Was "The Prince" satire?
No, but your life is.
No. Machiavelli was just an anti-liberal faggot
No, it was a job application.
Only fordora topplers that get buzzd from being contradictory raising a boneless finger skyward beard quietly russlin Actually he says carefully pronounciating each syllable Actually The Prince is satire! Did I read it? It's satire!
Machiavelli is a fat fuck
>>7400959
>anti-liberal
>faggot
you wot m8?
It wasn't his ideal
>>7400948
According to one of my professors who specialized in Machiavelli, it wasn't.
It wasn't satire. People get that idea because it wasn't at all sincere.
Machiavelli just wanted to appease whoever was in charge at the time by writing a great work, but one that would appeal to their sensibilities. He was the stereotypical kiss-ass, but brilliant.
So yeah, take his work with a grain of salt for that reason. But no, it isn't fucking satire.
>>7400948
No. But it doesn't need to be.
No. This meme really needs to die.
People talk about the book like he is advocating genocide and the cruelest tyranny. What's actually in it is what we would today consider self-evident in an autocratic society. You should be feared and loved, you should go big or go home when it comes to matters of national survival.
Yes he was a known critic of all the shit he described and was thrown in jail for not taking the royalties shit
>>7400986
That's mass you fool. Read what he says about cultivating it in chapter 15.
It's one of the master matter of fact and upfront political books ever written. For just about every point he makes he draws an example from history.
You'd have to be a complete idiot to think he wasn't being serious which is exactly what Lock was who couldn't understand the book and said it must be a joke.
>>7401704
>Machiavelli just wanted to appease whoever was in charge at the time by writing a great work
Yes, Machiavelli wanted to appease a historically known Republican family by portraying tryants as doing nothing wrong.
He was a Republi-boo
>>7401729
>matter of fact
Exactly. Anyone who thinks Machiavelli was either a psycho tyrant or a satirist should invest a little more time and read his Discourses. His writing is basically a series of warnings and suggestions, with his own morality of right and wrong interjected not as a factor affecting the paths he ultimately suggests, but a side note condemning or praising one path or another. He'll literally say things like "this is what tyrants should do here to retain their power, even though tyrants are bad for the state and are evil."
>>7400948
Definitely
>>7402209
>Discourses
God damn that book was so dank
>>7400948
He merely explained the workings of power in an amoral way.
All that he suggests in the book are things people in power (or in a race for power) almost automatically, independently of the book will do (and have done, look at Roman politics for example) if their goal is to wield that power for as long as possible. Whether he advocates it or not does not matter in the sense that it is only describing the workings of the concept of power.
So no, it's not satire.
>>7400948
No it's just the first modern book. Welcome to destructed values
>>7402240
What does this even mean.
>>7400976
>Only fordora topplers that get buzzd from being contradictory raising a boneless finger skyward beard quietly russlin Actually he says carefully pronounciating each syllable Actually The Prince is satire! Did I read it? It's satire!
This, fuck out of here o'shokafag.
>>7400959
Confirmed for only having read The Prince.
>>7400948
Read the preface by David Wootton to his translation of The Prince, it has some solid arguments and puts the work in context. It's not the only explanation to Machiavelli's intentions but it deserves to be considered.
