3 ms·

Let's not do that. The article is 1) written for a western audience 2) I'm willing to bet that Machiavelli is MUCH more well known by political scholars than C

Let's not do that. The article is 1) written for a western audience 2) I'm willing to bet that Machiavelli is MUCH more well known by political scholars than Chanakya

x5n1 11y ago
OP has a point. If you come 1,000 years before your ideas are more original than someone who comes 1,000 years after you.
- barry-cotter 11y ago
  Originality is a function of putting together old ideas in new ways or of having a completely new idea, however you distinguish between the two. Machiavelli was completely unaware of Chanakya. The paradigm in which he worked was the Mirror of Princes, which were not marked by Machiavelli's realism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrors_for_princes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrors_for_princes Machiavelli's "The Prince" was a break from a tradition which assumed that what was moral for a ruler was what was moral for an individual, just at a larger scale. As manuals for statecraft, instructions for how to achieve the goals of state it is far superior to the works that preceded it in the Western European tradition. If you want to read more Machiavelli after "The Prince" try the Discourses on Livy, often considered the greater work, and definitely closer to Machiavelli's own republican personal leanings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli#Discourses_on_Livy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli#Disco...
- _nedR 11y ago
  Originality and influence are distinct concepts. The ancient Indians have first claim to many inventions and discoveries covering a wide range of disciplines including math, science, statecraft, philosophy, governance, technology. But unfortunately India has had remarkably little influence on the outside world considering. Indians may (or may not) have invented the zero but it was the Arabs that took it the world. There are many possible reasons for this. I could speculate that it might be due to :- 1. These things happened so long ago. India was way ahead in many of these things, and perhaps the rest of the world was not ready to understand them at the time. 2. India was too inward looking. Of course What we call India today never existed under the rule of a single entity until the British came. Until then the various kingdoms were preoccupied with affairs within the subcontinent instead of looking elsewhere. In the concise history of the modern world, William Woodruff says that (until 500 years ago) either India or China could have both conquered the world, except that they never seemed to have the motivation to do so. By comparison, arabs, persians, europeans travelled, traded with and conquered lands far from their origins, and hence they have had much more influence on the modern world. 3. There was also deep stratification of Indian society along caste/race lines. The higher and elite classes of the time were obsessed with protecting their knowledge (which was part of their power) from other sections of society. By contrast, the Arabs, Romans, Europeans, translated, copied and disseminated their literature widely.
arihant 11y ago
> I'm willing to bet that Machiavelli is MUCH more well known by political scholars than Chanakya. By western scholars. Honestly, I went to an Indian school and an American university, and I've never heard of Machiavelli until just now. Chanakya, for me, is a household name. And so it is for over a billion people. I am willing to bet Machiavelli is not a common household name for over a billion people. So he's less popular, and he came a thousand years later. So I do think that OP has a point. That said, there is no denying that this is an article written by an Indian for a Western publication. So it is apt in this context.

Let's not do that. The article is 1) written for a western audience 2) I'm willing to bet that Machiavelli is MUCH more well known by political scholars than Chanakya

x5n1 11y ago

OP has a point. If you come 1,000 years before your ideas are more original than someone who comes 1,000 years after you.

barry-cotter 11y ago
Originality is a function of putting together old ideas in new ways or of having a completely new idea, however you distinguish between the two. Machiavelli was completely unaware of Chanakya. The paradigm in which he worked was the Mirror of Princes, which were not marked by Machiavelli's realism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrors_for_princes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrors_for_princes Machiavelli's "The Prince" was a break from a tradition which assumed that what was moral for a ruler was what was moral for an individual, just at a larger scale. As manuals for statecraft, instructions for how to achieve the goals of state it is far superior to the works that preceded it in the Western European tradition. If you want to read more Machiavelli after "The Prince" try the Discourses on Livy, often considered the greater work, and definitely closer to Machiavelli's own republican personal leanings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli#Discourses_on_Livy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli#Disco...
_nedR 11y ago
Originality and influence are distinct concepts. The ancient Indians have first claim to many inventions and discoveries covering a wide range of disciplines including math, science, statecraft, philosophy, governance, technology. But unfortunately India has had remarkably little influence on the outside world considering. Indians may (or may not) have invented the zero but it was the Arabs that took it the world. There are many possible reasons for this. I could speculate that it might be due to :- 1. These things happened so long ago. India was way ahead in many of these things, and perhaps the rest of the world was not ready to understand them at the time. 2. India was too inward looking. Of course What we call India today never existed under the rule of a single entity until the British came. Until then the various kingdoms were preoccupied with affairs within the subcontinent instead of looking elsewhere. In the concise history of the modern world, William Woodruff says that (until 500 years ago) either India or China could have both conquered the world, except that they never seemed to have the motivation to do so. By comparison, arabs, persians, europeans travelled, traded with and conquered lands far from their origins, and hence they have had much more influence on the modern world. 3. There was also deep stratification of Indian society along caste/race lines. The higher and elite classes of the time were obsessed with protecting their knowledge (which was part of their power) from other sections of society. By contrast, the Arabs, Romans, Europeans, translated, copied and disseminated their literature widely.

arihant 11y ago

> I'm willing to bet that Machiavelli is MUCH more well known by political scholars than Chanakya. By western scholars. Honestly, I went to an Indian school and an American university, and I've never heard of Machiavelli until just now. Chanakya, for me, is a household name. And so it is for over a billion people. I am willing to bet Machiavelli is not a common household name for over a billion people. So he's less popular, and he came a thousand years later. So I do think that OP has a point. That said, there is no denying that this is an article written by an Indian for a Western publication. So it is apt in this context.