Scan barcode
cjvillahermosa's review against another edition
3.0
Just finished Machiavelli's classic book on governance and power politics. Published in 1513, this book is Machiavelli's gift to Lorenzo de Medici on how to rule efficiently and effectively, which can be interpreted now as a 'sipsip' move.
This book is perhaps famous for the question of whether it is better to be feared than to be loved. Machiavelli actually thought it is best to be both feared and loved but if ypu need to choose, you will find greater security in being feared than in being loved. He wrote: 'Love endures by a bond which men, being scoundrels, may break whenever it serves their advantage to do so; but fear is supported by the dread of pain, which is ever present'. He also emphasized that leaders should be feared but should escape being hated.
Overall a fine book full of practical advice for leaders and those who intend to rule. However, our idea of politicians is that they are not expected to rule but to serve. I wonder how Machiavelli, were he alive today, would see that.
This book is perhaps famous for the question of whether it is better to be feared than to be loved. Machiavelli actually thought it is best to be both feared and loved but if ypu need to choose, you will find greater security in being feared than in being loved. He wrote: 'Love endures by a bond which men, being scoundrels, may break whenever it serves their advantage to do so; but fear is supported by the dread of pain, which is ever present'. He also emphasized that leaders should be feared but should escape being hated.
Overall a fine book full of practical advice for leaders and those who intend to rule. However, our idea of politicians is that they are not expected to rule but to serve. I wonder how Machiavelli, were he alive today, would see that.
ptohver's review against another edition
4.0
I first became aware of "The Prince" as something that might actually be worth reading when I heard Machiavelli's life story briefly recounted in Walter Isaacson's biography of Leonardo da Vinci. Instead of being just some conniving douche who can turn a phrase, the Machiavelli of Isaacson is astute, prudent and actually capable of moral judgment, even if his name now stands for something baser. "The Prince" is a reminder that classic texts, no matter how maligned, became classics because they carry something of relevance through the ages. Although it makes little sense now to mull over the pros and cons of using a mercenary army to establish new principalities, one can still draw plenty of parallels between Machiavelli's world in the early 16th century, and today's world of warfare and business. For example, Machiavelli's observation about how enemies demand your neutrality while friends beseech you to take up arms would be just as astute if applied to the Russo-Ukrainian war today (Machiavelli, rightly I believe, implores princes to *not* fall for the neutrality trap). I also found in Machiavelli an unlikely forebearer of the psychological safety movement. To quote his chapter on flattery: "With [his] councillors, separately and collectively, [a prince] ought to carry himself in such a way that each of them should know that, the more freely he shall speak, the more he shall be preferred."
To be sure, there are some questionable hot takes in this. For example Machiavelli at one point goes off on a tangent on how it is slightly better to be daring rather than calculated when making your fortune because "fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her". But for the most part, The Prince stands out for being surprisingly measured, and modern.
To be sure, there are some questionable hot takes in this. For example Machiavelli at one point goes off on a tangent on how it is slightly better to be daring rather than calculated when making your fortune because "fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her". But for the most part, The Prince stands out for being surprisingly measured, and modern.
cjspear's review against another edition
3.0
Machiavelli is actually Italian for 'misunderstood.'
That's not true, but it might as well be. The man's name has become a word both denoting and connoting 'sinister, dishonest, or scheming.' In truth though, his book 'The Prince' is not a statement of morality. He does not justify evil acts. Machiavelli separated the idea of morality from the idea of success. This book is a tutorial on how to keep and maintain a principality once you've got one.
Pragmatism is the core of Machiavelli's approach. He denounces acting as an idealist because:
"...the distance is so great between how we live and how we ought to live that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation..." -Ch. 15
Machiavelli outlines what must be done to maintain power. He does so by analyzing his current war-torn Italy as well as the world of antiquity. He presents well-argued essays on maintaining armies, secretaries, allies, fortresses, and factions. He was clearly a thoughtful individual that saw the lines of power in society.
My chief criticism of Machiavelli is his abandonment of ideals. He sees them as essentially a fantasy that is not achievable, but his vision is incredibly short-sighted. He doesn't connect the larger strands of history that show the progression of ideals. The Glory of Rome would not have been possible without the fervent idealism that fueled its the Roman Republic. If hope is the carrot, and fear is the stick, Machiavelli severely hinders his Prince by limiting his arsenal to just the stick.
Proof of my 'hope theory' came 250 years after 'The Prince' was first published. A small country was founded and chose a leader who might as well have been the Anti-Machiavelli. His name was George Washington.
That's not true, but it might as well be. The man's name has become a word both denoting and connoting 'sinister, dishonest, or scheming.' In truth though, his book 'The Prince' is not a statement of morality. He does not justify evil acts. Machiavelli separated the idea of morality from the idea of success. This book is a tutorial on how to keep and maintain a principality once you've got one.
Pragmatism is the core of Machiavelli's approach. He denounces acting as an idealist because:
"...the distance is so great between how we live and how we ought to live that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation..." -Ch. 15
Machiavelli outlines what must be done to maintain power. He does so by analyzing his current war-torn Italy as well as the world of antiquity. He presents well-argued essays on maintaining armies, secretaries, allies, fortresses, and factions. He was clearly a thoughtful individual that saw the lines of power in society.
My chief criticism of Machiavelli is his abandonment of ideals. He sees them as essentially a fantasy that is not achievable, but his vision is incredibly short-sighted. He doesn't connect the larger strands of history that show the progression of ideals. The Glory of Rome would not have been possible without the fervent idealism that fueled its the Roman Republic. If hope is the carrot, and fear is the stick, Machiavelli severely hinders his Prince by limiting his arsenal to just the stick.
Proof of my 'hope theory' came 250 years after 'The Prince' was first published. A small country was founded and chose a leader who might as well have been the Anti-Machiavelli. His name was George Washington.
simonehaux's review against another edition
4.0
her siyaset felsefesi dersi alan öğrencinin adını en az beş kere duyduğu o kitap…
k8dkc's review against another edition
3.0
A very interesting read. Ruthless. Unapologetically straightforward and honest. We are not interested here in being a good person, but with being a successful leader.
cathy7's review against another edition
3.0
Machiavelli is brilliant and makes absolute, total sense.
I gave it three stars because I'm a socialist at heart!
I gave it three stars because I'm a socialist at heart!