6 ms·

I found the comparison here between Machiavelli and Nietzsche interesting, and in some respects there is a blurring here between the ideas of the two men. What

I found the comparison here between Machiavelli and Nietzsche interesting, and in some respects there is a blurring here between the ideas of the two men. What I think is interesting is that Nietzsche was also responding to Dostoevsky. I think Dostoevsky makes a stronger psychological claim to the benefits of Christianity than existed in Machiavelli's time. It also reminds me of a recent discussion I had here on HN related to cynicism, something I think Machiavelli could be accused of supporting. His moral prescription is for the absolute rulers of states, not for the subjects of the state. He is claiming to be objectively analytical in his description of effective state stewardship. In that sense, it is obvious to him that the ruler of a state ought to be held to a different moral standard than the subjects. This is red meat for the cynic who wants to see any pronouncement from any authority as being duplicitous or hypocritical. Of course the ruling class are telling me to "love and forgive my enemy" since that will make me easy to govern, yet those same rulers will surely annihilate their enemies just as Machiavelli taught them to do. It makes the general push of humanism towards universal moral values a bit more clear to me than it was previously. And why we should be extremely wary of any kind of moral relativism, even when it is couched in progressive liberalism. If we allow moral relativism then the most pernicious place it can take place is in the ruling class. That is guaranteed to breed cynicism in the populace. I think, for that reason, we must demand that our rulers are held to the same moral standards as the populace. That might mean we will not have states as glorious as the Roman Empire, but perhaps that is a price worth paying. I admit that I don't have an answer to Machiavelli's question as to how a state where the rulers are held to the same moral standards as the populace can hope to compete against states where the rulers are free to set their own more brutal morality.

jstarfish 3y ago
> Of course the ruling class are telling me to "love and forgive my enemy" since that will make me easy to govern, yet those same rulers will surely annihilate their enemies just as Machiavelli taught them to do. You raise a very interesting point. Look at the state of social media--the People's Platform--right now. It's nothing but grievances, hostilities, and fragmentation. "Tolerance" has itself been fashioned into a cudgel. Everybody is miserable and has a million mental health issues. The one word you don't find anyone advocating on broadcast or social media is "forgiveness." (Where's Jesus when you need him?) Love and forgiveness are requisites for neighbors to unite against common enemies, whether they be the King's enemies or the King himself. People that are angry at everyone around them are as close to feral as humans can be, and cannot be governed effectively. Petty warlords only speak the language of conflict and it's impossible to get them to agree on anything. To those ends, the military is predictably struggling to retain recruits; they're blaming TikTok to pave over our collective failure to foster any sort of love for country for so long that the kids are realizing military pay sucks, this country offers no real opportunities for growth to underclasses anymore and it's not worth dying for assholes who would leave you for dead if it saved them a dollar. We've also desensitized everyone to Communism and terrorism so much that they're starting to look favorable as means to revolution. Lack of love for each other is the biggest national security threat nobody talks about. It's what stops people from turning traitor, but what do I know. People are struggling to afford food and housing, while King Cuck and Queen Delulu insist pronoun enforcement in schools and Gravy Seals LARPing in Kansas should be our most pressing concerns. God forbid a flash mob storms the Capital again and writes a slur on the wall without killing anybody.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jdewerd 3y ago
  > God forbid a flash mob storms the Capital again and writes a slur on the wall without killing anybody They took a calculated and premeditated swipe at the seat of power. Even a liberal democracy built on loftier principles than Machiavelli's cannot afford to let this slide. The mob's purpose in the the plan devised by Eastman and enacted by Trump [1] was to serve as a distraction / excuse for Mike Pence to launch a contingent election with fake electors who would certify Trump as the victor, thereby terminating our democracy and ending the American experiment. Pence refused to do this and that's why the peaceful mob started chanting "Hang Mike Pence, Hang Mike Pence." I have to admit, before that point in time I saw Pence as the diametric opposite of every political belief I ever held -- because I did not realize that a basic belief in American democracy was up for question. I thought it went without saying that we all shared that value. We did not. But Pence did, and he set an example of "Love Thy Neighbor" that I will not soon forget. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot
  - 99_00 3y ago
    >The mob's purpose in the the plan devised by Eastman and enacted by Trump [1] was to serve as a distraction / excuse for Mike Pence to launch a contingent election with fake electors who would certify Trump as the victor, thereby terminating our democracy and ending the American experiment. Your source doesn't back up that statement.
    - heroprotagonist 3y ago
      The 'source' in this is the "House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack". It's hard to get more authoritative.. What isn't backed up by the source? The purpose of the mob? Accepting the government investigation reports, the fake elector plot was real. They didn't _need_ a mob to attack to push Pence into enacting it. It would have just told their story better afterwards. Optically, if you're going to steal an election by changing which electors count, after putting your own electors in as replacements, then having a mob attack the capital demanding that you respond to some made-up conspiracy is a _lot_ better optics than just enacting the plan without any kind of justification.
User23 3y ago
One of the nice things about Christianity is how it works when the ruling class actually believes it. If they truly think they will be held eternally responsible for their actions they’re more likely to treat their subjects charitably and justly.
- ignoramous 3y ago
  Nothing unique in Christian views on eternal damnation. Not after they classify a group of humans as inherently evil, then every atrocity is fair game.
  - taneq 3y ago
    Once upon a time, treating even some of the people fairly was a win.
  - User23 3y ago
    You are mistaken. Christian dogma doesn’t define any group of humans as inherently evil.
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago
      Was going to respond the same. Interesting how misconstrued people's views can be.
      - mistermann 3y ago
        Faith (belief without adequate supporting evidence) comes in a wide variety of forms, no one is immune to it (I believe for evolutionary (including cultural) reasons).
    - ignoramous 3y ago
      Okay, let's settle on "unequal" if evil is too on the nose. Michael Wood asserts that during the 16th century, it was almost impossible for the indigenous peoples to be considered human beings in their own right, and that the conquistadors brought with them the baggage of "centuries of Ethnocentrism, and Christian monotheism, which espoused one truth, one time and version of reality." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_colonialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_colonialism

