Augustine v. Machiavelli

Augustine and Machiavelli both believed that society should be helmed by government, but they have two very different ways of going about this. Augustine says mankind should strive to be like God, Mac says that an individual should seek power through manipulation and deception. Who right? Is Augustine even relevant anymore?

Other urls found in this thread:

digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1254&context=auss
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Light prevails, etc. Fuck off fag.

>Light prevails
no it doesn't. All we have to do is look at nature on earth and the nature of the universe to know that isn't true.

If light prevails, why isn't Augustine in that picture with Trump? Why isn't Ben Carson the President?

Which is why light isn't the nature of this earth, but rather that of the heavens. We are graced by the presence of the sun, which provides light and life, and if the earth existed without such an entitiy, then you are correct, darkness would win out.

Augustine know that this is not a world of light, but that mankind should still aim to be as Christlike as possible. Yes, this is impossible, but according to Augustine, it's the only way the Cities of man can prosper, by emulating the City of Light

Machiavelli didn't say what you think he said. "The Prince" was written as an appeal for the favor of the Medici. "The Discourses" is the ideal Machiavelli favored. In the Discourses Machiavelli, like Augustine, advocates for virtuous leaders and virtuous citizens. He advocates for a republic that relies on its own citizens for defense, not mercenaries.

In sum, Machiavelli's position is that leadership/government without virtue cannot stand and will eventually be deposed by its citizens or foreign invaders; just as a republic that lacks virtue befalls the same fate.

You've got to believe in something for yourself, for your people and for the future. That belief must - and Sup Forums will hate this - bring a republic's citizens together voluntarily for the common good.

>Mac says that an individual should seek power through manipulation and deception.
That's not what he said you dumb Christcuck.

Mac was in danger and a member of the Republic overthrown by a "Prince". So he wrote the book as satire. He was hiding in the woods when he did it.
Only nut cases take is serious or stupid people like you who don't know how to research and hate everything that isn't worshiping a dead rabbi.

Machiavelli said the optimal ruler should have societies best interests in mind the means to achieving it could be underhanded.

Very interesting user! So "The Prince" was just the worst job application ever? Would you agree that Machiavelli, even in later works, was a supporter of criminal virtue?

I wasn't talking about actual light lol. Actual light from starts is radation that kill the human. Our atmosphere is a condom that that protects from the STD's of the universe. I was talking about light in a figurative sense, more in a "universe tends towards chaos and decay" thing and how strength prevails and moves things.

Literally suck my dick you inbred piece of shit. I'm just out here trying to engage in a discussion of political philosophy. Machiavelli DOES detail how important appears and deception are for maintaining order within society. A wise leader should appear to be virtuous, but may need to resort to unjust means for the good of everyone. Deception.

New rule. If you've only read the Prince, you don't get to talk about Machiavelli.

If you're a Millennial you probably don't have the capacity to understand either. DESU.

You're a millennial. You have no idea what he's talking about.

No dumbass, he did not support criminal virtue. Did you read anything I wrote?

“The lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves.”

Virtue, Plato's ideal to which Machiavelli ascribed, is the drive to understand and discover truth. What you confuse for advocating criminality is Machiavelli demonstrating the need to understand and consider realpolitik in as you make decisions.

"Those who act virtuously in every way necessarily come to grief by those less virtuous"

Now your high school paper is done. KYS.

LOL

Your memes don't insulate you from scientific data.Your generation is intellectually deficient across a variety of metrics. The Flynn effect stopped at your generation. That isn't really something pop references and sunglasses will change. Of course, as a Millennial, I see why you think this is very convincing.

He advocated for a republic that relies on its own citizens and not mercenaries in "The Prince" as well.

I think the argument (not advanced by you specifically) that "The Prince" is insincere is an oversimplification. I recently reread it, and the idea that it's all satire doesn't make sense, because so much of what he said in it DOES make sense at face value.
>the state leaning on its own people instead of mercs for defense
>building power in things you can control vs what you can't, i.e. "better to be feared than loved"
>different recommendations for how different types of states are pacified
I think the correct interpretation, if you want to find one that isn't just "Machiavelli literally believed all this," is that Machiavelli recognized that for all the love he has for virtue and virtuous leadership/rule, the world is a brutal, ruthless, and nasty place, and the most effective means for consolidating power may lie beyond the realm of simply being a virtuous ruler and great guy.

And your work ethic sucks, and at the first sign of trouble you'll blame anyone but yourself for your difficulty. You're horrible as employees. Our future is fucked. Otherwise you're great.

Okay. I'm going to dig around and try to find a copy of "The Discourses". Virtue was the wrong term; Mac felt that a good leader sometimes has to do unjust things. Today, I think that everyone would agree that sometimes you gotta get a little dirty to get the job done, but Augustine would object to that. What is the merit of society pursuing his City of Light, when Machiavellian thinking dominates the post-god world?

>discussing IQ trends across generations
>not breaking down by race
Do you even Sup Forums bro?

You're mixing Hobbes and Machiavelli you retard. The Prince isn't satire, but it does have a dual meaning. Machiavelli isn't advocating for a Leviathan, but cautions leaders against suicidal virtue.

Well, to be fair, boomers literally don't know how to accept responsibility for anything. So a lot of that is probably just projection on your part.

