Term 2 - lecture 1

So, term 2 started with a look towards the beginning of modern philosophy.  Throughout this term, instead of completing a philosophical diary, I intend on giving a presentation around a relevant topic.  Because of this, I’ll be trying to think of interesting topics or questions arising from each week’s work that I may be able to use as my focus.  Any thoughts on this would be incredibly welcome.

During this first lecture we discussed Machiavelli.  Machiavelli (1469-1527) was an Italian philosopher (in fact, the founder of political science), humanist and writer.  He did not however, consider himself a philosopher, which got me thinking about what actually defines a philosopher?  I guess this isn’t actually a philosophical question but it’s one I’m really interested in.  Rousseau who we’ll be discussing later in the term was also a writer, as are Dostoyevsky, Camus and Sartre who we’ll be covering in term 3.  I’ll put that question aside for now.

The ideas put forward by Machiavelli demonstrate a significant move away from looking at the types of “ideal” scenarios put forward by the ancient Greek philosophers and offer a far more realistic, if not more cynical, look at the world.

Machiavelli believed that power was our ultimate end goal, although not everyone, only those in a position to understand this, would lust after this.  There was a clear divide between the aristocracy and more learned people who should realise this and seek power and authority, and the “drones” or common people who should be autocratically led by such a person in power.  How does ambition relate to this?

Power and authority to Machiavelli had no moral reference point, and is totally independent of any greater good or virtue.  Leading a good and virtuous life would not necessarily lead to power, in fact there’s a definite undertone of “nice guys finish last” in his work The Prince.  To Machiavelli a ruler should ensure behavioural obedience from his subjects and be willing to obtain this through fear.  Rulers must be pragmatic and be willing to make the hard decisions (even the morally wrong decisions) in order to maintain their power.  Does ruling through fear work?