4 ms·

Isn't it even disputed among experts whether Machiavelli's the Prince is satirical or not? I can't possibly imagine how one can both treat a source as holding

by kace91 7y ago

Isn't it even disputed among experts whether Machiavelli's the Prince is satirical or not? I can't possibly imagine how one can both treat a source as holding profound and transcendent views and be uninterested or unsure of what the author meant when writing it; at that point it seems that the literary work is merely an excuse for the reader to project their own ideas into an authorative source, and the work is only valued for its prestige.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
eru 7y ago
Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author
leftyted 7y ago
> I can't possibly imagine how one can both treat a source as holding profound and transcendent views and be uninterested or unsure of what the author meant when writing it; at that point it seems that the literary work is merely an excuse for the reader to project their own ideas into an authorative source, and the work is only valued for its prestige. What I've found is that, in critiques of an earlier philosopher, the most common attitude is an acceptance of key insights, but debate over their implications and the extent of their application. So, whether or not you see The Prince as satire, it is valued for its skepticism of abstract ideas and insistence on realpolitik. That is the transcendent perspective of The Prince, and that isn't really debated, as far as I know. When I read Machievelli in school, we learned that he was a republican but that The Prince was really, truly advice for autocrats. There's no contradiction here because Machievlli is a realist and he understands that autocracies happen and sometimes they might even be necessary (hey, we in the US have martial law for a reason).
rmah 7y ago
As eru tersely pointed out, most contemporary literary analysis and criticism is no longer based on what the author meant, but instead based on how the work itself, irrespective of the author's intent or the context within which it was written. Thus, instead of a search for "the truth" as expressed by the author's inner thinking, the question instead becomes how work affects readers. This, obviously, bothers many people, but is, IMO, a valuable approach. Thus, "project[ing] their own ideas into an authoritative source" is perfectly fine if phrased a bit more nicely. Perhaps more like "adapt our understanding of the source material in light of contemporary thinking". Not to say that context doesn't matter at all, especially with translations. But in the end, when analyzing works such as "Art of War", it's unavoidable that we project our current context onto its text. As post-modernists point out, we cannot escape our biases, so why pretend to do so?
- the_af 7y ago
  You're right. And this projection is both inevitable and welcome. But you must admit it's at least a bit funny if when you read Sun Tzu's "attack your enemy's allies" you understand "work to undermine the alliance, maybe sow discontent so that they turn against each other" but wise old Sun Tzu actually meant "physically stab your enemy's ally with your sword. Right through the heart. That's what 'attacking' means, right? What do you mean 'undermine', anyway?".
  - CamperBob2 7y ago
    Oh, attack the enemy's allies (slaps forehead.) I get it now. Reading your earlier post, I was trying to figure out how it could possibly be helpful to attack your own allies on a battlefield. It's an interesting commentary on Sun Tzu that someone could even imagine him prescribing such a course of action.
- kace91 7y ago
  I can understand the concept of "how the work affects readers" in terms of, say, literary value (for lack of a better word) of a novel, or poetry. It's much harder to translate that idea to essays or educative works, though. The art of war is basically a text book, so it's as literal as you can get. Biases should matter about as much as reading the package leaflet of some meds, or a math book. It's pretty obvious that the reason it's popular has more to do with the ancient and exotic origin, the suggestive title and the opportunities for the reader's self image it provides than for its actual content -at least in the West. But considering this effect anything other than an expression of ignorance, and actually judging the work for its unintended ability to cause such effect, feels... I don't know,a travesty. Almost as superficial as judging the book for the covers' drawing or its usefulness as a doorstop.
lowdose 7y ago
The same families that where in power in Florence at the time of writing of the Prince are still in power today. That is also for Shakespeare and the families in GB. Maybe satire was necessary to disguise criticism. But the underlying meaning is crystal clear. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3618720/amp/What-s-Researchers-richest-families-Florence-remained-600-years.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3618720/amp/...

by kace91 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

eru 7y ago

Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

leftyted 7y ago

> I can't possibly imagine how one can both treat a source as holding profound and transcendent views and be uninterested or unsure of what the author meant when writing it; at that point it seems that the literary work is merely an excuse for the reader to project their own ideas into an authorative source, and the work is only valued for its prestige. What I've found is that, in critiques of an earlier philosopher, the most common attitude is an acceptance of key insights, but debate over their implications and the extent of their application. So, whether or not you see The Prince as satire, it is valued for its skepticism of abstract ideas and insistence on realpolitik. That is the transcendent perspective of The Prince, and that isn't really debated, as far as I know. When I read Machievelli in school, we learned that he was a republican but that The Prince was really, truly advice for autocrats. There's no contradiction here because Machievlli is a realist and he understands that autocracies happen and sometimes they might even be necessary (hey, we in the US have martial law for a reason).

rmah 7y ago

As eru tersely pointed out, most contemporary literary analysis and criticism is no longer based on what the author meant, but instead based on how the work itself, irrespective of the author's intent or the context within which it was written. Thus, instead of a search for "the truth" as expressed by the author's inner thinking, the question instead becomes how work affects readers. This, obviously, bothers many people, but is, IMO, a valuable approach. Thus, "project[ing] their own ideas into an authoritative source" is perfectly fine if phrased a bit more nicely. Perhaps more like "adapt our understanding of the source material in light of contemporary thinking". Not to say that context doesn't matter at all, especially with translations. But in the end, when analyzing works such as "Art of War", it's unavoidable that we project our current context onto its text. As post-modernists point out, we cannot escape our biases, so why pretend to do so?

the_af 7y ago
You're right. And this projection is both inevitable and welcome. But you must admit it's at least a bit funny if when you read Sun Tzu's "attack your enemy's allies" you understand "work to undermine the alliance, maybe sow discontent so that they turn against each other" but wise old Sun Tzu actually meant "physically stab your enemy's ally with your sword. Right through the heart. That's what 'attacking' means, right? What do you mean 'undermine', anyway?".
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  Oh, attack the enemy's allies (slaps forehead.) I get it now. Reading your earlier post, I was trying to figure out how it could possibly be helpful to attack your own allies on a battlefield. It's an interesting commentary on Sun Tzu that someone could even imagine him prescribing such a course of action.
kace91 7y ago
I can understand the concept of "how the work affects readers" in terms of, say, literary value (for lack of a better word) of a novel, or poetry. It's much harder to translate that idea to essays or educative works, though. The art of war is basically a text book, so it's as literal as you can get. Biases should matter about as much as reading the package leaflet of some meds, or a math book. It's pretty obvious that the reason it's popular has more to do with the ancient and exotic origin, the suggestive title and the opportunities for the reader's self image it provides than for its actual content -at least in the West. But considering this effect anything other than an expression of ignorance, and actually judging the work for its unintended ability to cause such effect, feels... I don't know,a travesty. Almost as superficial as judging the book for the covers' drawing or its usefulness as a doorstop.

lowdose 7y ago

The same families that where in power in Florence at the time of writing of the Prince are still in power today. That is also for Shakespeare and the families in GB. Maybe satire was necessary to disguise criticism. But the underlying meaning is crystal clear. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3618720/amp/What-s-Researchers-richest-families-Florence-remained-600-years.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3618720/amp/...