jstarfish 3y ago

> Of course the ruling class are telling me to "love and forgive my enemy" since that will make me easy to govern, yet those same rulers will surely annihilate their enemies just as Machiavelli taught them to do. You raise a very interesting point. Look at the state of social media--the People's Platform--right now. It's nothing but grievances, hostilities, and fragmentation. "Tolerance" has itself been fashioned into a cudgel. Everybody is miserable and has a million mental health issues. The one word you don't find anyone advocating on broadcast or social media is "forgiveness." (Where's Jesus when you need him?) Love and forgiveness are requisites for neighbors to unite against common enemies, whether they be the King's enemies or the King himself. People that are angry at everyone around them are as close to feral as humans can be, and cannot be governed effectively. Petty warlords only speak the language of conflict and it's impossible to get them to agree on anything. To those ends, the military is predictably struggling to retain recruits; they're blaming TikTok to pave over our collective failure to foster any sort of love for country for so long that the kids are realizing military pay sucks, this country offers no real opportunities for growth to underclasses anymore and it's not worth dying for assholes who would leave you for dead if it saved them a dollar. We've also desensitized everyone to Communism and terrorism so much that they're starting to look favorable as means to revolution. Lack of love for each other is the biggest national security threat nobody talks about. It's what stops people from turning traitor, but what do I know. People are struggling to afford food and housing, while King Cuck and Queen Delulu insist pronoun enforcement in schools and Gravy Seals LARPing in Kansas should be our most pressing concerns. God forbid a flash mob storms the Capital again and writes a slur on the wall without killing anybody.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jdewerd 3y ago
> God forbid a flash mob storms the Capital again and writes a slur on the wall without killing anybody They took a calculated and premeditated swipe at the seat of power. Even a liberal democracy built on loftier principles than Machiavelli's cannot afford to let this slide. The mob's purpose in the the plan devised by Eastman and enacted by Trump [1] was to serve as a distraction / excuse for Mike Pence to launch a contingent election with fake electors who would certify Trump as the victor, thereby terminating our democracy and ending the American experiment. Pence refused to do this and that's why the peaceful mob started chanting "Hang Mike Pence, Hang Mike Pence." I have to admit, before that point in time I saw Pence as the diametric opposite of every political belief I ever held -- because I did not realize that a basic belief in American democracy was up for question. I thought it went without saying that we all shared that value. We did not. But Pence did, and he set an example of "Love Thy Neighbor" that I will not soon forget. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot
- 99_00 3y ago
  >The mob's purpose in the the plan devised by Eastman and enacted by Trump [1] was to serve as a distraction / excuse for Mike Pence to launch a contingent election with fake electors who would certify Trump as the victor, thereby terminating our democracy and ending the American experiment. Your source doesn't back up that statement.
  - heroprotagonist 3y ago
    The 'source' in this is the "House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack". It's hard to get more authoritative.. What isn't backed up by the source? The purpose of the mob? Accepting the government investigation reports, the fake elector plot was real. They didn't _need_ a mob to attack to push Pence into enacting it. It would have just told their story better afterwards. Optically, if you're going to steal an election by changing which electors count, after putting your own electors in as replacements, then having a mob attack the capital demanding that you respond to some made-up conspiracy is a _lot_ better optics than just enacting the plan without any kind of justification.

User23 3y ago

One of the nice things about Christianity is how it works when the ruling class actually believes it. If they truly think they will be held eternally responsible for their actions they’re more likely to treat their subjects charitably and justly.

ignoramous 3y ago
Nothing unique in Christian views on eternal damnation. Not after they classify a group of humans as inherently evil, then every atrocity is fair game.
- taneq 3y ago
  Once upon a time, treating even some of the people fairly was a win.
- User23 3y ago
  You are mistaken. Christian dogma doesn’t define any group of humans as inherently evil.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    Was going to respond the same. Interesting how misconstrued people's views can be.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      Faith (belief without adequate supporting evidence) comes in a wide variety of forms, no one is immune to it (I believe for evolutionary (including cultural) reasons).
  - ignoramous 3y ago
    Okay, let's settle on "unequal" if evil is too on the nose. Michael Wood asserts that during the 16th century, it was almost impossible for the indigenous peoples to be considered human beings in their own right, and that the conquistadors brought with them the baggage of "centuries of Ethnocentrism, and Christian monotheism, which espoused one truth, one time and version of reality." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_colonialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_colonialism