How much of your generation is online on a Friday engaging in political philosophy discourse? And what percentage of your generation wouldn't have a fucking clue what was going on were it not for pop culture. Boomers are literally fucking incapable of understanding anything that isn't framed by sitcoms, cinema, or the bible.

You haven't even read his discourses on Livy...

No I am not. Where did I say anything about a Leviathan?
And leave off the "you retard" shit when you're not even talking to the same person you were berating or involved in the conversation you are so rudely barreling into.

I'm not a boomer. They literally blame themselves for everything and are quietly filled with self hate.

Haha nvm I am a retard and didn't realize I replied to (You).
Carry on user

What are you smoking?

You wrote: " brutal, ruthless, and nasty place..."

Almost literally quoting Hobbes you thieving, plagiarizing, street shitting nothing.

>A room full of boomers stares at the stage, mouths agape
>A large fedora is playing some generic bluesrocktrashguitar.wav
>Boomers minds literally blown

I didn't talk about anything pertinent to Hobbes in my post, clown.
I borrowed the wording because it's great and makes the point perfectly.
If you would actually read the things I attributed directly to the book, in green text, you'd see it's from The Prince and not Leviathan.

Well, I'm Jewish... so we spend a lot of time talking about political philosophy.

...

...

>I borrowed the wording

Case closed. You're going to get an 'F' and be expelled from your 3rd rate community college. Better start applying to Walmart.

You're still not replying to the right guy, I'm not the City of Light poster... there are IDs here user, don't you see?

You expect me to write Python code, reply on Sup Forums, watch FoxNews, eat AND check ID's? You think I'm some kind of superman?

Nah, just a retard.

I didn't realize FoxNews was fit for the Chosen's consumption!

nigga i don't read fuck off

If we can consume Sup Forums we can handle FoxNews. I'm even an NRA member.

Because a Nigger is dark by definition you mongoloid

Luther
digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1254&context=auss

Darkness isn't strength, it is the absence of light. So your belief in darkness is similar to atheism. Too much of a good thing can kill you? see light can be both helpful and harmful in too great quanities. There is chaos and decay all around us, but is that what you're really looking forward to?

You’ve got the right thread going and id like to add that in mac’s discourses on Livy he argued at one point that all nations start with some sovereign divine individual at its helm that had its best interests at heart and looked out for his people. Over generations his heirs become more and more corrupt until the nobles rise up and save the kingdom. They will rule justly until over a few generations until those individuals get corrupt and become an oligarchy. At this point the people will rise up and have the ultimate democracy, until their freedoms become so much that anarchy breaks out and society collapses. At this point the cycles renews.

Mac recogized that the longest lasting and most successful kingdoms blended the 3 systems of a king nobles and personal freedom. No doubt this had a profound effect on the thinkers and framers of the American constitution and created our system of checks and balances.

OMFG... what the fuck are you saying? You realize this means nothing, right?

Augestine was a tiny man supserstitious man that liked to take things which were man's reponsability and just say God was doing everything. He didn't even believe people were responsible for their own dreams and that was all God's doing. The man can't even take responsibility for his own fucking sleep.

b-based jew?
[[this user was deported to /r/the_donald for this post]]

>I was talking about light in a figurative sense
So it looks like YOU are the one talking about nothing. I went on from actual light to order/chaos/decay, which is a related thing. My thoughts are related and interconnected, how about yours, scatterbrain? Do you actually believe what you say?

Excellent analysis. Spot on. I've searched the indexed libraries of the founders for references to Machiavelli's works over the years (eg. Hamilton, Washington) but found nothing. The influence is claimed but hasn't been proven that I've seen. Montesquieu may be the transit point between Machiavelli and the framers.

If Augustine was such a Tiny man, why is he regarded as one of the great philosophers? Was it just because he was the last one before everyone went stupid in the dark ages?

I believe you have a prolapsed rectum from an overconsumption of dick in your ass, and all the vibration from getting fucked so hard has caused brain damage as evidenced by your light post.

Unless you are lucid dreaming, they aren't in your control

You fit right into this thread. Mud-slinging trash. You can't defend your flimsy position to save your life, because it is a self-defeating one. Embrace darkness and madness more, you heathen.

Very interesting. Ideas do spread like germs don’t they?!

Why should mankind aim for the City of Light if it is impossible?

Let's say you aim for the possible. That means that one day you might actually reach it. Then what?
Only way to go is down from there. We must aim for total and complete perfection, which is unattainable, therefore we can only proceed in the right direction.

Hamilton was a voracious reader

>Why should mankind aim for the City of Light if it is impossible?

Alternatives:

Aim for nothing: ... see Florence under the Medici.
Aim for darkness: ... see Hobbes State of Nature.
Aim for Augustine's ideal ... see Plato's notion of Virtue, JSM's Liberty.

There's quite an evolution and rehash of concepts in political philosophy.

But aiming to have society operate in accordance with the Bible? Isn't that a little Marxist?
>For Each His ability, to each his need. Acts 4:32-35

But a truly liberated society will eventually rebel

>You fit right into this thread. Mud-slinging trash. You can't defend your flimsy position to save your life, because it is a self-defeating one. Embrace darkness and madness more, you heathen.

That is all you can say? You suck at this, seriously, go to plebbit.

>Acts 4:32-35
Voluntary Charity in the name of potential good != fucking marxism

>But a truly liberated society will eventually rebel

Liberty means individualism (see Plato, Mac, Mill, Rand). Its freedom limited by real harm to others.

There's not much in that to rebel against.