What do you think?
Rate this book
Machiavelli Revisited
This work attempts to guide the reader through a maze of interpretations of Machiavelli's political opinions. The author demonstrates that Machiavelli was an anti-metaphysical empiricist who sought to free political thought from all theological preconceptions or residues by challenging the assumption that there exists some unifying pattern that prescibes their proper behaviour to all animate creatures.
200 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
11 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 25, 2022
Much ink has been spilled over the subject of Machiavelli's politics, yet it seems we are no closer to reaching a consensus over what he actually thought. There are many reasons for this intractability, the first being that Machiavelli is not concerned with technical philosophical distinctions or neatly outlining the assumptions that underly his argument. No philosopher ever draws distinctions as finely or makes explicit their assumptions as clearly as academics would like, who happily find employment by attempting to uncover them. It is important to remember that these finely drawn distinctions and interpretations exist more in the mind of the commentator than in the text itself. This problem is especially salient for Machiavelli's thought, since he is not a philosopher, yet is approached under the expectation that he has the rigour of a philosopher. Therefore, whilst one commentator may argue that Machiavelli was in favour of rejecting morality altogether, and another may claim that he only promoted the rejection of the Christian system of morality (the view endorsed by Femia), it is unclear as to whether Machiavelli was aware of this distinction at all, let alone which side he was promoting. The Prince and the Discourses, and the relationship between them, are deeply ambigious and it is important to recoginise that ambiguity. Sometimes the best response to a text is a question mark. As a result of the ambiguity in Machiavelli's work, it is all too easy to see him as a mirror, merely reflecting back one's political thoughts. Thus Rousseau saw him as a fellow Republican and Gramsci as a proto-leninist.
Nonetheless, Femia tries to philosophise Machiavelli, and does so articulately and concisely. Many commentators, notably Pocock, have tried to dissolve Machiavelli into the tradition of Florentine republicanism. Femia, in contrast, tries to determine Machiavelli's philosophy by contrasting his thought to the political philosophy of scholasticism. Scholastics saw politics as completely subsumed by morality, as defined by the Bible and the Church. Politics belonged to a world of superifical appearances whose function was merely to curb the appetitive nature of man. The characteristics of an ideal prince could be inferred through examining the moral tenets of Christianity. Machiavelli questioned this approach. He proved maxims of political expediency using historical examples, not appeals to scripture or Aristotle. He was a pioneer the emperical approach to politics. Political action should not be rejected because it is of a fallen world. Instead, it should be praised since it can bring about glory. Machiavelli is a political realist, who believed that political theory should focus on how men actually live their lives, rather than what the ideal state would look like. In this sense, Machiavelli is a useful antidote to contemporary liberalism, which sees political philosophy as a mere subcategory of applied morality. He would have no time for Rawls' suggestion that political theorists should focus on what principles of justice people would choose under a veil of ignorance in a hypothetical orginial position. Ultimately, one's opinion on Machiavelli is largely determined by one's views of political realism.
As mentioned above, Femia argues that Machiavelli maintained that politics should be governed by morality, but the ideal form of morality is closer to the paganism of the Greeks and Romans than contemporary Christianity. I think this interpretation is wrong- it seems more plausible that Machiavelli recognised the political as constituting a seperate realm from the ethical. There are different standards for evauluating what actions are praise- or blame-worthy in each realm.
Nonetheless, Femia tries to philosophise Machiavelli, and does so articulately and concisely. Many commentators, notably Pocock, have tried to dissolve Machiavelli into the tradition of Florentine republicanism. Femia, in contrast, tries to determine Machiavelli's philosophy by contrasting his thought to the political philosophy of scholasticism. Scholastics saw politics as completely subsumed by morality, as defined by the Bible and the Church. Politics belonged to a world of superifical appearances whose function was merely to curb the appetitive nature of man. The characteristics of an ideal prince could be inferred through examining the moral tenets of Christianity. Machiavelli questioned this approach. He proved maxims of political expediency using historical examples, not appeals to scripture or Aristotle. He was a pioneer the emperical approach to politics. Political action should not be rejected because it is of a fallen world. Instead, it should be praised since it can bring about glory. Machiavelli is a political realist, who believed that political theory should focus on how men actually live their lives, rather than what the ideal state would look like. In this sense, Machiavelli is a useful antidote to contemporary liberalism, which sees political philosophy as a mere subcategory of applied morality. He would have no time for Rawls' suggestion that political theorists should focus on what principles of justice people would choose under a veil of ignorance in a hypothetical orginial position. Ultimately, one's opinion on Machiavelli is largely determined by one's views of political realism.
As mentioned above, Femia argues that Machiavelli maintained that politics should be governed by morality, but the ideal form of morality is closer to the paganism of the Greeks and Romans than contemporary Christianity. I think this interpretation is wrong- it seems more plausible that Machiavelli recognised the political as constituting a seperate realm from the ethical. There are different standards for evauluating what actions are praise- or blame-worthy in each realm.
Displaying 1 of 1 review