexibility, leading to bloodshed and robbery." "So there is a question, the gentleman let others love him more than afraid of him, or afraid of him more than hobbies? It is difficult to have both, so if you have to have one, it is safer not to be loved than to be feared. "
He believes that the king can achieve great things in two ways: "one is through law, and the other is through violence." The first is the human method, and the second is the animal method.
But the first method often feels inadequate, and the second method must be used. So the king must know how to make good use of animal law and human law.
"Although" On Kings "surprised the bookworm, it can't help but make the rulers feel" won my heart ",which is why it became a world famous book. Modern politicians have become democratic and humanized, but Machiavelli's shadow is still looming sometimes, because political experience, including politics, is so effective for politicians, and Ma's criticism of hypocrisy can also help them achieve a little psychological balance when using animal laws in severe punishment.